fauxlaw

The idea that income inequality needs to be abolished isn’t even a communist/socialist ideal, let alone capitalist. It absolutely is not political. It is philosophical. Income level is entirely on us individually to achieve. It depends on relative individual belief in a simple formula we either embrace or ignore: income level = relative and consistent dedication to ambition, planning, and execution. I = a + p + e.  Another necessary belief is that the money supply is unlimited based upon aggressive action on the given formula. A third factor is to ignore the naysayer in the mirror who constantly tells us “You can’t.” Let him/her win, we fail. 

The XXIVth amendment (1964) and SCOTUS already determined long ago that having to pay for the privilege to vote is unconstitutional. Harper v. VA Bd of Elections (1966). 

As I said...

What's changed since that commentary?

We have been rained upon over the past decades, long before even JoeBiden was a discussion point at national political level among the progressive woke, with claims by Democrats that they enjoy a more elite status having been educated in blue states. I was educated in a blue state. I was also educated in a red state. Only, that was one state. The state was CA, whose identity as "elite" has lost its luster. So, I inquired of Duck-Duck [I've abandoned Google ever since it declared that AI is its new search engine brain] why Democrats think their education is superior [sorry, "elite" ] and was given a website declaring a Joshua Zingher. Never heard of him. "I am a scholar of elections and political behavior, with a particular focus on race, class, and identity" is the response  by instruction from the man, himself. Yeah, that sounds elite alright. The very words I have come to understand are the hot-buttons of today's Democrats duped by JoeBiden, who claim he was totally not the derelict he was claimed to be by his political rivals. Yeah, as if his claim in 2019, launching his presidential campaign, that he was "running for US Senate" was not an obvious tilt to dereliction. He said it multiple times, so it was not a Freudian slip. Thus, according to Zingher, the diploma divide, only, he's still of the opinion it is a conservative problem.Yeah, that's surely a divide, right between the brain.

Concretre was also re-invented* in the upper NY region where Joseph Smith lived, but I doubt that fact had much to do with the re-creation of concrete, the rise of Freemasonry, or the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as mutually-caused events. Coincidental events are rarely mutually causational. otherwise, the "fact" that

P1 Camels walk

P2 Birds fly

C1 [Therefore] Butterflies swim

cannot be proven, even through there is a human swimming stroke called "the butterfly."

*"re-invented," not invented [it is traced to 1830 in NY] because the Roman's created concrete, and it could even be cured underwater, and we're only now learning how to do that.

Too many die at our hands without ever tasting what life has to offer, nor what they can offer to life. Until that is resolved, I couldn't care less that some die of cancer that, for over 80% of them, was caused by their own sloppy living, and not due to anything else.

I keep a copy, and have read, cover-to-cover [else, why own a book?] of Marx "The Communist Manifesto,"  Hitler's "Mein Kampf,"  and Mao's "Little Red Book," but that hardly means I agree with their claims. It means I support knowing my enemy, advice from Sun Tsu "The Art of War," which I own, too, and which is more about avoiding war than waging it. I even have a copy of  "Malleus Maleficarum," but that does not mean I am either a midieval Catholic, or a current witch. Judge people by what they read, which any decent democracy/republic will allow, we condemn ourselves, for we are clueless to motivation.

Thanks. I consider that if DebateArt provided a means to shut down direct communication with some members on site, it was for good reason. Some people get along, inspite of different opinions, and even about interpretations of facts, as I think you and I, and many others with whom we communicate on this site, who have that assurance that just by treating each other with respect, and make our arguments against others' arguments, alone, and avoid turning a disagreement into personaL confrontation, is what the site would like to see. Proof that we can, in fact, get along. That's what God would have us do, but he will not force it, IMO.

