Jesus Christ didn't refute the law of Moses. If Moses allowed divorce, Jesus Christ didn't change that, and if you would like you can try to prove otherwise.
— christian2017

I did not say he changed anything. Thanks for the deflection. I said he endorsed a no divorce policy and it is an unjust policy. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Listen.... I said he didn't change anything. He didn't change the law of Moses. He simply said that even Moses (or God if you will) preferred no divorce. My assumption was you would make that very small leap in thought.

I actually never said you said that but that you fall into the profile of someone who might say something like that. I actually never literally accused you of saying that. You appear to be more open minded than i originally though
— christian2017

Was that an apology?

You show how uncouth you are. A gentleman would just apologise and shut the hell up. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Listen (ooooooooh you make me soooo angry and now i have to change this expletive), no one this forum ever apologizes. Neither of us are gentlemen. Good luck finding a gentleman on this forum. I'm sure there is one somewhere on here.

I was simply saying that you weren't as close minded as i originally thought.

Sex and the heart are closely linked is why divorce should not be taken lightly.
— christian2017

Hogwash. Sex is cheep these days as shown with the V D stats in so called Christian nations and every pick up bar and internet fuck buddy site. Jez, do you live in a hole somewhere? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you implying modern christian don't read the Bible (including Proverbs chapter 1 KJV)? I agree.

Matthew 19 doesn't say not to have a divorce. Where do you see that? Jesus Christ said himself he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Matthew 19 doesn't say don't have a divorce but that it is not something to enter into lightly.
— christian2017

It is inferred. But ok.

if you do not grasp that, tell us what was the law in the beginning that Jesus was endorsing if not a no divorce policy that the Church later enforced and codified.

Was it, what god has put together let no man put asunder, or whatever the Christian phrase was? IOW, no divorce. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Different as the Christian Yahweh is different from the Jewish version.
Islam says that Mohammad is a prophet of the same god. The final prophet.
Strange that we are talking the beginning and interpretations in Islam, yet the link I gave you is irrelevant when it ties Yahweh's angel to Mohammad.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop
You are, I am not, I was simply pointing out how the claim is logically impossible. I am sorry about your apparent reading comprehension problem.

You are too stupid for me. Done here.
— Gnostic Christian Bishop
Yeah, I feel the same way. — Nobeernolife

Jesus Christ was/is a lawyer, he would understand the need for caveats. "The church", are you referring to the Roman Papacy? Millerism is similar to previous protestant "study of the end times" interpretations but most would say Millerism is flawed but has true aspects. In short the Roman Papacy is a product of satan which is not to say that there are many saved catholics (large or small subset).

Jesus Christ didn't refute the law of Moses. If Moses allowed divorce, Jesus Christ didn't change that, and if you would like you can try to prove otherwise. Are you familiar with Proverbs chapter 1 (KJV)?

As for Ecclesiastes and some of the writings of Solomon, if you read ecclesiastes, the author says in the first chapter that these writings are subsidariary to much of the rest of the Bible. Read the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. This is why Jesus Christ was given authority to argue with some or all of the writings of Solomon. "Eat drink and be merry" isn't always bad advice but Jesus Christ argued there are better alternatives if the person was willing or even in some cases forced to take those paths.

If Moses allowed divorce which he did, Jesus Christ was simply saying that the pharisees (and people like that) were taking the issues of the sex and the heart far too lightly. As you well know divorce is not a light issue.

to add to the previous comment, linguistic analyis is built off of definitions. Etymology (a sub field) can be tricky but not all of linguistic analysis is etymology.

I would argue all fields of study (personality, psychology and physics) can be broken down to linguistic analysis. Considering the dictionary definition of 5 is 4 + 1(all math is built off of simple defintions going all the way up to the complex defintions), all logic and reason and even our personalities can be broken down into extremely small parts called definitions.

If we spent a ridicoulous and perhaps sometimes an impractical amount of time on any subject or field of study, we could find exactly what the cause or solution to any problem is.

Mathematics can be understood with definitions and linguistics then so can anything.

Mohammad listened to what angel who he said dictated the Quran?

That angel was first mention as being Yahweh's. Right?
— Gnostic Christian Bishop

If i claimed to be a devout christian, that doesn't mean i'm a devout christian nor does what i claim to be mean that that is what i am. — christian2017

Irrelevant? You felt the need to mention that Gabriel was claimed to have appeared before Mohomad. My statement to your statement is relevant if the original statement about Gabriel is relevant.

