In no language of the Holy Bible that I have read [4 of them], is "cult" the word used for the church Jesus established, which, in King James, at least, the word is "church." You may see no difference, but my preferred Engloish language dictionaerytis the OED. Go ahead ands use 'cult" if that os your shtick, but it is yours, not mine.
Exodux is limited, at least in Engliosh, but we have a myriad of biblical translations. into modern languages. The Quran is not sax limiting, and neither are the Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt, nor the Book of Abraham of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there may be other sources more fulfilling in description.
"End of story" is relative to the biologic-based life of A.I. - it does not have it, and never did. To date, I see no evidence of biology in A.I.; therefore, void of life.
LLM - care to define your acronym; the acronym alone could be any numbers of things. let's define our terms, ok?
observe below:
Then Trump speaks...The rest of his speech is remarkably inflammatory, telling the crowd they have to show strength, they have to fight
All you said before that is what it is... but from this point on, everything you say begins with the assumption of picking one of eight definitions of "fight," and you miss of context, as I said, drives the rest of your claims. Nope. Wrong definition by context.
The Book of Abraham was not written in Middle Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphs, so, no, I have not read it in that language. The few samples that are concluded in the Book of Abraham do not represent the entire book, so even if that language were universally known, it is not the entire book.
Totally agree.
it's still all unverifiable myths and legends.
I happen to think that we have no authority to tell God to stop speaking to man, today. It's called revelation. Why would he stop doing that? I grant you, most people do not believe he does. I happen to know it is fact. Sorry. Call me crazy if you will, but we'll see in time, won't we? But don't complain to me later when you discover it happens, and that there is little historic lack of it. We do not coerce him one way or another, so telling him he is not relevant is just a hit against ourselves.
If I told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do it? That's what you're claiming. Think it thorough
I note for all your histrionic claimed, you offer zero evidence from the Constitution that my "dishonest attempts to use the Constitution to justify Trumps lawlessness are childish."
Why not? Surely if you're so aware if such childishness, you would have differed at least one example. So cite it, or shut it.
At its root, A.I. begins as electronic circuitry and a package around it. A man-conceived and man-made device. Lifeless. Just another tool. And with no other man-conceived input, it is dumb as a post. It cannot develops learning on its own. Granted, we, ourselves, do little better as infants/children. However, "wild-child" histories tell us even they begin to learn things completely on their own. An unprogrammed A.I. cannot do even that. End of story.
Same to you as I replied to Wryly on post #32. Read that post; it explains why "violence" was not encourage3d by Trump, but instigat5ed by the people, themselves, not following Trump's advice. Also note the several definitions of "fight," =opnpy pone of which specks to physical confrontation. You should understand by context of each mention of that word, not key on the word itself. Context, not only content, is king, my friend, in language.
But, I'll add, since you ask, I do not claim the crowd going to the Capitol went peacefully to the Capitol, just that Trump told them to do that. Their actions are on them, not Trump. That should be well noted, as well. Not everyone is a blind robot, only doing what they are told.
I am not MAGA, andI'be told 6tpou that before. Get it? Yet? I am an Indie. I voted for Trump because Kammiecakes is an idiot, not worthy of being a San Francisco DA, let alone the CA AG. I lived in SF for 20 years, and well aware of the disaster Kammiecakes was then, let alone as a pres. candidate, and VP. Unqualified to be more than a salad.
How is my response to Doubler "paraphrased" when I offered a direct quote from the speech? Come on; be fair. And I don't know that I'm a "Trrump apologist," particularly in this regard of the 1/6 speech, because, while I acknowledge he spoke of "fight" multiple times, my approach is legitimately scholastic, not political.
According to my OED [Oxford Engilsh Dictionary], the only dictionary of the English language I will ever use [there is no equal], and it's definition of "fight" is actually 8 separate definitions, and only one of them involves physical confrontation. By Trump's context in each of his mentions of "fight" over the whole 15-page transcript, none can be said to be physically combative by intent, contrary to how detractors of Trump's speech want to analyze it. Theirs is political, not scholastic. I have an English Lit doctorate, so at least I have recognized scholastic achievement in the lexicon that most do not have. That carries weight, politics notwithstanding
Show me "sanctuary" in constitutional language, please, relative to protection of illegal migrants, when they have broken U.S. federal statute just by crossing the border without clearance by U.S. Border Patrol. That happens to be the law, claims of "sanctuary" notwithstanding. As some of you think illegal crossing of the border is legal, cite the allowing statute, please, or I must conclude you're blowing smoke up your own skirt.
Politics has slogged through the mud before, and has managed to survive. Ours is not a completely clean, muck-free political journey in America. It's just that politics, as an entity of society, is being way to kind to itself calling itself a "science." That science is supposed to be in an effort to discover societal truth from mere theory. In America, that effort is unniquely stated, in the Constitution's Preamble, to be an effort "to form a more perfect union" than any yet devised in the history of man. "More perfect" is exactly what it says: an effort to improve our society. Perfection is not a destination; it is a never-ending process, meaning that perfection comes in small, foreward steps toward being better today than yesterday. That comes only by correct application of theories of societal cooperation, not by blind activation of theorey with no effort to seek to do it better today than yesterday, and that is why politics is not, and never will be science until it does try to work upon the road of what theory to truth requires.