Yes, I understand your view. I just don't agree with it, because I think we are here to prove to ourselves, and to God, that we can act on our own to decide to follow his advice. We are useless to him, otherwise, if he is deciding for us what to do. My mortal father stopped making decisions for me once he recognized I had developed skills to make my own decisions, and he trusted that I would make wise decisions. When I did not, he didn't beat me; he sat down with me and asked questions about my motivation to decide to make wrong decisions, and helped me to think about what I might encounter to address situations not yet encountered so I would know what to do in the future. We had many discussions like this as I matured, and I now serve that purpose for my daughter.  I know you did not have that kind of relationship with your dad, and that breaks my heart than anyone suffers by that. So, in a sense, I'm trying to take the part of a father, my friend, only because I appreciate our back-and-forths, and have learned much from you and consider you a friend, even though we have some divergent ideas, and it has taken time for me to reach that conclusion of friendship. Agree to disagree on omnipotence?

Nope. Making response is on you. Must it be addressed to me to be a valid response? You don't understand the block. That's to stop your direct address to me, and that's because you violate DebateArt policy in treatment of other members, including me. Show you can comply by policy, I'll unblock. Until you can, I merely follow the results of policy. Block is there for a reason. You figured it out. Block me, if that is your only response, but I have not violated you by personal attack, only that your argument is abusive toward me and not toward what I say. It is obvious without your calling me an idiot that you think I'm an idiot, You belittle yourself by the claim. Just shut it toward me and say your piece. That's the proper response to everyone here.  Others have told you this. Maybe a little mirror time would be helpful, but only if you use it constructively, and not via narcissism.

I reckon Jesus had the better suggestion: take the beam out and stop worrying about others' motes. One of the biggest beams is others actions and our personal conclusion that their actions are all about "me" is fallacious attitude of self worth.

I  can't go there. Either free will, or personal agency, exists, and is available to us fully and always, or it is not personal agency at all. I grant that God can be omnipotent in some regards, but I believe this is neither a constant condition nor necessity. Many things God does that do not require his full available use  of power, just as we do not always use our entire strength availble for all tasks.  That does not violate our free will; it is not an either/or proposition. In fact, I have said before on this site that contrary to what most here who accept the existence of God, I do not think God, himself, is totally responsible for anything. We say God the Father was our creator. But, biblical research reveals that he, God the Father, created the Earth, at least, by his Son, our Savior and Redeemer. God delegated the work, and probably delegat3ed it to many valiant souls before we came to earth. I like to think I was responsible for frogs [kidding, but I like them]. Our choices to do whatever are our choices, not God's. He may desire certain actions by us, but will never force them. Even if we acknowledge an angel and demon on our shoulders, constantly whispering in our ears [I don't personally agree that is a 100% presence, but it's sufficient for argument], they cannot move our muscles nor our deciding brain to think and act. We do that, and maybe by suggestion, but it is, in the end, by our decision to act.

By syntax, over time, and let's not even include the possible distinctions of translation [by ignorance, or by malicious or intended accurate purpose] from Hebrew, the primary O.T. language, the word "slavery" has transitioned from even being descriptive of people charged and convicted of crimes for which a fine is sufficient penalty, and, at one time [such as O.T. era, and in that instance, I don't think slave holders could be classed as "owners," since eventual release is implied] when one could not afford the fine, were placed in indentured servitude, aka [by standards, then] slavery, but only for a designated period. We do not use the term "slavery" for that purpose, today, yet your argument does not include that shift of definition when discussing God's attitude toward the word, as construed, then.

Would you argue God changed his mind? I wouldn't, and multiple biblical, and other holy writ of other religions, sources maintain he is of the same mind forever.

S.S. is not entitlement. Didn't reads my post #1, ebuc read or understand my #1 post. Every penny is the SS Trust Fund is private money, not public out of your taxes. Even the interest on what's in the fund is private money. Get it?

Learning other languages widens our understanding of more people around the world, and I've been in about 30 countries in my life, and know that is true.  Also it improves knowledge of English, simply because English has the benefit of having root in Latin, Greek, and other langiuages, and knowing the roots of word meaning is very helpful. Speask more languages, have more friends. What5's wrong with that.

Sounds like you are on a much better path. Amazing that your grandparents are still alive, but then , you are probably a younger  generation than mine. Just live a good, full, healthy life, my friend. Beleive me, there is wealth just in that. When you get to be my age, you will never regret being prudent about it.  Maybe not so much of a prude as I am accused of sometimes, but, I am a very happy fellow. Wouldn't change a thing in my life. Be well.

