Did you graduate from high school?
He graduated from Trump University, where they teach you that science is fake, and you should instead, worship deception.
Did you graduate from high school?
He graduated from Trump University, where they teach you that science is fake, and you should instead, worship deception.
fauxlaw wrote:
Sidewalker;
We know Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents until he was 33, went into his father’s business, his mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.
Wow, there's a lot there "we know," but how do "we" know? We have no original documents known to be written by the "authors." We have years of translation by characters whose motives are not completely understood. And the string of "We know he was Jewish..." is a string of conjecture. We do have testimony of the genealogy of Jesus to indicate he was of the House of Judah, through David, and the genealogies of Mary and Joseph, though Joseph was not Jesus' father by genetics, but by willing obligation as Mary's husband. He lived at home with Mary, but as for Joseph, depending on the record as given alone, Joseph is not mentioned again after Mary and Joseph return to Jerusalem to find Jesus in the temple with the elders when he was 12. Joseph is not mentioned again in the record after that event. That Jesus was a carpenter, like Joseph, is recorded, but that is not a uniquely Jewish profession. And other tribes of Israel, and outside that genealogy, also have children living with parents well into adulthood. Some do, today. They are not all Jewish, either. And where are we told that Jesus thought his mother remained a virgin?
No, none of these things proves Jesus was a Jew. That he was, I do not contest, but not for any of those reasons you claim. The Romans claimed he was by notice on his cross. During his lifetime, with only a couple of noted exceptions, his dealings were with Jews, only.
Regarding my comments about how we know Jesus was Jewish, I was just telling an old joke, I rarely take Debby seriously.
But my prior comment was serious:
Don't forget, Jesus was Jewish and as a Jew, He was one of those who rejected that he was God.
Jesus never explicitly claimed divinity, and he pretty explicitly denied it multiple times (My “Father is greater than I” and "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone" are just two examples). He referred to himself as the "Son of Man" and the "Messiah," which within His Jewish culture, both terms were referential to human beings, they were agent roles "serving God", rather than God.
It is certainly not my intent to contend that what was implicit in His life and was made explicit through theological discourse four hundred years later is not an image of truth, I do believe it is, but the philosophical concept of the Incarnation developed over hundreds of years and long after His death. The religion of Jesus was not a religion "about" Jesus.
There is no way to know with any certainty what Jesus' true nature was, or whether or not he physically resurrected after death, my terribly unpopular opinion on the matter is that it just doesn't matter to me. It is simply enough for me to know that the things He did and said caused His contemporaries to think of Him in completely new dimensions and that there was something to this man's life that caused those who knew it best to reach the conclusion that it was divine in nature. The divisive contentions about whether or not he actually rose from the grave in bodily form just do not matter to me. It is enough for me to know that his spirit jumped dramatically to life after his death, and that because of this, he gave millions and millions of people hope that they would never have had if He hadn't lived and died the way He did.
To the folks that will find my position on the matter offensive, sorry, but I have read and know the Bible well, and one thing is clear to me, Jesus was a man who rarely spoke of himself, and who never spoke about the detached metaphysical constructs so many focus on; apparently those kinds of intellectual disputes just weren't important to him and I choose to believe this was because He understood how these matters could digress into divisive contrasts and disunity.
His words, his actions, and his life had nothing whatsoever to do with divisiveness and disunity, and the Bible tells us that those who do engage in divisiveness and disunity in His name are "crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" - Hebrews 6:6
Debby wrote:
The Jewish numbers fell drastically after they rejected Jesus as God. That issue has been settled.
Don't forget, Jesus was Jewish and as a Jew, He was one of those who rejected that he was God.
We know Jesus was Jewish because he lived at home with his parents until he was 33, went into his father’s business, his mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.
fauxlaw wrote:
Sidewalker claimed that I wrote, in my #15 [& 16, though that was added in error]: "a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space."
I did not originate that, my friend. I was quoting the originator of this thread. Oh! that's you!
Yes, you quoted my statement and then tries to refute it with an absurd misunderstanding of quantum entanglement, what you said:
"Albert Einstein and some associates, in about 1935, theorized a concept they called "Quantum Entanglement," which refutes your claim of particle non-periodicity and non-spread [expansion or proliferation?] in space."
And your conclusion is, effectively, in agreement with what you [your #1] & I [my #15] originally said. mutual appreciation society?
Nice try at misrepresenting the exchange, I made the statement, you refuted it with an illogical statement, and I responded by explaining my OP.
You didn't know what you were talking about, and now you want to give the false appearance that you did.
Kermos wrote:
@Sidewalker wrote in post #88: @Kermos I get it, you don’t understand science or Christianity. Point made.
THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT
Since you falter in this debate, then you resort to personal attack against your debate opponent, just as I delineated in the Pharmakeia Principle explained in post #71.
