Don't get out, much, huh?
pity.
Don't get out, much, huh?
pity.
Christianity and Christian are words of the same root [Christ, a proper noun], both being a noun and adjective by context, therefore, the latter is within your scope of definition. You can stop shouting
As a young child in the mid 50s, I used a Tupperware lid [invented in the 40s by Earl Tupper, who first made them for gallon paint cans. I used them to play solo football. We had a 30-yard-deep grass backyard. I tossed the disk into the air against a breeze [a common on-shore breeze; I grew up 4 miles from the beach in the township of Brentwood in West L.A]. The disc would catch the breeze and fly back toward me while I ran backward to catch it at a new scrimmage line. The game was played backward, with passing as the only offense play until I crossed a determined goal line.
What that has to do with the Bible or Christians is over my head.
Everything old person says should be taken as dementia talk.
It is the dementia of youth thinking age is the only mother of dementia.
Worse is that as soon as one claims humility, it has fled.
Youth has some advantages; one of them is not experience.
Acts 11: 26
The verse mentions that the followers of Christ were first called "Christians" at Antioch, which was in Syria in biblical times, but is now in modern Turkey. The chapter also happens to tell the experience of Peter having a vision, the results of which told him to open proselyting to the Gentiles, and several men of the area came to Peter to ask him to teach them, and they were, apparently, the first of such "gentiles" who were converted.
I'm just wondering with this sudden recent [last couple of weeks] change in commentary of yours with very ordered, detailed analysis which seems more A.I. than human analysis. Or did you just finish a human perfection course? I missed that particular offering at UCLA back in the 70s as I was completing grad work.
As for your #9, all good ideas, but just who is going to fix "negative human behavior" by "[strategizing] change?" You've not suggested a responsible party. Rather, A.I. did not. Who does it? A.I.?
Generally speaking, we already have such laws, with maybe very few exceptions. The problem is an inclination to behave otherwise. Passing statutes does not guarantee behavioral agreement by individuals, which is why such attempts at law such as banning guns will never guarantee prevention of death by a gun, because legal confiscation is no more a 100% guarantee than is a ban. The gun, by itself, causes no harm but by a hand and a brain. Are we going to ban spoons, and files, because they, too, can kill in a hand driven by a deliberate ignorance of law? Bottom line, behavior is the nemesis. Fix the behavior is an obvious solution, but, to date, that has proven the enemy of freedom, and of that is a sacrifice too great for democracy to exist.
it can govern behavior
No, law, as constructed, does not govern behavior, unless I misunderstand what you mean be 'govern." The law attempts to control behavior, but it is obvious that the attempt is not successful with all individuals so "governed." Even in a tightly managed totalitarian government, the law fails to control all individuals in it, or everyone in that government would comply with law. The more freedom individuals are granted by government, the greater are the number of them who will disregard the law's restrictions, because human behavior is contrary to complete acceptance and comportment in law, even by those who consider themselves law-abiding citizens.
For thousands of years, we have buried our dead in boxes and tombs, denying the Earth of use of our useless dead bodies as a natural resource the Earth can use. Why?
Which came first: culture or language?
Though it varies by industry and subject, the average internet website has a lifespan on only 2 or 3 years; DebaterArt existed longer than that.
Six Demos ion. Congress have a PSA-type "ad" claiming Trump is committing unconstitutional crime, but none will cite the crime, as if breathing is criminal. Why are they so shy?
Maybe because the allegation is a myth, like Russia, Russia, Russia?
Bravo. Both comments are not just sensible, but truth. Yes, fossils fuels are not clean, but stupidity is thinking we can cancel a 60-plus percent energy provider and replace it overnight with a source that is, at best, 20 - 30% of the energy grid, and not 24/7 available as it is. In fact, we have had "green" energy for over 100 years, and still not a majority supplier.
What makes you think petroleum crude is non-renewable? Greenies do not get to redefine that term, just because they say so. Renewable means, by my OED, reproducible or renewable energy. Petrol will be reproducible for as long as living things live, die, and decompose. We suggest it takes millions of years to do so, but the fact is, there is no science to define the duration of decomposition to status as petro crude, and the Earth has been at it for many hundreds of millions of years; at least a billion. That greenies say fossil fuel is not renewable is a dumb as the woke think they are enlightened, when it is just a past-tense word for awake that really means one may again be asleep, based on the sense they make.
Gov. Newsom of CA is, and always has been, along with many others, an absolute idiot with regard to elimination of "fossil fuel," which is a misnomer in any event since the fuel is not derived from fossils of any living creature, but is the remaining decomposition of organic material [bones generally do not decompose, though are organic], and which is actually renewable for as long as life exists on Earth, in spite of what green energy activists claim. What organics are in green energy?