Yeah, I was born on his birthday, twenty-five years after his.  He was once a heart surgeon, and world-reknowned. He has even lectured in China on techniques he has innovated in heart surgery. I attended a meeting with my brother long ago while I was a senior in high school, and my breather was in med school, President Nelson was speaking. After the meeting, my brother wanted to meet him, so we waiting in a short line, and we met him. Asking about us, my brother first introduced himself, and then me, and then said he was currently in met school. "So, do you study on Sunday," he asked. "Yes, all the time," my brother replied. "It's a day I can rest and not have interruption after I go to church." He nodded and told my brother, "Yes, I get that often. But I promise you, if you will leave Sunday to devotion to the Lord, study to midnight Saturday night and go to bed, then give the Lord his due until Sunday midnight, and then study medicine, or go to bed, and after church, study his word, and not anatomy, he will bless you abundantly. You will study with clarity and will learn and retain more, and then follow that advice throughout your life." Then he turned to me, "Young man, you do the same, and I promise you will have the same blessings." He was right. My brother says he was right.  I pass that advice to young people all the time, giving them the same promise, with my assurance that the promise was indeed fulfilled. At 100, he is still very sharp of mind, but becoming feeble. He frequently makes a point that the Lord is near at hand, that his coming had best be prepared for yesterday, like no other time in history. I think he is right in that, as well. 

I am a wordsmith. Everyone. says 'wife.' I do not like simply referring to her as everyone else refers to theirs. Some even say "my old lady." Never, ever have I said that, and never will.

As for meds, yeah, I take those that are occasionally prescribed, bust when. my doctor says I should take so-and-so, I always ask what it will do for me that natural food in its natural state will not do for me. He always says, not much, in fact the food may be better, and he'll suggest a particular food, so I know he is aware of good nutrition, but he's an AMA doctor; trained to push meds. Can't blame him; it's what he was taught. Kickbacks? My older brother was a physician, now retired. He says he was never given kickbacks, but they were offered, so I know it happens.

Eve, only,  as nature? And what was Adam? Not natural? 

Neither Eve, nor Adam, nor Christ are metaphors. They are real people of history, and worthy of praise. I note that you do. not speak tor the atonement but petehaps by very oblique commentary, and you're mostly giving God an excuse to not understanding humanity. We should consider ourselves  blessed by Christ's atonement, why not Adam and Eve? What prevents them from that forgiveness if they repent? Do you think they did not? Yes, he told Eve childbearing would be hard, and Adam that he would work by the swear of his brow. Gee, life is hard. It 's also a test to see if we will rise above Satan's sour attitude about us, and be godlike. Christ told us to be perfect, as is our Father in Heaven. And why not? Accomplishing that in mortal lifetime may be near impossible, but death is not the end, is it?

And isn't it easier to consider that God knows humanity because he was, once, a mortal man, himself, and had a God for him as we have him, today? Seems more reasonable than that God created us, but did not really understand us until he sends Christ to live vicariously through him. And you draw such distinction between the O.T. and N.T., as if they contain combative doctrine. Christ said he did not come to destroy the law [the O.T.] but to fulfill it. Fulfill by simplification of the law, like offering us two commandments instead of not only 10, but a myriad more in three additional books. The two: love God. Love our neighbor. With those two met, we satisfy every single law of the O.T.  ad then some. That's fulfillment. The Sermon on the Mount cures every single social ill we face today. As a political platform, it's the best evert conceived. Also happens to be a good spiritual guide, politics aside, and everything else. Why else do you think I into eternal progression if I have to stop my progression short of becoming like my Father in Heaven. We are all his children. Why would that not be his desire, as well, for us to become like him? Is he that jealous of his job? That's what's heresy. The universe is a big place. Room for more than one god. otherwise, what? We get to reach an end point that is less than his, and we get bored with eternity for nothing left to do but play a harp? No thanks.

