Sounds like the institution creating doubt is not marriage itself but the normalization of fornication. Societies that punish false accusers as one of the ordinary functions of justice do not have this problem.
Sorry, then I guess I meant chomos, as the assumption of criminality is always something that journalism standards indicate should be handled more cautiously. I keep forgetting how little standards are respected here.
Paleo has already ruled, and enforced, that his name and activity prevents him from being a mod. Double-checking I see that he's now the mod of WizardDuels again, so I'll report that. But that doesn't justify implicit threat of violence.
Well, the evidence of fusion is just like every evidence of missing link, purely speculative but required by an assumptive narrative. When reviewed as a whole, that (evolutionary) narrative assumes abiogenesis. Christianity also assumes abiogenesis, and proposes that it happened 10,000 times instead of once. The mathematical fact is that both theories are more improbable than all the 10^140 events in the known universe, for which mathematicians use the words "absurd" and "impossible". Therefore both theories involve some containing function that resolves the impossibility, such as anthropic principle, directed panspermia, deity, multiverse, math universe, etc. This observation removes the objection that evolution and Christianity are not on the same scientific level.
That is, the argument that 48 became 46 and the argument that 46 and 48 have a common origin are both tenable without further context. And, interestingly, neither one explains why 46 is special and 48 lacks evidence of the sentience we're interested in. So I'm not sure that that line actually helps the immediate inquiry I have, but it's certainly an interesting sidebar.
So if we ask whether that line of sentience was ever crossed with some other species, e.g. reptilian, we have two views, it arose from a nonsentient species, or it arose from an independent origin from some containing function (like the math universe) capable of originating sentience without mediation through other species. Clearly in both theories it's a separate genesis from sentience in primates, which indicates the arising of sentience is a more common event than we suspected. Now we don't need any of the interesting observation I just made to speak to that, because either way the origin is a bit of a mystery. The issue is evidence. The fine-tuning argument suggests that I, who recognize many incredible math marvels, ought to be more open to there being more out there; and in fact others who recognize the same and give different attribution also are open to there being more than the observed. But with cryptids we have this interesting kind of barrier that observation appears "blocked" in ways that observation of Komodo dragons isn't. That leads to speculation about this blocking mechanism, which neatly aligns with the Christian theory of Spirit, and can be aligned also with the M-theory of warped p-branes. So that's about as far as I've gotten, because the hypothesized cryptid would require some extradimensional protection for its existence that presupposes a background narrative and I don't have immediate inspiration on that. But having gotten inspired to start looking my experience is that the search is always rewarded. So my next steps are to look for evidence of humanoid reptilians (although evidence of sentient saurians or dragons generally would be connected!) and to review my cosmology for places to insert sentience besides humanity.
WAS perceivable...others distract ones perception with suggestions about what all IS.
Does one within all imply any traction for other?
All "was" perceivable
All perceived all?
What does name imply? Each thing named by one another. Only within all (sound) can name (word) be shaped.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The issue..inFORMation tempts one to hold onto; while inSPIRation forces form to let go of.
A time to get, and a time to lose.
A time to keep, and a time to cast away.
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together.
A time to be born, and a time to die.
Does form receive spirit and let go ghost? Does inspiration force form to receive?
I don't mind opposing, as long as we share the same goal, looking for truth..
Well said! Obviously I'm being nonspecific with evidence I've seen, and there are variations of explanation besides malnutrition, but if any humanoid skull had other than 46-chromosome DNA it'd be instant news.
I seek to be open-minded about Jesus. I'm pretty confident he's the Truth, but my knowledge is always growing and transforming, and if there is something more to Truth than my understanding of that man then I want and need to know it. I often agree with people who stop short of attributing the Truth they know to being Jesus, because Truth guides everyone to the same place eventually, and it's not up to me whether Truth hypothetically guides me away from Jesus. So if you prefer I don't lay Jesus on thick, I'm capable of doing that. I find that an anarchic situation like Conspiracies is one of the best places to challenge my views and refine those that are in fact mistaken.
