fauxlaw

Many claim the Holy Bible is infallible, but a complete read cover-to-cover finds many inconsistencies, gaps in chronology, lack of detail in some instances [such as, where is it written that Moses repented of murdering the Egyptian overseer to earn becoming a prophet? - the Quran does tell that story, but Moses, himself, ignores it, or his biblical words were not translated correctly or completely]. There are dropped characters in a critical moments. On the latter, consider that Mary, mother of Jesus, encounters him last at the cross. By the record as given, she does not meet him after his resurrection, in spite of his spending over a month with his devotees before his ascension. Where's Mom? The venerated Mother of Jesus is suddenly missing in action? I don't believe she was missing, but no one bothers to record such an event as a tender moment between mother and Child.

These inconsistencies do not mean the Bible is wrong, or worse, nonsense. It means that God, Himself, was not the Author; men were. All men make mistakes. Even in compiling the Bible record. But, there is a means to overcome these inconsistencies, and that method is clearly defined: ask God. He knows what is there, what isn't, and how to fill in the gaps we encounter, if it is necessary to know. But there can be no doubt that despite inconsistencies, the record is full of great and essential advice.

James 1: 5,6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Debby;

Even the catering van was real. Trump was in the entertainment business remember?

If a catering van is entertainment to you, so is "Dreams of My Father" by Oba'a.

Yes, a Trump TV show was entertainment, but Former President Oba'a and Michelle have a current production partnership with Netflix through their company, Higher Ground Productions. That's not entertainment? Try again.

Oh. Can't ignore SloJo, whose son, Punter, is in the entertainment business, too, specifically with investment by SloJo. Coke is entertainment, yes?

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT [from you #125

This is at least the second time you have lodged this complaint. It is unwarranted. This is an open forum, meaning that, short of personal attack, commentary by members is supposed to be accepted with wisdom and restraint, and specifically, "...argue in good faith rather than seek insulation from challenge." [from conclusion of CofC]

"Open" forum means something. Look it up. I've already suggested this to you when you threw this at me in this thread

SergeantLynch"

you do have something of a record for denigrating women of power and women of colour...So you must "care" a bit.

Wrong. Do not put words in my mouth I have never said. I have had a habit of denigrating Kamamlala, NOT because she is black, for which I don't care, but because I've observed her as an alleged public servant [but really just Willie Brown's toy, and completely vacant, head-wise] since her days as San Francisco DA to today. I've already said this several times before. News to you. She was given power, but has never, ever used it properly. And, no, to confirm, vis-a-vie Kasmalala, I do not care one bit for those reasons.

SergeantLynch:

Woke is to be woke aware

Woke is past tense, by either number assigned by AOC. Go see her to define the terms, because I am not woke, never have been nor, will ever be since it is living by staring into the rearview mirror. That's progress?

You expect that I am supposed to give you permission to respond, or tell you what your response should be? If you cannot make those decisions yourself, I can't help you. Yes, Woke 1 and Woke 2. That's Occasional Cortex [AOC}-speak, so go see her to "suppose" your response.

definition of each word is a choice.

And I have told you that word definition is NOT a matter of choice any more than the traditional definition of gender, which, before the radical 60s when psychiatry went psycho, aligned with cis gender; gender at birth. There should not be any distinction between sex, gender, and cis-gender; therefore, is just another case of adding a word to the lexicon when unnecessary. If definition is a matter of choice, we can no longer grammatically advise that one say or write what they mean, and mean what they say/write, and expect explicit understanding by others. The result of definition by choice is chaos, and that is destructive to civilization.

Who in this string said you were woke? Other than you, no one here has mentioned you. That's like saying you went to the store just now to buy raisins. So what?

To Debby [referring to your #26 & #48]

Repetition without distinction of difference or purpose is a clear sign of something or another

So because definition of word "female" and "woman" is a choice, your translation is incorrect for anyone who chooses differently.

You have ignored what I have also said, and you seem to ignore it: We cannot choose the definition of words unless it can be demonstrated that a new definition applies. Woke is not a sufficient cause for redefinition.

As for the difference between "female" and "woman," it is obvious: "woman" is a sub-set of "female" because girls from pre-birth to the age of majority are not women; "woman" is an adult-specific designation. Girls are, however, also female, or feminine. If for no other reason, we distinguish girls from women for legal conditions, but also for social reasons. Girls are a separate social status than women, but the line blurs when speaking of debutantes, which can be any female from 18 to 21, the range when a female enters a primarily adult society.

Most people who claim science supports their belief in physicalism, upon examination, are in the end, flatly unscientific.

It appears what you're saying is that not only what "exists" and is "real" are undefinable, but what "science" is, as well. Said another way, it's as Bill Clinton testified in his grand jury testimony almost exactly 28 years ago [on Aug. 17]: "'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.'"

I knew he was a better president than what Republicans were trying to paint him! In short, I might accuse Repubs of creating the conditions under which "woke" was allowed to generate. I knew somebody had to be at fault! And that has led to a new thread I started just a few minutes ago in "Current Events"

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!

And your conclusion is, effectively, in agreement with what you [your #1] & I [my #15] originally said. mutual appreciation society?

A new cancer is upon us while SloJo, in his 2020 election campaign, promised to eliminate cancer, just as he promised to eliminate fossil fuels.