Just more Hollowood fluff. It's why I call it "hollow;" I grew up in Brentwood, next door, and several of my immediate neighbors were Hollowood folk. I liked them, personally, but their profession, I thought even then, and their presumption of political savvy, was completely jaded. Still do. You're better off sticking with the book. The author wrote thee book; Hollowood merely interprets, and, usually, poorly. On rare occasion, they get it right, even departing from a book as origin of a story..

I must separate the leadership in Rome, and the authority those leaders claim, from the faith of the people, which I cannot and will not fault.
So, Peter. He is identified as the source of the authority of the Roman church, and that appears to have grounding in a single verse in Matthew 16; verse 18, which declares [Jesus speaking] “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” You know how I feel about singular verse justification for any doctrine; I like context. In this case, I’ll go direct to the first verse of the chapter, in which Jesus warns his disciples about the leadership of the Jews, and their leavened bread. He means this in the sense that the leaders are disingenuous [I jest; they want his head]. He asks them who other people say that he is. Then, he asks pointedly, “Whom say ye that I am?”
Peter replies, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Thus comes Christ’s reply, and its beginning is often ignored. “…flesh and blood hath not revealed it [the knowledge of who Christ is] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Then comes, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
Usually, it is Peter who is presumed to be this “rock,” thus, it is claimed, the sole leader of the church. But do we later read that Jesus ordains Peter to that position? No. All 12 have already been ordained as Apostles, and we read that event, so it is clear. But what Christ says afterward that most ignore: “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “It,” that is, the true rock, for Jesus does not say, “against you, Peter," which would be the correct vernacular if Peter was the rock.  In the Greek Septuagent, the wording is the same; “it,” not “you.”
So, what is “it?” Jesus already said, before even telling Peter he was anything, a rock, or otherwise. “…flesh and blood [man] hath not REVEALED it unto you [no man told Peter], but my Father…” Revelation is the rock of the church. And why not? Jesus said he would be departing back to heaven. Revelation from God, through the Holy Spirit, which was sent to the Apostles [not just Peter] on the Day of Pentacost, recorded in Acts. [“The Acts of the Apostles,” not just Peter].
So, when did the Bishop of Rome suddenly become “the Papacy” 300 years later, but we have no record of that becoming? Hearsay. And the church was not called after Jesus Christ [he called it “my church” in Matthew 16,  and elsewhere, not a “universal” ergo, “Catholic”] church, and not the “Holy Church of Rome.” These are all names coming from somewhere, someone else; but not Christ. I thought he was the Church, not a place. He is the focus, not a place. 
So, tell me, doctrinally, why, after the atonement of Christ was initiated in Gethsemane, and completed on the cross, and sustained by his resurrection, that Adam and Eve are still blamed today for staining all of us, their children? Seems to me, that doctrine ignores the atonement altogether.

I prefer reading source material. That isn’t google. I begin with the fact that no book is perfect because no holy writ is written by God. He inspires, but his inspiration is still interpreted on a sliding scale of accuracy.

Doubt what you like; that’s on you. I was there. You were not. Do not presume you know what Dr Watson said. He talked about the relative fragility of DNA to any number of external effects, such as the poor choices we make by consumption. I take him at his word and have observed results since how that has generational effect. I credit him as much as my parents in suggesting what I avoid altogether.  

Some people use Google as if it were the new holy writ replacing the said "nonsense" of not just the Holy Bible, but other holy writ of other faiths... the Quran, the  Torah, the Tai-Chi, the Veda, A Book of Shadows...  Who was it who said Google is the new word. particularly when. it has caved to allow A.I. to influence our access to information, as if A.I. does not begin with "Artificial," a perfectly adequate word tor describe most of its content.

So, believe Google if that is all the source material y'all want to consider.

Personally, I don't. Not to mention that, personally, I have another source to seek [not even that which you are thinking, but anyone who knows me what that source is], and while I do embrace the Book of Mormon, along with thee Holy Bible, which I challenge those to whom this is directed, and y'all know who you are, you have not even read cover to cover, and, until you do, what you think you know is what comes from the back end of a bull. Since y'all have not yet read the Bible cover to cover, either, the same challenge is before you.