Applying that to the subject, in the past month I've been exploring origin data that informs black holes and it actually connects to the idea of sentient cryptids in a way where I need to be more open to the subject. As I've said I've just entered the discovery phase of that idea and don't have significant thoughts about it, other than to shelve my prior reluctance to review the subject. So you've got me in a very receptive mood. Did you want to pick one or two primary lines of evidence of physical sentience beyond the 46-chromosome model, so that we could interact with them directly? Or did you want to focus on speciation within Homo that defies the genetic identity of interfertility?
You reply because you don't want to be distinguishable from someone being paid for clicks and replies. I reply because I don't care if I'm distinguishable. We are not the same.
Nice dodge, and not what you said; there's a difference between generic nazis and accused-by-you nazis. What do they teach in those schools nowadays?
Which USCCB region I-XV are you in? If you're not able to answer even a simple question like that, should I take your word for it that you're an American Catholic at all?
If you read through the OP, the female factor isn't present at all. By the same standards that other testimony is reviewed, the testimony about a unique Jesus requires either that he exists or that someone of equal moral and imaginative character must have existed so as to get such a unique legend going.
That is the worldview is based on this being the best worldview going, the most consistent in its morality and presuppositions (and eventually with respect to even your own issues of equal rights and justice for people in your position). The fact that it came up among a questionable people and with a historically questioned origin, and still propagated with more rapidity than any other worldview ever, because people found it greater truth and greater life than they had ever seen, indicates that the drawbacks become hostile witnesses in favor of the truth of the core.
Are you, sir, interested in pursuing the truth at all costs, or are you indistinguishable from a bot that uses the rights of, well, incels as a springboard to overturn all other pursuit of truth? You seem a person capable of answering a simple question like that.
You have opportunity to prove your assertions or to disprove other assertions. The fact that you do not do so is an abrogation of your Catholicism because you do not defend the faith but descend to mudslinging. Talk to your priest about it.
Has your priest authorized the use of slurs as terms of abuse? Should I look up confessional standards on that? I guess your conscience is also not pricked by initiating debate and fleeing from it, which appears as cowardice? Maybe the magisterium tells you to flee bad company but you keep coming here anyway because it hasn't taught you the basic principles of facts and logic present in Aquinas?
To measure implies artificially synthesizing what nature separates for analysis.
What implies natural synthesis? Form? Coagulation?
Being implies the secondary (seco; to divide) inference within first cause.
So all is? Primality and finality are implied? And all is perceived?
not something requiring a cosmetic (cosmos) name.
Is the name "All" a name?
Nature doesn't suggest information...it moves perceivable inspiration through each beings perception.
Do inspiration and information interact?
But if we don't do anything, who will?
My latest idea has been to encourage likeminded people to act with unity and to ignore those who are not likeminded. This too requires critical mass and planning, because in that scenario the good are considered as being in the minority and they have a greater challenge of having unity. The difference is that, as forum members know, having levers of power and apparent majority should be handled with one set of circumspections and transparencies, and not having them should be handled with another, and even though the two are continuous their tactical difference is real. So I may get back to the community about that.
a mod would help with removing chatbots
We could get a community rule that AI content is prohibited and the mods reserve the right to judge that content appears to include AI generation. But offhand that seems very abusable and could lead to the censorship we all hate.
Excellent, (0). Wanna make that into an OP for greater dissemination?