Wisdom leads me (1 Corinthians 1:24). I RAISE A HALLELUJAH TO MY ARMOR PROVIDER, THE LIVING KING JESUS!
You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.
I'm sorry Pumpkin, but your argument that God is dishonest is just not convincing. Don't fret, there are a lot of posters here that will join you in disparaging Christianity, I'm just not one of them.
SergeantLynch wrote:
If there is any chance of money in it, then people will drag up the past.
When do I get my "Trail of Tears" money?
Savant wrote:
Hempel’s Dilemma kind of deals with this and reflects some of my own thoughts as well. A physicalist 500 years ago would probably see modern physics as basically magic. If the rules of physics change based on new discoveries, no matter how wacky the stuff we discover, then it seems like it has the potential to include ghosts or spells. I question the extent to which a spirit would really seem crazier than quantum mechanics to a physicalist a few centuries ago. If something breaks the laws of physics, then it's really our understanding of physics that's wrong.
That’s what I’m getting at with the OP, physicalism/materialism seems to be the default position for most people that believe they are being scientific, but it appears that they are presuming 400-year-old science. There’s been a lot of progress since Newton and the mechanistic view of nature, the belief that a deterministic reality can be defined as “matter in motion” has been untenable for more than a century. Science has gone so far beyond those ideas that the presumption of physicalism is not consistent with the current scientific paradigm. I don’t know about ghosts and spells, but it’s clear that science is telling us that there exists dimensions of reality that lay beyond the four-dimensional framework of physicalism.
The progress of science has forced a much more generous view of the nature of reality on us, it's clearly pointing to realities that fall outside of science’s frame of reference, not multiple worlds, but one world encountered at multiple different levels.
There I so much discussion about what “exists” or is “real”, but nobody seems to be able to tell what they mean when they use the word “exist” or “real”. Whenever someone does explain the criteria of existence, they give a definition that when applied to the physical world, tells us it doesn’t exist either. A criterion of existence that says nothing exists is illogical.
I’ve asked repeatedly, but nobody that talks about what does and doesn’t exist can tell me what they really mean, what are the qualities that something that exist has, or something that doesn’t exist, doesn’t have. We know that light exists, but it has none of physicalism’s traditional standards of existence. Most people who claim science supports their belief in physicalism, upon examination, are in the end, flatly unscientific.
SergeantLynch wrote:
I remember seeing this youtube vid of some spiritual dude who thought that he could outwit crocodiles with the power of the mind...So he jumped in the infested water, pretended to be super-spiritual, was promptly dragged under and never seen again.
I guess the crocodiles were atheists.
Debby wrote:
He has known only one woman his wife during his entire life.
He's not going to answer me, he doesn't know why, he just hates the people Trump tells him to hate.
Debby wrote:
I just applied Quantum Entanglement to God’s creation.
Were you speaking in tongues perhaps?
fauxlaw wrote:
Peggy Flanagan, current Lt. Gov of MN [and as whacko as her milktoast Governor], and wannabe DSA Governor, went through a litany of questions about her political platform. Asked if healthcare ought to be universally applied to all, she replied in the affirmative, using the example of gender fluidity, that the choice of gender was a trans right and part of healthcare.
Is gender choice healthcare? Why? If gender choice is healthcare, then hair color choice is also healthcare, because hair color is also a feature that can be changed daily at personal whim. But gender [should really be called sex, like it was until psychiatry went woke] choice, no matter how whacked it is to claim, is not a personal choice.
Once again, I get it that there is a Pavlovian response to the Trans bell, but beside the distraction value, please share with us how this has personally affected your life? I have met maybe a handful of trans people in my entire life, none of them gave me a reason to hate them, as far as I can tell, they have had no influence on my life whatsoever, there is certainly no reason to make them a political issue that determines how I vote.
To be blunt about it, what is it to you, why do you give a damn about something that I see as an irrelevant non-issue. In what way have trans people affected you personally? Is there a reason for the hatred?
So Fauxlaw: Yeah, we get it, my OP rang the bell, the dog salivates and the MAGA minions give the conditioned response of "Obama and Biden bad, Trump good, ug". But perhaps you could go beyond the bell and actually read and respond to what the bell asked, you haven't said a word about that. Here's what the bell actually asked.
Trump's crusade costs the taxpayer $2,358 on average. What did you really get for your money? Do you think it was worth it?
How did Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Crusade affect you personally?
Try to get beyond the MAGA Pavlovian response, here in the real world, how did you personally benefit from your $2,358 investment?
Debby wrote:
Quantum entanglement can be applied to the spiritual link with God which leads to entanglement.
I know what all of those words mean, but when you put them together into a sentence that way, I don't think it has meaning. Did you sequence them randomly perhaps?