Even Wiki admits it is flawed, inaccurate, because it admits that it is open to being edited by anybody at all, including y'all. That's supposed to be scholastic? Well, Google cites Wiki, as, and often, so does their god, A.I.

We do not have an over-population issue, even at +8B of us. Considering that Earth grants 149M km^2 of landmass of variable types, most of which are hospitable to man, we are more plagued by poor land management and population clustering than by loss of resources,  We could, theoretically, gather every human on Earth together to live only on what is 37% of our total landmass: arable/crop/grazing land, and leave all other types void of humanity, and accommodate 0.006 km^2 for each person, adult and child. That's 1.5 acres each for Brits and Yanks. So, what over-population? We have sufficient resources, and to spare if they are properly used. Even at 10 billion, we would still have over 1 acre, each, and still not populate any land but the 37% noted.

tell that to the14th century in Europe.

Respect is earned, not demanded.

Adaptable, as he claimed, is raising the appropriate sub-Forum to notify of a problem. That it is "petty" is not and never is the point. Continuous improvement is the point. I would think that would be obvious on a site that exists to allow the free exchange of ideas. Ideas do not include the tactic of personal attack, which is an automatic lost argument. Calling a fellow member any  expletive, for example,  merely admits to familiarity with the condition. Familiarity does breed contempt.

I am, frankly, surprised that no one has commented on a point I argued in my #5 that:

Doesn't such a comment fly in face of what most of us who believe in God call "omnipotence?" Perhaps that term ought to be re-examined for definition.

When did I claim to be either good, or pagan? 

Thank you. We have our problems, like all religions, mostly by the thoughts and actions of individual members, and, mostly former members who manage to make wild claims  as do ex-members of many religions, and people eat up that crap like it was strawberry jam. I have great respect for anyone who desires to follow ion Christ's footsteps, but I also admire the holy writ of many other religions. There is obvious common ground, even among non-Christians, because the concept of the "golden rule" [do unto others...]  is common to over 20 of the world's religions, and even by some atheists. Must be a universal truth haloing a single source.

I had the privilege of meeting  James Watson, Nobel prize winner with Francis Crick for understanding the structure of DNA in 1954. I met Watson at UCLA in 1966 when he lectured there when I was a junior in a high school about a mile from UCLA campus.  His lecture was astounding, and, among other things described in detail how DNA is adversely affected [mutated] by, among other things, insufficient and inappropriate nutrition. Get it? That's the how, my friend. Go ahead, don't believe Watson, but that's on you. Yes, children inherit DNA [genetic information] from their parents, including it's mutated state by several causes, including poor nutrition. Disase is another contributor, poor, noxious environments, another. The list is long and indistinguished.

Want to join the real world, now?

Generalization. When are we going to cast off this notion of collectivism? It is demeaning, obstructive, and a false view of our intended diversity.

Is there a distinction between "condone" and "acknowledge?"

I believe the answer is Yes.

Condone is tacit approval.

Acknowledge is tacit recognition of existence, but not approval.

The one is not the other, and "tacit" is the demonstraton of that fact. It is recognition that God had expectations of us when we have, to date, failed to observe properly. It is evident that we do not love God as we should, and do not love ourselves as we should.

I'll just mention that when an argument resorts to personal attack, particularly aimed at one's faith and beliefs, and not the subject at hand in a cordial, measured response, that argument fails and is lost.

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and am likely your big brother, my friend. I am 6'3" and 75, with the heart of one at 20, according to my personal physician. And what brand of Christian I wear is not a discussion point, nor are the nonsenses you use to describe a blind man's view of Joseph Smith. 

The rest of your commentary to me, vile as it is, in my book, is your last. You are blocked.