Where did Jesus say no divorce.
— christian2017

Matthew 19:8 King James Version
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Sex and the heart are closely linked. Why would you say otherwise?
— christian2017

Where did I say that?

I did not. Get the quote as words matter. Right?

Especially like here where you lie.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Matthew 19 doesn't say not to have a divorce. Where do you see that? Jesus Christ said himself he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Matthew 19 doesn't say don't have a divorce but that it is not something to enter into lightly.

Sex and the heart are closely linked is why divorce should not be taken lightly. I actually never said you said that but that you fall into the profile of someone who might say something like that. I actually never literally accused you of saying that. You appear to be more open minded than i originally thought.

Where did i lie? You love to accuse people of lying on this forum.

The "muslim perception" stems from the Koran and the Haddith, which are all based on one single man, who in islamic doctrine is the perfect human being to emulated in every way. "The muslims" simply follow what this man said and did, which he claimed was dictated by Allah.

Stop trying to obfuscate the picture with weasel words. — Nobeernolife

Correct.

Mohammad listened to what angel who he said dictated the Quran?

That angel was first mention as being Yahweh's. Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

If i claimed to be a devout christian, that doesn't mean i'm a devout christian nor does what i claim to be mean that that is what i am.

Correct, and you opined on issues that Jesus did not oppose without naming them.

There are also issues he did oppose, like the Christian/Jewish no divorce for women and that really vile substitutional punishment policies.

See how it's done?

Words matter, a term you use, while ignoring to put words worthy of thought and impossible to rebut. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Maher doesn't agree with you in the strictest sense on Islam and Christianity. We can start from there. You tried to lump Maher on your side with that.

Jesus didn't say no divorce, he said that divorce isn't a light issue. Where did Jesus say no divorce. Sex and the heart are closely linked. Why would you say otherwise?

Oh my that is dark. I didn´t mean to say tobacco infects you, I just meant that tobacco is bad for the lungs, and Corona attacks the lungs. Most old guys in China are heavy smokers.... — Nobeernolife

You won't have to look hard in this modern age nor on a philosophy forum to find "dark". Depression is common in this modern age. #Shark_Fighter_Nation. Suicide is very high these days. But there are alternatives.

I'm worried about my children's health. I welcome cancer as it pertains to tobacco. I don't think tobacco will necessarily infect me nor my children with the corona virus. My family is better off with me dead.

No Beer No Life. Does that mean you do drink beer or you don't? I use tobacco mainly but i have nothing against drinking alcohol other than it can get out of hand for some people.

Maher in that video clearly stated that Islam and Christianity have very critical differences. Maher is not a big fan of Christianity but he sees it as a big improvement over Islam. Spectrum.

He probably favors atheism and on a different subject socialism.

The pharisees adhered to the first 5 books of the old testament to some measure but they also had other books such as the Talmud and to some extent the Kabbalah. Words matter. Jesus Christ didn't oppose the first 5 books of the old testament. He opposed alot of the things in the Talmud and the Pharasee tradition.

Once again, words matter.

Christianity and Islam share the same DNA so it should not surprise anyone that they are close in ideology. They are both fascist.

I question both religions on moral issue and all I see are moral cowards who fear judging their gods justly. Cowards can never be moral.

I did look a that video but think I was given the wrong role by Nobeernolife.

I am more like Maher except I get a bit more vulgar when it comes to the genocidal prick Christians worship. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I disagree. Maher apparently is willing to read an article and has the ability to understand that not everything Hollywood portrays as true is true.

Correct. Life is extremely complex. Words matter. They need to understand that understanding requires reading.

Correct. Life is extremely complex. Words matter.

Jesus told the Pharicees they had the wrong concept of who God is. Do you understand what I am getting at. Typed from my phonE

I actually know alot about Islam. In terms of sexual morality, Mohomad has alot of similarities to the modern Roman Catholic Church. Mohomad had extremely strange sexual practices.

Islam is highly questionable.

Did you see Bill Maher's video about the relationship between christianity and islam? Another user posted it earlier.