SkepticalOne wrote:
It makes his base feel safer.
I don't think they feel safer, I think it makes them feel more powerful, makes them feel the supremacy of the white race maybe, but Trump keeps his base afraid.
Afraid Iran will get nukes, afraid immigrants will eat their cats and dogs, afraid the LGBTQ Agenda will make them gay, afraid their sons will become drag queens, afraid the Jews will replace them, afraid minorities will vote, afraid of vaccines and masks, afraid of Bad Bunny and Rosie O'Donnell, etc. etc. etc.
If Trump thought his base felt any safer, he'd create some more scary conspiracies for them, he controls them through fear.
FLRW wrote:
You know that Stephen Hawking was from England, don't you?
He's not the only one, turns out RuPaul isn't gay after all, he's just very British.
I get it, you don't understand science or Christianity.
Point made.
linate wrote:
Thats a good point but even small business owners are relatively well off.
Why is it a problem that “even small business owners are relatively well off”, do you just resent anyone more well off than you? If you resent work, you will always be doing poorly compared to people that choose to work hard, you will go through life being a resentful person, that doesn’t strike me as a very good way to live your life.
And 95 percent of them? Work for me or good luck on your own.
I certainly don't think you can speak for 95% of small business owners, especially with an attitude towards work that none of them share with you. I think what they are actually saying is “Work for me, or work for somebody else, or work for yourself, that’s what I chose to do, and working for myself is why I ended up a small business owner that creates jobs.
When thats 95 percent of employment... the bottom line is work or die.
I suppose you can say that's the bottom line for everybody, and for every animal, I just don’t see the point of putting it that way, it strikes me as irrelevant and pointless.
You should be supporting my argumemt as a fellow somewhat progressive minded fellow. Social safety net and all that.
I don’t know what “progressive minded” and “social safety net” have to do with it, this idea that life involves work crosses all political ideologies, it crosses all species actually, it’s just a fundamental fact of reality. Life is a process of expending energy to obtain energy; that’s just the way things are. Food, shelter, relationships, family, friends, all of the things we associate with a good like requires work
I can’t support your argument because I don’t really see an argument, all I see is a negative attitude toward work that is unworkable in my mind, if you go through life resenting work, you will always be an unhappy and resentful person. I just don’t see the point. Do you play sports, have a hobby, play games, are in a relationship, all those things involve work for the purpose of enjoyment, making life better for you and others.
Your so-called “argument” is just a thought process that I can’t connect with in any way. I’m retired now, but I can tell you that the best times involved work, I certainly didn’t resent the work, I relished the accomplishments. As a husband, father, athlete, successful career, service to others, all of it was a matter of enjoying the results of hard work. It will be tragic in one day you look back on your life and resent the effort, rather than relish the accomplishments. I think the times I most value, the times I most enjoyed, are the times I worked the hardest, especially when it involved teamwork, joint effort towards common goals is the most gratifying work, service to others is the most gratifying work, everything worth doing is a matter of working to accomplish goals.
If we cant go pick apples off local trees or plant enough food to feed ourselves at a moments notice we are being deprived of our natural rights.
How exactly is that a natural right? Even if you could go pick apples off local trees, that is still working, no matter what, you work to survive, the bottom line is the trees are telling you work for your apples or die.
Thus the social contract. libertarians are quick to say taxation is taken at gunpoint but so is deprivation at gun point of the means to reasonably support oneself. Violence is inherent in system
Nonsense, excessive drama doesn’t make your attitude into a point, nobody is making you work at gun point, there is nothing violent about the fact that you have to expend energy to live, it’s the natural way of the world. When you accept that, you can start enjoying life.
SatanLucy wrote:
People who hate immigrants are those who want USA to be returned to Native Americans.
Only Native Americans are those who come from non-migrants. Everyone else is technically a migrant.
That's the best idea you have ever had, and I completely agree.
All these dang foreigners can just go back to wherever they came from.
SatanLucy wrote:
I will simply apply the teachings of tao. When someone throws a turd at me, I will avoid like water which avoids obstacles, escaping the turd and moving to a safe turd-free location where the turd cant reach me. So my taoism is safe from your turd.
Like I said originally, "Once you have perfected the art of turd throwing, all opponents will fear you".
Confronted by my "Hu Flung Pu", your "Snake Ha Hu" is futile, so you run away and hide.
Trump’s anti-immigrant crusade costs American taxpayers an estimated $2,358 on average.
So far, three Americans, Ruben Ray Martinez, Renee Nicole Good, and Alex Pretti paid with their lives.
How did Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Crusade affect you personally? Do you feel safer, did it make your life any better, are there less drugs, less crime, fewer rapists?
What did you really get for your money? Do you think it was worth it?
linate wrote:
"It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
Also still true
Nope, I can see how someone who sees working as a terrible thing seeing it that way, but it's not really factual.
