Yes, but it is really a symbol of eternal life with the gods. For Egyptians of antiquity, at least. That's why some gods, and some pharaohs, are depicted holding it in hand, as if the condition is close at hand if not already a reality.
Yes, but it is really a symbol of eternal life with the gods. For Egyptians of antiquity, at least. That's why some gods, and some pharaohs, are depicted holding it in hand, as if the condition is close at hand if not already a reality.
Hang on, it's going higher. Silver, too, at an even higher rate of increase. Could be $200, minimum, by week end. But only the real metal. Stock in G&S will fail; it's just paper, and worse, sold and re-sold, and what that's worth goes into toilet, daily, just like a crashing stock in any commodity.
You even acknowledge that I have said there are instances of unreliability to the Bible as a whole, but that it also contains understandable trut5h. It is both, and we must be careful to be able to distinguish which is which by honest, sincere, and hopeful prayer, as Paul described in Hebrews 11; the entire chapter, which I have urged to be read many times. Therefore, to say "ou have have rendered it unreliable as a source of information regarding the life and time of Jesus and by your own admission condemned it to the trash can sunshine, not me."
That is disingenuous. Every book of non-fiction has truth and error. even some fiction has truth; I dare say a lot of it. Don't throw out the truth with the error and think you have fairly comprehended what you read. Well, first read it, cover-to-cover. That you have not is evident. Do it!
or, shut the piehole and put down you pen. Scholarship requires reading, doesn't it? Have you forgotten how that is done?
All true, imo, but for the first sentence. "If there was evidence and substance" is a non-factor as an if/then because, even by faith, as well as potentially belief, there is some evidence and substance to go on. It may be slim, but there's enough.
Thus, my criticism of the current abilities of AI: dismal. Since AI can, potentially, "see" distinctions of color far in excess of the human scale, as usual, I put the blame on AI programmers who, themselves, individually, may have poor eyesight relative to color distinction, and may not think giving their AI creations the ability to see better. That's why I do not think AI can truly think independently as humans can. Depends on the programmer, pure and simple. If Einstein were an AI programmer, that might be a formidable AI machine, but he wasn't. All said and done, I question the scholarship of AI programmers; they are of incredibly variable skills, and that makes a lot of difference.
Hedonism is the ethical theory that the pursuit of pleasure is the highest ideal, and having much more coverage than merely sex. But it is not my ideal. Therefore, I am neither a nihilist nor a hedonist. Sure, I enjoy pleasure, but it is not my reason for being. Do you think these are the only two attitudes available to human life? Absurd.
You may, at your pleasure, deny that LDS people are not doctrinally valid Christians, but that's on you. You have a right to your opinion, and I am not going to insist you change it lest you go to hell. I do not believe you will. There are a sizable number of LDS people on the world, and growing in every continent and many nations, including China, Africa, and Russia, who disagree with you. I already "strongly re-read the Bible," and do so in four langauges, cover-to-cover, including Luke. Have you? Your criticism is going to need more detail.
With the variation that inevitably happened in ancient Egypt with handwriting scribes, rather than chiseling in stone, your version of the ankh would be easily understood to represent that symbol, just as we see variation in handwriting of people today. Though the shape of letters differs, usually we can read what another has written, also I understand that cursive writing is unpopular today, and many kids cannot read it, It is only now making a comeback in school, and that, so far, very little. As you said, many kids entering college are illiterate in their own native tongue. Shameful.
Okay so for whatever reason, you weren't impressed by a woman of colour.
What did I say that said anything about skin color? That, my friend, is a complete misalignment off my politics and ethics.
I couldn't care less about skin color. Sin ce the Human Genome project proved by the entire mapping if the human. genome over a 13-year study that there is not genetic basis for race, and that, therefore, there is not race, it is merely variation that occurs in our individual genomes, When is that going to sink in to anyone's head who does not know, but has now heard the news:
RACE DOES NOT EXIST
I opposed Kamala Harris because I grew up in CA, spent my first 19 years there, left, and returned when I was 21, and lived there, both in LA and SF, until I was 42, and became very, very familiar with thr failures of Kamala Harris as a DA and as state AG. Worthless. Less than. So, what does it take to understand however I could have agreed she's make a good president. Get it, yet?
Okay so for whatever reason, you weren't impressed by a woman of colour.