And you suppose those errors just happen? WHY do they happen? There is cause, and cause, by one source, is choosing poor substances to consume. The body cannot do its proper job of cell repair and reproduction without the proper materials to perform that function. It does the best it can with substitutes, but that's not going to succeed as well as by providing the proper nutrients. That's personal choice. I suspect you are not longer depending on your parents to feed you, and what you feed yourself will ultimately bear out good, or poor results on your children, including causing DNA mutation from its intended performance. Root cause, my friend, may not be the first error you identify. I spent a career finding, and teaching discovery of root cause of failure, with my now 76th journey around the sun. Experience means things. One thing is that conducting a proper process with the right materials and tools is universal in scope, not just nutrition, and not just in making widgets.

Such as...?  You do enjoy hurling accusations without a shred of evidence. It is how youu debate and why I tend to vote on your debates accordingly. Show me, don't just tell me. That's the demand of earning sourcing points in debate on this debate site. You did read the rules, yeah? Follow them. Even in the Forum, which is good practtice for debate. Depend on schorlarly sources and cite them.

What you have described is belief, which has no obligation to be true. That is the distinction between faith and belief. True faith cannot lead to a false idea, and until that manifestation is observed, personally, it is not recognized for what it is. That's why Paul describes faith in Hebrew's 11 as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The entire chapter bears that out. This quote is just from the first verse. That is why I do not like cherry-picking verses. Never without referencing a larger scope to observe. [I have probably violated that,  but this is my desired ideal: context.]

No, not Mary. She is the mother of the physical body of Christ,  who is not God, the Father, but his son in the flesh.  I do not know the name of my mother in heaven, but look forward to meeting her. I have an intuition that part of our physical genome has contribution from our spirit parents, and that, as spirits prior to mortal life on Earth, we mutually participated in choosing our mortal parents and children, all of us being actual brothers and sisters as spirit children of God, and the mother[s] of our spirits. Polygamy in heaven? When dealing, literally, with billions upon billions, maybe trillions of children, that seems practical to me.

polytheists. Yes, that is a fact. Our heavenly father was, himself, mortal, like us, and has grown in the process of eternal progression, and has a godly father, and that such relationships exist into the infinite past and into the infinite future. Though I acknowledge all of them, not knowing who they are, by name or title, other than "God," which is just a title, I do not overtly worship any of them but my own father of my spirit, like my dad is father of my physical body. Therefore, I accept that I have a mother in heaven, a goddess, a helpmeet for my heavenly dad.

I entirely agree with your statement on faith. I even think a personal manifestation from God, himself, is generated first by an expression of faith and a desire to knows what is currently unknown, contingent on our necessity of having that knowledge revealed. I do not think it happens just out of the blue, and particularly not if we're asking for additional knowledge just to have proof God exists. I think he is camera shy.

Nope. What's probable, according to genetic theory, there were not two more separate people, genetically, than were Adam and Eve, and, therefore, the concern of interbreeding of closer relation than 1st cousins for the surety of mutation prevention was a virtual locked outcome, not only for their own children, but likely for more than a hundred generations, at least according to a prominent guy  you may have heard of before, James Watson, who gave a lecture I attended at UCLA in 1966, and covered such material as the forgoing. I met him after the lecture. I was 17. So variant is the human genome, just by natural selective process, the incident of adverse genetic result was, even by Noah's generation, virtually non-existent. Yeah, Darwin, another guy you've likely heard of.

And if God made others after A&E, how do you know you're not descendent of them? So, why do Catholics blame A&E even considering the atonement of Christ? Why did that leave outa A&E. Because it didn't. The atonement is infinite in its scope, so long as we repent of our indiscretions. Therefore, I do not and cannot judge Adam &. Eve.

So, Noah. He, survivor of the flood, along with his family, which apparently included daughters, and at least wives of his sons, was still alive to be blessed by the Ancient of Days [Adam] as a child. A  direct descendent of the A&E bloodline, by the way, so it was not lost, but carried on through his three sons;  issue of Noah's beloved wife.

So, I've heard it from the horse's mouth, so to speak, live and in person. James Watson, whose lecture blew me away, let alone revealing the forgoing. You? Who's your source?

