fauxlaw

Thanks for clarifying in your #87. Okay, Rev 21:4. No, translation, as I suspected, is not at issue here. What is at issue, and often is, is context. For that, one verse is not sufficient to know who and what is being discusses with the "new earth and heaven" discussed in chapter 21. Context is in previous chapters. Ch. 20 discusses the finality of old earth and heaven; in fact, several chapters back. At the point of transition from "old" to "new," the righteous and the wicked have been separated [the wicked into the "fires" of hell, which is not as much a "place" as it is an attitude; one that is completely contrary to God, Aden, therefore, cannot abide his presence. In Ch. 21, Christ has already established his kingdom on earth for the fourth time [the first with Adam & Eve, the second with Noah after the flood, the third with his coming by birth by Mary and sojourn through mortal life, and the fourth by his resurrected return in glory, "the second coming," a still future event for us now. The righteous have re-occupied earth, the wicked have been banished, and righteousness now dwells on earth in complete victory as ch. 21` begins, the "new" heaven and earth.

the older we get the less efficient the process becomes.

I was was with you to you last sentence in your #2. I completely disagree with it; asI have aged, my research ability has increased. Not just because of increasing tech, but by desire to have accurate data at hand, and a lifetime of learning how to axquire it.

Science and religion should be on the exact same page, and not even just two sides of one coin. They have the capacity to be th3e same coin on both sides and the edge, but seldom are.

Birthright Citizenship?

The Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday last to hear argument on Trump’s EO [to end birthright citizenship] since Congress seems entirely unwilling to codify it one way or another - and which is the right way to resolve the issue and not still another Supreme Court precedent, was a fascinating listen. I am afraid the SCOTUS decision is going to be a 6-3 at best, or 7-2 with high probability, and perhaps even a 9-0 may be possible - against the President, whose silent attendance was interestingly on its own.

The argument went sideways relative to domicile issues. There’s a dead end. Another is the central phrase causing all the hardship: “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof..” That should have been easily understood since every single illegal alien, regardless of any other conditions, being here illegally by US immigration laws [yes, we do have them, and no new legislation in that regard is necessary; just enforcement of what we have] but it was ignored during the entire Biden administration. As long as a person has allegiance to another country, but being physically in ours; the only jurisdictional subjectivity for them in the US is the adjudication of their illegality being here, but they should have no other subjectivity at all.

However, the case should not turn on even that disagreement.

What really matters was not brought up by either plaintiff nor respondent: Is citizenship a right, since the respondent had much to say with regard to rights, and that Congress can add rights to US citizens, but they cannot remove them by legislation.

But it begs a question no one, specifically the Justices, ever asked:

Is US citizenship a right or a privilege? One is universally applied; the other is limited application. A driver’s license, for example, is thought of as a right, but, it has limited application. Not everyone, particularly under-age minors, cannot have a DL. Therefore, that is a privilege, not a right. Voting, same thing. It is not a right since it, too, has age limitation. Voting is not a right; it is a privilege. Citizenship, as well, was established as a privilege, not a right. And that should settle the matter for the Court, but not in this case, since no one ever really went there. I am very disappointed by this particular Roberts Court.

This quote is from Marshall McLuhan, communication theorist who became popular in the 60's for such quotes. This one is from his watershed book and media presentation with graphic artist Quentin Fiore.

I will paraphrase for the 21st century:

“When you consider AI's awesome power to educate, aren't you thankful it doesn't?”

Revelation 21:14

Re-check your source reference. That verse says nothing to suffering, but speaks to the New Jeri=usalem John sees descending from heaven to earth, not about suffering.

Let me guess , Faux, " they are more mistranslations". and that I need to understand the ancient Greek imports.

Wrong guess. Not sloppy translation this time, but your own sloppy reference. But to clarify, suffering does not end for the wicked; its does for the righteous upon the last judgment, which may only end at death for the very last left in mortal life after Christ's return, or sometime after.

No, not just "perhaps not," but absolutely yes, I do not doubt.

And passing off religion as a "daft biblical stuff [or Quran, or Tanach, or, or, or]" might just as well be countered by daft scientific stuff [there's certainly been a lot of that, too!], and much of it without instruction, as well. I can knock science all day long, but find that as boring as knocking religion.

It goes both ways, my friend.

I appreciate your effort to think through this, but you're stretching the point of your interpretation of ϕἀντασμα [phantasma] to equate "make seen" a ghost [spirit] of a person, or even further, to suggest it means Jesus was giving up the cause. First, as I said, ϕἀντασμα does not even appear as the operative word in either Mark or Matthew, and, therefore, it's root word, ϕἀνταζω [phantazo - to "make seen"] has nothing to do with "making seen" a ghost, or spirit, but making visible - or, more correctly, making it come to mind and not only "making seen - anything, even inanimate objects, so you are really pressing your interpretation well beyond the intent. N op-e, nothing backfired. Jesus, a perfect person, had to die to complete the effect of the demands of justice that the slate is able to be completely wiped clean for every single person ever born on Earth by their ability to repent - to do all they can do to compensate for their actions.

I am with you throughout your first paragraph in your #33.

However, I disagree that "all biblical interpretation is 'dubious.' I begin with this: As God inspired men and women to write scripture, His word is Truth, but problems begin immediately with that first inspired person because only rarely is that revelation in person with spoken words, and immediately recorded by the receiver. Few have perfect repetition of something told to them. Therefore, what they were told ends being interpretive and not perfectly repeated. That problem is exacerbated by person-to-person generative repetitions based upon oral rendition. But because there is an origin to the information, and that origin is perfect [God], His version is also perfect, not dubious.