Nearly half of all employees in the US work for a small business, and the average small business owner makes between $60,000 and $78,000 per year, hardly rich, and they probably think creating jobs serves us.
Most of the rich people you are fussing about got rich by working hard.
If you don't change your attitude towards working, you will never be rich, you will never create jobs, and you will never be happy working for a living.
SatanLucy wrote:
I am the best of planners, like Allah, war be upon him.
Your plans are no match for my Hu Flung Pu.
SatanLucy wrote:
I am also having chatgpt teach me kung fu, taekwondo, Muay thai, karate and shaolin. I
“Everybody has a plan until they get a turd in the face”
RemyBrown wrote:
->You might see it as fraternizing with the enemy, figures, but normal people just call it "being married".
Except it's obvious that your wife controls your brain more than you control your brain.
I'm sorry, but over here in the normal (real) world, relationships aren't about "brain control", but hey, if that's the way it is over there in creepy town, OK, but maybe don't mention it when you are around normal people, remember, you need to tone down the creepy. Thinking relationships are about "brain control", that's just creepy, it's best if you keep it to yourself.
->but love and physical intimacy with a woman is wonderful
So you're addicted to sex then.
You see, that's a pretty creepy way to read that sentence, if you want to find a woman that would rather be with you than a bear, you really have to turn down the creepy, way way down..
->I really appreciate that women would rather be alone with me than a bear.
Only a very small % of women in the world would choose you over the bear. Your wife obviously would. Maybe a few hundred other women. But billions of women who don't know who you are choose the bear over YOU (the feminist dude). Left wing men are still strange men. Do you think outside the people you know?
You see, that's what I'm talking about, that whole "completely detached from reality" thing, people find that creepy.
Focus on the goal, women would find being alone with you creepier than being alone with a bear, that's a shit ton of creepy you need to lose, a shit ton.
If you can't even comprehend the normal world, you could at least try to pretend that you aren't the mayor of Creepy Town, watch how normal people act, learn from it, try "acting" normal, see if you can "fit in", and see how long you can go without creeping people out. Then the next day, try to go longer. That's a shit ton of creepy you have there, so you need to persevere.
Fake it till you make it man.
RemyBrown wrote:
You're a traitor to your gender
You might see it as fraternizing with the enemy, figures, but normal people just call it "being married".
and you worship women way too much.
I wouldn't call it worship exactly, but love and physical intimacy with a woman is wonderful, so I really appreciate that women would rather be alone with me than a bear.
I created my own kung fu too, it's called "Hu Flung Pu".
Once you have perfected the art of turd throwing, all opponents will fear you.
Kermos wrote:
@Skipper wrote in post #51: What made you change your mind?
The Living God Jesus Christ’s work in me (Ephesians 2:8-10) changes not that the Big Bang is a leap of faith.
Ephesians 2:8-10 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang.
Let’s take a look at the evolutionist’s belief system. Moral relativism forms a defining factor of evolutionism.
Nope, moral relativism has nothing to do with evolution.
For example, Big Bang philosophers believe their Big Bang proves there is no God,
Nonsense, you made that up, and it is not true, which is to say that you bear false witness.
so they think that they may disregard God’s Commandments without consequence, such Commandments as when Jesus said “‘You will not murder, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, you will not bear false witness,
You already told us that God broke the ninth commandment, you are pushing a deceptive God that bears false witness by dishonestly filling the earth with fake evidence for evolution. You are not making an argument against the Big Bang theory; you are making an argument for abandoning Christianity.
honor your father and your mother, and you will love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 19:18-19) and do not forget the foremost and greatest commandment “You will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37), but God’s Commandments do govern every evolutionist, and this Grand Creator God’s everlasting justice is certainly meted out on His creatures.
You clearly violate the commandment to love God by disparaging God, calling God dishonest is a blasphemous desecration conflicting with Proverbs 12:22.
Repent sinner, before it’s too late.
Mag1cman wrote:
Green!
Green is said to be both blue and yellow, and yet it is neither blue nor yellow.
From this blatant contradiction, we can conclude that the color green does not exist.
fauxlaw wrote:
a particle cannot have a periodicity, nor can it be spread out in space.
Albert Einstein and some associates, in about 1935, theorized a concept they called "Quantum Entanglement," which refutes your claim of particle non-periodicity and non-spread [expansion or proliferation?] in space.
Entangled particles share a single, non-local wave function, but that has nothing to do with particle periodicity or it's spread out in space. Entangled particles are non-local, which means they can be separated by great distances and still share a single, unified quantum state, but they are still two discrete particles and they are not spread out in space.
By definition, particles do not have a periodicity, and they are not spread out in space, which are two of the things that distinguishes particles from waves.