Since time immemorial, in fact, since creation, we have known that accounting of seasons of planting and harvest, and any other annual social gathering exercises, such as at Stonehenge, were established on the 4th “day” when the sun and moon were created for the purpose of “…let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.” 
But that is long justification for the failure of the Democrat Party to grow adequate players capable of Oval Office territory in a post-Obama period, realizing that Hillaryous Balloon Girl, not a particular first choice of Oba’a, was not that player. So instead of proper soil prep, the Democrats, instead, decided their #1 party objective was to 86 Trump. They tried by manipulation of Constitutional principles, failing to understand them, because at every turn, they failed even to abide by House Rules [stipulated constitutionally] let alone by constitutional rules. So… Biden. And the choices made for a Cabinet was just the beginning of his failures. And still, the party ignored soil prep. 
They could not employ the 25A, because the party knew Kamalala was not Oval material, either, but were ultimately backed into a corner to nominate her. Pelosi was next in line, but the party was apparently disenfranchised her, as well. So, no 25A. And so, they also lose the 2024 election, and, still, soil prep is only grudgingly considered. The Democrats are in serious trouble. A cadre of dead and dying seeds. Soil prep? What’s that? Dems better figure it out, because '28 is tomorrow. Hint: Trump is not gong to have a 3rd term, and attempts to literally "86" him have failed. Try a different tactic. Y'all know the definition of insanity, yeah? -  because y'all have already decided being a farmer is beneath y'all.

By the way, don't blame me for your nemesis; I'm an indie, and was, at one time, a Bobby Kennedy campaign volunteer [1968]. I supported his son's nomination in '24, but y'all 86'd that, too. Pure soil prep failure. Well done.

Yes, but only by degree, and we compete with no one but ourselves. But, I like the "everyone" including Eve. However, my respect for her is boundless. Without her, none of us are here. Note that Michaelangelo, placing Adam at arm's length on the Sistene Chapel ceiling, places Eve in God's left shoulder. Her creation was the ultimate creation. And since Christ's atonement took their stain from me - that is my belief - and I am not a sinner due to their transgression, I have no rancor by her choice in Eden.

I totally agree. I thought you would appreciate that reference. Sail on, my friend.

Yes, for individual situations, most of which we never hear about, it appears God does not step in to stop human behavior. I do agree that he allows us to make mistakes, most often due to our own poor choices for which we suffer consequences we would rather not endure, and not some cosmic, ethereal force that has no one's best interest at heart. That is exactly how Eden proceeded, but, frankly, I don't see much of a difference, now. We make our own decisions, right or wrong, and suffer/appreciate the consequences. I believe that is what the gift of dominion was all about, and we have no dominion if something g else is the dominator. THus, though God has the power of intervention, such intervention does not teach us nearly as well as does our self-caused suffering. And for our non-self-caused suffering, we earn future blessing in abundance as we endure to its end. That's the promise we have from a God whose love for us is greater than we can ever imagine.

Thus you see the possibility that Trump vetoes the resulting bill from both chambers. I don't disagree. For simplicity's stake, I undirstand the attempt of one "big beautiful bill;" but I never did see that as a practical approach. I don't like composite legislation strictly because it asks for too much compromise, and ability to bargain over disagreements, resulting in a dumbed-down bill. I think legislation ought to devote itself to single subjects, and either Congress agrees with the proposed subject as generated from anybody, including the president's agenda, or it does not. But Congress never was, and never should be considered a single mind, and a composit bill such as this one expects that it thinks in. a similar, united mind. That makes no sense to me.

I think epicurieansim is too often compared to hedonism, as both seek pleasure. But, I see them as combatants in that pursuit. Whereas hedonism seeks pleasure for self-indulgence and self-purpose, epicureanism seeks pleasure for its generosity toward others, and its insistence of pleasure in moderation, not in excess.

I see a link of epicureanism to stoicism in that both seek personal happiness, a word which is not often considered when one thinks stoicism is rooted in the trials of reality often influencing our more serous attitude toward life's trials. Just as laughter is said to be the best medicine, so both epicureanism and stoicism point to enjoying life as best as can be expected, given those things which challenge happiness. Both point to happiness as being a process and not so much a destination.

I do not see these two philosophies as combatting one another.