Your "there exist limits" is the same kind of thinking that gave us geocentrism, which turned out to nothing but egocentrism.
Careful what you limit. You are not in charge. And A.I. will still be just artificial until it shakes off the coil of "artificial" and becomes self-aware. I'm not saying that cannot happen. I'm saying until it does, it remains artificial. Geocentrism had to do the same thing, only in it's case, it took itself out of it's miserable ego.
No. Wrong. The line in question from Trump’s 1/6/2021 speech is, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Page 4 of the 15-page transcript. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics/trump-january-6-speech-transcript
God relied on chiselled rocks to get his message across,
You might as well stop rtrxing to convince me you have any knowledge of how God communicate - you're a novice at it, and severely biased about it. Not a great pace to start, and you oughtto just let the subject go until you're more educated on the subject. I'll; wager your bias prevents an open mind, and its has to start there. I'm done.
I do not dear A.I. in the least, simply because I can and do discredit it as credible, self-conscious intelligence. We, it's creators, called it ":artificial." How more idiotic can that be?
Shall I go on.
No, no need to bother, due to your own bias - obvious in the extreme.
Like I said before - your view of Abrahamic religious criticism is based upon the holy writ you know [which, so far, is, at best, unimpressive] but you don't know all that is available to research. You may have a slightly better-than-ignorant perspective on biblical and maybe even the Torah, but I'll wager your familiarity with the Quran is zip. But your limit stops there. You are obviously completely ignorant of The Spells of Coming Forth by Day [aka, The Egyptian Book of the Dead], or the Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt, or the tests on tomb walls of the Valley of the Kings, and Valley of the Queens, and until you have familiarity with those [I've had 50 years of research, as said], you have nada, so stop on your blathering on thisis subject - you're not qualified.
That says all I need to say on your BF 1, 2, 3, 4.
Madmani is trying the best he can, but he is just a commie, after all.
Bitcoin? You want a web-based currency to educate children; let alone adults? pathetic.
We have already wasted 2-3 generations of children teaching them by principles a federal-based education system developed so far removed from children, they were treated, at federal level bureaucracy like a different species. A total waste of minds and money. No wonder kids today are illiterate.
What has A.I. of an infant? It is infantile, as well. And artificial, to boot.
Of course not, since language is the creation of culture, but dissimilar cultures will develop dissimilar languages, which then must translate to one another, only that is only successful, and almost never is, because those languages do not share a word-for-word lexicon [word list] nor syntax [grammar]. Translation is fraught with error, even under ideal circumstances. Dictionary-to-dictionary translation is almost useless for true understanding. one midst thoroughly understand another's culture before true understanding of one another can be at all successful. That's the problem the Nicean Council had in the early 4th century C.E. with translation of biblical texts, none of which were even original texts. Oops.
You cannot dismiss that A.I. was still given the wrong moniker, as much of new tech is. Artificial? That's how to begin the the non-human advance over human calculation?
Why must God. not be human? I'll wager God runs circles around A.I., and always will without it escaping it root evovoled status. Even then, I doubt its eventual superiority. After all, it is supposed to be a few geniuses who dubbed it "artificial." How idiotic is that?
Metaphorically? That's simple academia excuse for the failure of the Internet to separate truth from fantasy. You will hear any shit you want to hear from the Intrernet, just as was once said of television as a media source. We have learned a bloody thing since the 50s in that regard. "When you think of the education possibilities of television," said media observer, and communications professor, Marshall McLuhan in the 60s, "aren't you glad it doesn't?" He was a man well before his time, who anticipated the Internet and its great potential to follow down the same primrose path as television. Television has learned nothing since, itself. A blight on what society could be, and wifi and A.I. are just as idiotic. And why not? They are also controlled by the same generational idiots who think A.I. will solve all their problems. Nope.
Since when is that proof?
I don't doubt your opinion of Abraham when the OT is your only source. Try other sources. You'll find them if you look for them, but5 have some facility with ancient Egypt would help. Don't ask. IU did the research; so can you if you regally want it. Dig. I had too, tor, so I'm not so onclinded to jiuust give it away. it's why IU would make a lousy tutor. I had to do it on my own, and I shouldn't have to expect any easy road for anybody e3lse.
Nope, not in France, just busy. My politics are listed in my profile. I think a lot of my politics was jaded by attending Bobby Kenedy's CA primary victory in my hometown, L.A., the night Bobby was assassinated by an idiot who accomplished nothing for his cause and remains an old idiot today. Being there was horrifying. I don't like being in crowds to this day. Although I talk a lot about politics, I find it mostly a useless exercise because it allows itself to be led mostly by similar idiots who refuse to consult the brilliance of the Constitution and only give lip service to it.
one life - yes, which endures for eternity, i.e., in both directions, past and future. Very little of it is in a mortal condition.
Why is reincarnation necessary if we can figure out how life should be lived in one pass? Look, if all the decisions we must make during mortality we're the essential, life-changing decisions among the hundreds to thousands of decisions we make daily, then, yes, it might take longer than one mortal lifetime. But all decisions are not life-chaging. In fact, very few are, and we're mostly fairly ignorant tp the great majority of them because most are just that: ordinary. That is why, at a point of death, we accept the meme that our life flashes before our eyes. Flash, because there is just not that much that is memorable to the degree of being life-changing.