What did I say that said anything about skin color? That, my friend, is a complete misalignment off my politics and ethics.
I couldn't care less about skin color. Sin ce the Human Genome project proved by the entire mapping if the human. genome over a 13-year study that there is not genetic basis for race, and that, therefore, there is not race, it is merely variation that occurs in our individual genomes, When is that going to sink in to anyone's head who does not know, but has now heard the news:
RACE DOES NOT EXIST
I opposed Kamala Harris because I grew up in CA, spent my first 19 years there, left, and returned when I was 21, and lived there, both in LA and SF, until I was 42, and became very, very familiar with thr failures of Kamala Harris as a DA and as state AG. Worthless. Less than. So, what does it take to understand however I could have agreed she's make a good president. Get it, yet?
BY CMYK [cyan/magenta/yellow/black -print color coding, blood is 0/95/95/53. Red is 0/100/100/0. Blood is much darker than red.
No, since China "prints" and that digital bibles exceed the count of printed bibles from
China, and China is not the leader of digital version [I don't know if they produce digitals at all], that distinction belongs to Brazil. I said that, already.
Who's "We?" You and you windsock puppet?
Since I am not a Repub, I do not subscribe to MAGA, particularly as defined by some Dems. I do believe in the greatness of America.
I am commmitt3ed to my faith. Mere belief can accept fantasy. That's the distinction of faith and belief. Read the 1th chapter of Hebrews. Faith is based upon evidence and substance. Fantasy is not.
You're asking me a collectivist question? Don't get it, yet, do you. I reject collectivism, period.
Since our country began, the separation of church and state has “defined” American Politics and American Christianity. In the 1970s Evangelical Christianity began
The USA began, officially, with ratification of the Constitution, certified by signature of sufficient delegates on Article VII on 9/17/1787. Thomas Jefferson did not "codify" "separation of church and state" [which words are not codified in the 1A], until an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson was separated from both church and state in 1787, in France as our foreign minister there, so he had no direct participation in development of the Constitution nor Bill of Rights, including the 1A. He was really mimicking the argument of Roger Williams, a 17th-century theologian who argued for "separation" to protect the church from the "wilderness of the world" more for the protection of the church from government than protection of the government from the church, as is commonly interpreted today. So, no, this may be your politics today, but not in 1787. As for linkage to government, James Madison's letter to Rev. Jasper Adams in 1833 confirmed that prior to the 1770s, many American colonies had government-supported religions and tax-funded religious establishments. So, what "Since our country began, the separation of church and state has “defined” American Politics and American Christianity" existed when our country began? After all, charitable contributions to religion is still, today, a tax-refundable personal and corporate expense, up to limitations set by law.
As for "American Christianity" that is not a singular organization of the Christian religion, and I reject its inference. There are multiple examples of doctrinal differences, but, I understand the general political effort to collect Christianiy, a subject not particularly embraced by the collective left, as a single entity. That's pure Saul Alinsky. let alone Marx.
Part of the problem is word usage, such as "liberal," as opposed to "conservative." These words have both been used, politically, in another time, to describe their polar opposites by political platform. A liberal was, in the 19th century, a Republican. A conservative, a Democrat. Not today. It is believed by a number of sources I perused that it was FDR who launched the use of "liberal" to describe a Democrat, and that is derived from his 1932 acceptance speech in the Democrat National Convention upon his nomination for President in Chicago on July 2. In his speech: "As we enter this new battle, let us keep always present with us some of the ideals of the Party: The fact that the Democratic Party by tradition and by the continuing logic of history, past and present, is the bearer of liberalism and of progress and at the same time of safety to our institutions. And if this appeal fails, remember well, my friends, that a resentment against the failure of Republican leadership – and note well that in this campaign I shall not use the word “Republican Party,” but I shall use, day in and day out, the words, “Republican leadership” – the failure of Republican leaders to solve our troubles may degenerate into unreasoning radicalism." https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/acceptance-speech-at-the-democratic-convention-1932/
Admittedly, this may be a new word to some, and many typify its existence among us. Also, admittedly, I've been guilty of the practice, but committed to it is personal dismissal: Arrogation. To arrogate is to take or claim something without justification. It is derived from the Latin, arrogare, to appropriate to one's self. It is, therefore, etymologically rooted in arrogance. One might say that to arrogate is to activate into practice the attitude of arrogance. For example: They arrogate to themselves the ability to divine the true thoughts, intentions, and according actions of another person. As such, it belongs under the logical fallacy of the a priori argument.