Well, I appreciate your propaganda sometimes having a little tastefulness to it, so I recognize that this playacting parody attempts to illustrate that a regime carrying out a war singlemindedly adheres to the narrative that its army commits essentially zero errors (as applied to the IDF). u/RealWildRanter has asked me to denounce such things, and of course I denounce all armies for doing this, because it seems impossible that above a certain size an army in this era can choose to afford full transparency. We can idealize about the army that someday is so transparent as to acknowledge, field, and collect social objections to its behavior in realtime and then to issue meaningful responses and even forms of appeal, but that's a long way off. For now these things parodied are being seriously investigated by the ICJ and (despite its globalist-chaotic purpose) that's the closest we have right now to formal resolution. Ranter's sources show that a Tehran panel believes Israel killed 44 Christians in this Gaza action by direct attack or (more) by wartime conditions, and like all Christian suffering in wartime (whether or not they are the targets) that's a travesty to be presented to God for reconciliation.
So this kind of information circumscription appears common to armies of all kinds of races, and is indeed a cabal problem that is ultimately only solved by leadership coming from within a broadly moral community that is able to be sensitive and responsive to all injustice. We continue to mourn the present world and look for its restoration every day.
When I know I have such unqualified approval from you, TINAE, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. God bless you.
^ too much to recognize
I don't recall confirming or denying that, Vlad.
I've looked at quite a few skeleton schematics as a complete amateur, they all meet this criterion. Denisovans are interesting, like pygmies are interesting.
I'd love postings anywhere about ancient evidence of humanoid reptilians.
I've discovered that believing in divine creation means actually explaining nothing by divine creation. Rather, it means knowing that everything has an explanation, and receiving those explanations when needed, and knowing (unlike the scientists) that there is always more to the unexplained. Scientists who pretend to being close to explaining everything belie themselves about their theories always containing some unexplained element. So the theist who is frank about all science containing an unexplained element should not get heat for it. Especially when he is willing to say an explanation for anything can be found in time (which doesn't contradict there always being an unexplained remainder). Rather than guess which details you're referring to, I'll let you ask if there is something you think I'm leaving unexplained to you.
Looking forward to your thoughts, as I intended to supplement and not to oppose.
Oh, I apologize. Something the Lord told me to adopt here was to dismiss nobody out of hand, so I've been learning that style, as my usual style is to totally ignore folks like that. But as an etymologist who knows at least half his etymologies are fake, I guess I got a little empathy for him.
It's up to you if you don't trust folks who seek to pre-evangelize everybody. Conspiracies is a great forum for excluding various groups of humans for simplicity's sake, so I don't fit in.
Note, Scott is not responsible for my views, which are solely those of Swamp Ranger 164.
I've discoursed with Will quite a lot. He likes to write like a bot before bots could write so well, but he's really in the category of people who invent their own language, limit themselves to it, and demand others learn it as better than their own. Though he says his contribution is "inspired" by criticisms of all religion, he's more minimalist than anti-theist, describing an impersonal All but somehow finding meaning in his daily routines anyway. That makes him open to pre-evangelism. He's actually much more nuanced than he used to be and a bit easier to follow, and he's mostly harmless.
Out of context claim: Obama bought livers and thymuses from aborted babies to create "BLT mice" that were tested for coronavirus mutations starting ca. 2015.
You too ACB. I'm not Scott, I'm an anon volunteering for him. Scott and I and others founded SwampRangers.com on 2021-01-01 and I ended up promoting the organization via media, so I found Scored (communities.win) as a result of J6 confusion, and it has slightly better organization than Gab. Turned out that God wanted me to do most of my promotion via a Bible study at c/Christianity here, much different than I expected.
Like I said, lacks evidence. Chimps having a vocabulary comparable to dolphins is interesting but doesn't get us three orders of magnitude higher. At the same time, the idea of consciousness and self-determination present in all animals does suggest a spectrum of organization, but doesn't explain finely-tuned gaps in the spectrum.
Anyway, was there a favorite skull you wanted me to look at, or did you want me to get a book off my shelf at random and speak to it? The thing is I don't have real books on reptilians, only on primates; it hadn't been on my radar much before, nor on that of the authors I mostly came across in the market. Of if you have pertinent questions about incidents of evidences (and coverups) I can interact with those. When I have time. I thought my next original post would be more detail on black holes (what I've put so far has only been hints), but don't know when or what it will be.