But was DA ever ultra rated? And is debate truly only a zero sum activity, which elo addresses? Debate can result in a tie, and that's not zero sum. So why is the term, elo, used? It's not an acronym. but the inventor of the technique, a chess master, Arpad Elo. But chess is not always zero sum, either...

But, once again, you are caught in the trap of poor translation from the Greek Septuagint; the 4th century translator's New Testament source to translate into Latin, first, and from that, in the 17th century, to English. That Greek is:

Ἰησοῦς ἀφεὶς φωνὴν μεγάλην ἐξέπνευσεν.

Jesus having

uttered a cry loud, breathed his last.

That is not to be misunderstood by a clever meme, such as "giving up the ghost." No, the Greek for a ghost, is phantom: ϕἀντασμα, which is not in the Septuagint.

Two terms: Catholic and biblically well-versed. Debbie's claim; not that I agree with her, because on a couple of occasions. I've found her references of dubious interpretation [imo], but merely that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I either do not understand what you mean, or don't see where that advantages one's rating

Nope. He was dead. Why is that so hard?

I so allow

Do you think those two terms are mutually exclusive?

Luke 14:26

Thus, my insistence that the Bible is not infallible, due to troubles in translation for a variety of reasons, including purposeful corruption, and about which I am currently writing both and non-fiction and an historic fiction novel on the subject. But, as I've also said, such interrupts can be inquired of God to gain grater understanding, and such inquiry does work as He promises.

Oh, sure. But death is not the end of things; it's just a door we walk through into another place. So what?

That's all good, but I have virtually abandoned Google as a search engine ever since it handed its brain over to AI. AI, when it is correct, is a quick source, but one of its shortcomings is that, as offered by Google, it tends to mask any sourcing for its offerings, which, as a non-fiction writer with paying clients, they expect that my written information is properly researched and sourced. I do articles, white papers, booklets and full books on a variety of subjects. So, I now use another search engine that isn't AI-based, and readily offers sourcing.

Re: your #2, you ignore that there are likely more humans than individual AI units, What's the per capita data, if any exists? My opinion of Google has tanked since they gave their brain to AI. I don't trust it at all. AI has a Mad Magazine approach to civilization, a word I doubt it honestly

understands. It may not even fully comprehend what a woman is.

there were no Christians in Jesus' time

That's like saying that there were no long-distance swimmers outside Noah's ark. The biblical record does not record such, but that in no way means that there were no such swimmers. The record does not indicate that Mary, Jesus' mother, ever held him, never even saw him after his resurrection when there were many who did. Does that mean his own mother never saw him after watching his death on the cross? No.

It's the old logic story: one cannot prove a negative.

I currently lead the debaters in volume of debate voting, but speaking of making voting an attractive activity, I do not sense my leadership herein has chaaged my overall rating because I started with DCraft 8 months ago with far fewer votes, but decided here to make a greater effort. So, what is the precise, practical incentive to vote?

Crucifixtion, itself, is an interesting study in physiology because the punishment, itself, is a virtual guarantee of death, whether one is tied or nailed to a cross, particularly a vertical beam with a perpendicular crossbeam on which a body's weight hanging on the device creates stress on the torso that slowly constricts the lungs making breathingdifficult throughout the ordeal until one suffers fatal suffocation. The process may require days to accomplish depending on whether feet are supported against which the person can alleviate the suffocation for a time, but to so so actually extends the agony. Also, personal fitness prior to the crucifixion has effect, not forgetting that before Christ was crucified, he was beaten and flogged [look up what materials were used in making Roman flogs], and was crowned with thorns, creating sigtnificant blood loss by the thorns and the nails and the flogging, reducing his endurance on the cross. No, he did not survive it. No one does unless they are taken down before death.

I mean personally

That's a one-sided approach, because you make no allowance for existence of a real, living God, whereas I make allowance that some are convinced He is not, and do not harass their opinion.

I've been to several presidential election conventions in my life; the first in 1968 CA State primary convention in LA, where I lived and are up. I was an 18-year-old Bobby Kennedy [therefore, Dem] election volunteer, and had that credential, which was all that was req'd to enter. The national convention in Chicago that year, following Bobby's assassination, he'd tightened security, and personal ID was required to enter.

I attended the 1980 Repub national convention in Detroit for Reagan. No ID was required. I was there on business and decided to attend the night he was nominated officially.

I attended the Demo national convention in 1996 in Chicago for Bill Clinton. I was there on business and decided to attend. My personal ID was required.

If Demos had the same national security concerns at the border, and that retail outlets apply for cigarette and liquor sales, as Demos apply to their own political conventions, we would not have the serious illegal alien [proper annotation] problem we endure in-country today, reaching its maximum effect during the do-nothing-about-it Biden era.

The same is like true of atheists and agnostics. All types in every crowd. Utter human nature

As always, I think we are just supposed to 

You may think and say whatever the hell you wish, but do not expect your brain and mouth are always correct.

I am not a "they." I use, as I should, traditional pronouns.

If one reads carefully, I said I did not see the Oscars. What I saw, but did not mention, is a news program on local NBC, which broadcast some highlights, including the woman I reference who won an Oscar, and Fonda. MAGA, which I am not, has naught to do with it. Stop assuming, and read with a care to absorb.