Wrong. We are each liable for own own actions, and no one else's, and no one is liable for ours. Trump is on his own for self-justification, as the rest of us. By the way, that is also in denial of "due process," but that's another discussion. It's the lesson of the atonement. We do not suffer from original sin. That belongs to Adam and Eve, alone, and the atonement delivered that from them conditional on their repentance, which, if one analyzes the root of that word [etymology] one finds that to repent is not to be on a turnstile, but on a road of changing the heart so one is not compelled to sin and sin, repetitively, turnstile-wise. The turnstile was the invention of man, not God. I say invention and not creation because creation is organization out of chaos, not just new chaos. Words mean things, even invention and creation. One is corruptible; the other is not, but we confuse the two, being mortal and corruptible, ourselves.
I don't think heaven cares much for purely earthly labels. Didn't the Tower of Babel teach us that? Who bloody cares if one was once Chinese, American, French, or Venezuelan? That's all politics, and I think that is useless to heaven. We're still stuck in Babylon and it's time we moved on.
"Left" and "Republican" are not mutually exclusive terms. it's either left/right, or Democrat/Republican, because in either case, your examples cross generally understood distinctions since there are Rs with left-leaning ideas [some considerable] as there are Ds with right-leaning ideas [some also considerable]. Add to that, the "definitions" of Dem and Rep are variable over time, hence, so is why I( put "definitions" in quotes. It's why I say the Democrat myth of superior blue state education is just that: myth. Not a single blue has ever been not red, and vice versa.
And that is why labels are dangerous in discussion. Generalizing is nonsense. I generally try to makes such arguments, I'll apply "most" or "few" preceding "Dem" or Rep," because I do not believe total collectivism exists; pure and simple.
Yes, but the words have zero official, legal status. It's use "officially" belongs to the media, thus, layman.
I wonder if the origin of your last illustrated star came from the ancient Egyptian character N5, as noted below"
The first [upper left] is that character, which represents our Sun, re, in Egyptian.
The middle with the short vertical stroke beneath is the the typical form the word 'sun' in Egyptian is written. Rarely is the N5 used alone.
The last is a variation, adding a character that, alone, represents "land," is the Egyptian's designation of generic "time."
There's merit in your post. Age is really a poor descriptive, and I suspect the choice of 13 as a min age for DC was somewhat arbitrary, because my granddaughter just recently turned 14, and as a 10 year-old, I thought she was a very old soul; mature in ways that most children don't achieve. Still a kid in other ways, and that's okay. It all has to do, I'm sure, with the general inability of children to realize the legal complications of sub-late-teen children signing contracts, such as for loans, simply because their understanding of those legal complications are unknown to them, therefore unfair to them to expect such maturity.
it’s pretty hard to deny that the United States has become a Rogue Nation.
"Rogue nation" has no official status as an international legal term that has any official standing. It's not statutory, nor policy, it's just political, and that means it's only critical, which means it's undesirable as nomenclature.
The more points to a star, the more the center polygon approaches a circle. I like it.
Another AI-esque. TLTR
What's wrong with being rich? If you're not, why not? The mirror is the nemesis. I've told you that mirrors are a conspiracy. Don't believe it? Well, there you go.
Yes, we're waiting. Meaning the decision is not rendered, yet, and that means we ought not be making assumptions that it has. Same thing with the conviction in NY. Yet the left is tearing their hair out that Trump is a convict, so why isn't he in jail? Because we wait for a decision on the appeal against that conviction, not to mention that the punishment phase of that trial is on hold, too. Why does the left continue to ignore these facts?
What do I care about Repubs? I am not one, contrary to belief, here.
And who ever said I am a Trump, right or wrong fan? Yeah, I voted for the guy --- as a vote solidly against Kamiecakes. but I don't like everything Trump does, and I said both before. Some need a few reminders. What do you guys want; I'm conservative; says so on my profile.
Seems there may be some violation of the age membership rule here on DC...? I'm sure there are some who think I am included, even though on sight, I don't think I'd get away with the claim,
but how many sub-13 year-olds do you think there are who understand