Further, fossil fuel is the raw material of what we call "plastic," and that material is in all our vehicles, in major proportions, passenger and commercial, green or ICE engine-based, and many clothes and other products. Eliminate "fossil fuel" you eliminate plastic, because no one has yet invented AlGoreGooeyJuice. Oops.
I wonder if the lot of you who criticize Islam have ever read the Quran cover-to-cover, let alone the Holy Bible. Until you have, you're short on evidence other than heresy nonsense crap on the Net, where, of course, all is truth. Not.
Islam recognized Jesus as a Prophet of the Book. That tells me a great deal that disagrees with the crap. Just as many misinterpret the Bible, having never read it, either. No, neither are perfect, infallible books, but they're better than the Net will ever be.
Once you accept flat earth theory, a lot of other things add up.
IN my latitude, I see Orion in my night sky only between October to March. On a flat Earth of a dimension compatible with Earth's known surace area [510M km^2] I should see it year-round. In fact, the necessary surface area of a flat earth to see Orion year-round would occupy 2 x10^18 km^2, greater than the area occupied by Jupiter's orbit.
Evidence
Sorry, I mixed my Richards. I said Shakespeare's Richard III, but it's in Richard II, Act II, scene ii, spoken by the Duke of York to several gathered, including the Queen:
"And meet me presently at Berkeley.
I should to Plashy too,
But time will not permit. All is uneven,
And everything is left at six and seven.
And everything is left at six and seven."
He has just previously mentioned being in a state of confusion. however, the OED says the term dates from about 1350, having the same interpretation of risk and confusion.
I think our founders would have been horrified by a city as large is L.A., my hometown, let alone NYC. Packing ourselves together literally like rats - they literally eat each other when compacted in an over-populated space - solves nothing that should be socially acceptable. And the clear evidence of that is that we do compact ourselves together, thinking we do not have sufficient space for all 8B of us. Wrong. Every man, woman, and child of our 8B can live sufficiently on about 2 acres of land, each, and occupy only 2 land types of agricultural and arable [inactive agriculture], leaving all other land types - urban, meadow, mountains, arctic, desert, etc. - completely void of human population. I'm not advocating we actually occupy agricultural and arable land; we need that land for the purpose it serves. I'm just saying we have not over-populated the Earth, we're merely poor land managers. Fix that, we fix our apparent population issues, and we all would enjoy life in smaller cities and towns, villages- and let the countries be as they are, I don't care.
Rules for Radicals will endure only as long as we fail to comprehend and act on what should have been learned at Babel. When. we do, Saul Alinsky will finally roll over is his grave and sleep the big sleep, along with Karl Marx, and the Dragon, the latter being all others' inspiration.
I hear looks are overcome by a paper bag
What about the Han dynasty, where are they mentioned in the book.
Oh, well, now we are expecting 'the book" to speak to all peoples and events in history? Sorry, doesn't do that and was not its intent. For that, you must consult the four magi in 'South Park, CO.
conservatives allowing liberals to frame social issues? If anything, they show the opposite.
Just demonstrating both sides use the same tactics to attack the other when we would be much better off using that energy to try to get along in spite of differences. It's called "balance of power." That's politics, and there's the lesson from the Tower of Babel we have royally failed to accomplish in thousands of years.
The observation that
Yes, I made that observation in 4 sentences.
No, my friend. It is even older than Shakespeare, although he used it, too, when people knew what it was. Don't believe it was rap, then, nor now. You're rappers just used it, too, but certainly did not originate the idiom.
“Cranial explosive syndrome" is
Wow! Strike a nerve, did I? “Cranial explosive syndrome" is my own lexicon, invented on the moment. I couldn't care less that it is some psycho's deliberate disorder. Then subject is Crockett.
Did I ever say that Jesus was not the most significant person ever born on Earth? No. Don't think that I have. But we're talking about
Mary, his mother, and her expanded biblical account which you ignore, presumably because you have not read it. I have, in four languages, cover to cover.
look, I am not Catholic. I do not worship Mary, do not pray to her. But I do acknowledge her as worthy of praise on par with Eve.
Mention Jeffrey Epstein to Jasmine Crockett; watch cranial explosive syndrome in its ultimate form. The woman is cracked wide open at the head, and it is m-n-t. Void. Negative space. Dark matter, and do not mean skin tone, because that's just surface tension and little else.
Who we are is far more vital than what we are, and the latter includes appearance, whereas the former is all character, and that is the great challenge to humanity.
This string might just as easily have been titled: "It's embarrassing the way social conservatives allow social liberals to frame every social issue," for much the same reasons given by Savant.
The uselessness of political labels is thus justified.
Forget "No kings." I am all for "No political parties."
We started this grand experiment without political parties, and it should have remained the standard.