Watch this little skit and come back and tell us what major differences you see between right wing Christians and right wing Muslims. You might think that because Muslims kill their apostates, they are better than Christians, but remember that when Christian Jesus returns, he is to kill all apostate. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I watched that cartoon. Do you have an article as opposed to a video with more meat in it? Videos waste alot of time whereas articles can be more easily scrutinized.

Talking about little video clips, since your views pretty much represent the ill-informed leftist intellectual majority in the West, you might want to watch this little clip. The interviewer seems to be a good representation of you: — Nobeernolife

ROFL

Piaget wrote that the nature of nature was to overcome itself, the point being that from Piaget's point of view there is no dichotomy between the aims of humanity and those of nature. There is no divide at all. We are nothihg but a further development of the aims of nature itself as self-transformation. Nature is artifice through and through. — Joshs

I'm not going to go into why i disagree with you on alot of this (you can probably figure it out). However as far as the OP is concerned, this answer is completely sufficiient without delving into my favorite "religion".

Also, if we're going to commit shoddy errors of reasoning perhaps we can at least get the geneaological facts straight - Linnaeus dubbed us homo sapiens not because we have the exclusive capacity of thought - he was not so arrogant as to believe this - but for the far more humbling fact that he could not distinguish for us any defining charcateristics other than the circular fact that humans are those who recognize themselves as such - hence the single, pithy, Socratic line that he scribbed next to Homo Sapiens in the Systema Naturae: nosce te ipsum, know theyself. As he asked elsewhere of a critic: "I ask you and the entire world to show me a generic difference between ape and man which is consistent with the principles of natural history. I most certainly do not know of any". — StreetlightX

Humans might not be intelligent but we are the most intelligent and with abstract thought comes serious depression. Typically animals that are capable of abstract thought are more likely to commit suicide.

On a side note there are alternatives to suicide #Shark_Fighter_Nation or fight a rattle snake with a pair of garden shears or go join the Peace Corp.

Anyway Noah Harrari wrote a book called Sapiens and it basically says humans can coordinate among millions (as opposed to the Ape's 150 ape groups) because we believe fiction and this fiction allows us to coordinate. He basically says humans are wise because we allow ourselves to collectively believe lies.

I do believe there is a possibility this is 100% (rather than 80%) true.

Are you familiar with Calculus? The point at which a car is traveling down a road when it passes a stop sign is similar to a derivative. I feel you might be parsing words with the whole notion that there is not an exact position. 1 + 1 = 2 is stored in your mind and my mind somewhere. I'm not sure arguing against exact position adds anything to the conversation. The earth and our galaxy are flying through space but that doesn't mean something else isn't occupying the spot in space that your cat was at in your house 20 minutes ago. I do support special relativity as well as general relativity (as for the latter to the extent to which i understand it).

It should also be noted that a free market is to some degree contigent on whether a nation wants to have a global international bean counter free market where 1% of the population has 85% of the world's financial currency. This is how it is now.

Or

Do we want each nation to have less goods to have sold in its markets but each person has access to real jobs that pay a higher wage that can buy them a moderate life style.

I would argue there are ways to make either of these options work, through the use of building codes that reflect the international or in the case of the latter local markets.

I believe modernized building codes is the key to making globalism (the current path) work.

However i'm not against Trump's anti-globalist policies.

I do however see that many of the people in that pdf would like us to see the international bean counter's interests as some sort of normal set of interests that some how have a linear (as opposed to exponential or inverse exponential) relationship to the guy who works as a line cook at a restaurant.

Once again i would like to stress that modernized building codes that take into account globalized buidling materials available in the market, is an alternative to fretting over whether this world continues down the current path of increasing globalization.

As we all know restricting a market by trying to limit foreign goods (key word limit but not completely prohibit) will raise prices on that good, however this can benefit the typical worker in the sense that it creates factory jobs. It also makes things more complicated for those depending on that good. What we must remember is that if we are rejecting globalism to some measure, as long as we are getting food, clothing and shelter and at the same time keeping with a free market, there is no way around the set backs associated with ant-globalism, if anti-globalism was our original goal.

The software industry is saturated in the sense that other than Artificial intelligence and video games, most software has already been written. Most business logic has be written and rewritten 10,000 times over which is why software such as SalesForce and others have been created.