Well, fossil fuel is alive and well [contrary to "green energy," it is organic, after all], while Joe's cancer condition [both personally and by eradication claim] is... ?

But the cancer may have far more effect on more people than Joe ever thought he might be able to cure. That cancer? Woke.

It has metastasized, now being referred to by the very people who have contracted the disease, as "Woke 1," and they even implicate a "Woke 2," as if it needed to be a numbered series, at all.

Something like Dr[?] Fauci's COVID gain-of-function generations.

God help us if woke acquires gain-of-function!

There is an obvious phenomenon that woke TDS has completely ignored that is as progressive in its negating effects as woke is itself: Occam's Razor.

Give me a good idea from the Communist Manifesto. You claim they exist. Example, pls.

There's much more than 100 years of observation of the ideas of socialism/communism. These ideas have been around since Eden. They don't work, period. Since 1848, specifically [Marxism], it has never lasted more than a human lifetime, and I predict it never will.

Debby:

Black Slaves were not paid reparation, that is a fact and a stain American history.

There is no stain. See my post #9. Some have sought to amend the Constitution to alter the wording of Article I, but, to date, those efforts have failed, and should. Like it or not, in the eighteenth century, slavery was not illegal. Immoral, yes, but civilization is not driven by morality alone, given our wide variation of what constitutes morality.

Reparations, in the case of modern compensation by the US for its history of slavery is unconstitutional. See Article I, section 9, clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Look up the meaning of "ex post facto law." Slavery, in the eighteenth century, was not illegal, and did not become so in the U.S. until the passage of the 13A in 1865. So the demand, and the payment of reparations for that purpose, is now illegal.

However, it is also illegal to expect all Muslims to pay for reparations for 9/11 since not all Muslims are responsible for the destruction caused on 9/11 by a few of them. Those few, only, are responsible, and over the ensuing 25 years, the US has officially been engaged in bringing those responsible to justice.

Yeah, thats a strawman on your part.

And? Are strawmen out-of-bounds in this forum? Show me. One man's accusation of strawman is another's steel rod, which merely says mutual understanding may be lacking.

https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct

I don't see "THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT" as either a negative or positive feature of the CoC. Show me that I am compelled to be strictly held to the discussion of the thread title as written.

As a matter of fact, you diverted, yourself, from that thread title to discuss, in your 2nd paragraph of the #1 post, "I want to give you an idea of who I am. I was an evolutionist, but Christ changed me into a Christian" which I don't think says squat to the big bang theory being a leap of faith, or not. It is faith which I discussed ion my #75, isn't it? So, in response to your #114, it's mirror time. Take a look.

The fact is, having read the Bible, cover-to-cover, several times in three languages, I don't see that Christ discussed the Big Bang Theory, or anything close to it. So, it seems to me, it's a discussion of open-season as far as Christ, himself, may be inclined to allow to anybody. Why should he be concerned that we discuss anything that has yet to be revealed? It's why we were given curiosity.

I couldn't care less what color women are, how powerful they may be, or Putin, Trump, or any other strawman abilities you want to throw. Assumptions make asses of us all.

Your guess is wrong.

this is likewise false.

Based on what specific information you can cite? See below.

I am assuming you dont have experience as a translator.

Yes, you can assume whatever you like, but don't think assumptions are always correct. In this instance, you are not. I have never been professionally hired as a translator, but I am fluent in a few languages, among which I have personal translation capability. DNA is a language I do not understand as "written," but having had personal contact and discussion with one of its modern sources, I am aware that its language can be adequately understood and that DNA does, in fact, define biological sex, specifically, among other features. In that particular feature, it is "written" on chromosome #23 by the specific presence, or lack of the same, of the gene known as "SRY," which defines maleness, and creates the necessary anatomical and chemical features of that sex, or its lack, defining femaleness and its anatomy and chemistry. Take that to the bank. You can shove your "false" up your anatomy [that which is shared. In fact, about 98% of all human genes are shared between male and female, but the 2% differences are not, have not, and will not be changed by hormone, surgical, nor psychiatric treatment].

Trump has never told me a bloody thing. TDH?

I said, "It is not the purpose of one language to define words of other languages." "One language" is DNA. No, DNA is not English, nor French, Russian, or Chinese. It is a language of four ciphers. So, no, it does not say "woman." The "words" say the DNA equivalent of "human female," or "human male" when speaking of humanity. I've not changed my mind.

Is Debby ignorant of, or merely dismissive of, loyalty?

It is not the purpose of one language to define words of other languages. No, not a win, at all when you expect seemless definitions of words among and between all languages. Each language has its own lexicon. That they may say the same thing is always possible, but not always. Nothing created by man is perfect. And God is not the original creator of my body, nor any other person who has lived on Earth in mortality, born of a man and a woman.

Saying that "this is the law" isn't saying "this should be the law"

No shit. What is, is. What isn't, isn 't. Are we just figuring that out, now? But, as I said, I'm not talking about is, and isn 't. I'm talking about what was. The past. Yesterday, not today. Or tomorrow.

You don't see. That sums it up. Thanks.

DNA is not written in English, my friend, Surely, you know that.

"Woman" is the lead word in the dictionary, even the OED, for every word in it. I truncated to just the definition. I knew your response would be something like this if I did add "Woman" at the front.

Stop being a petulant child. You're better than this.