To continue down the globalist path (which started largely over 200 years ago with the industrial revolution) will push us towards a hybrid socialist/capitalist society that will very much resemble modern China. I do however believe embracing modernized building codes adjusted for globalized factory material production saturation or in other words adjusted for whatever benefits there are due to modern globalism, we can push back a global socialist government.

I believe after some period of time (5 years or 500 years) total globalization will occur and we will have the dreaded socialism many of us hate.

As with any complex system or "engine" the amount of variables can be astronomical. It isn't so much that there isn't absolute truth but that the absolute truth is hard to get a hold of. A system with 100 variables is easier to measure or predict than a system with 10 million or 10 trillion variables. Each variable can be hard to judge or discern in and of itself.

This problem would have to be systematically addressed piece by piece. Part of the problem we are all facing is many of us get our idea of how the world works from over simplistic hollywood movies.

I do believe there are free market ways around supporting someone like Trump, however Trump opposes globalism because anti globalism leads to more factories in each individual nation. This ofcourse leads to $200 toasters but i believe most people would be happier with a more suitable income but at the same time owning less stuff.

I'm not going to systematically go through that pdf at this point in time. I'm sure you are capable of of breaking a complex problem into 30,000 parts. I'm speaking to the quire but you take a large problem and break it down into layers and each layer is broken down into even smaller and smaller layers until the bottom of the "pyramid" is extremely simple concepts. As you well know absolutely everything in existence can be quantified and applied to a spectrum including a person's personality.

With modernized building codes (as well as zoning laws to some degree) adjusted for globalized factory material production saturation, we could have a much higher population in the U.S. than we do. Obviously when populations get to be like in Japan (as opposed to the current U.S. population), there will have to be more creative solutions to deal with dense populations and the economy.

Canada, Siberia and even currently the U.S. have plenty of land and cold temperatures to handle a more dense population. Global warming isn't a problem in some parts of the world. Having an effective economy with the desire for a free market is possible if land is properly used.

Electric trike lanes are great for a free market and some people claim for whatever reason that it is good for the environment.

There is no need for population control in many countries through out the world.

They think so much that relativism kicks in but they are unable to handle it. That's why they say crazy things. That quote was from Chesterton but could have been from Jung. — Gregory

Yeah i think that about sums it up. I find that many people who embrace relativism in its many and numerous forms mistake it for some enlightened and open minded point of view. Thats not to say some things involve alot of relativity and ofcourse just about everything can have a spectrum applied to it.

I'm at lunch so I'm not going to argue all the way back to the original bear example. But yes I agree there is a time delay and or an iteration of events delay before anything in the future occurs for everything. Stated the way you just said it I agree

I've said multiple times what I was arguing against. Do you remember the bear example you gave? Once again, libets experiment doesn't dictate or certainly not in every case that fear does not come before the person runs from the bear. This basic notion of mine falls in line with libets and with an ordinary understanding of reality. I stated this general argument several times. You are looking for something in libets experiment that isn't there. Not every reality or truth in this universe has to have some strange twist. I do agree however the realities of scientific determinism or determinism are likely but believe it or not that is a separate issue from the bear example.

Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[10][11]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 20 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered).

This doesn't support the "bear" example the way you like but it does point towards determinism or scientific determinism. The latter i would agree with.

I read the important parts of Libet experiment and i also believe in scientific determinism (and the rejection of the classical look of how free will works). I have no problem with the findings of the Libet experiment. The problem is you have drawn conclusions that cannot be drawn from the Libet experiment. Humans may not have a say in their future decisions based on billiards table effect of the universe, but your interpretation of the "bear" example is not found in the Libet experiment.

what keywords do i google? You made a two sentence statement so i'm not sure what to google.

You try again, you forgot to say what exactly do you believe doesn't line up with reality. In the meantime I will repeat what I sad. Experience is a synthetic virtual representation of the physical state of the body. This simulation processing takes time, so it is only natural that physical reaction comes first and mental re-imagination of it second. — Zelebg

People's reactions and emotions are very complex. You treat the human psyche as though we are an insect. What is your article that supports what you said. If i told Frank that i was going to go to his house in a week and shoot him, there is a good chance he would be scared before running. I've actually been held at gun point delivering pizzas and the human psyche and what goes on in our heads is very complex. Not that this is pertinent but i ran both robbers off. What medical journal supports that you run first and get scared later. Most medical journals would support that the human psyche is very complex. What you are proposing is much more controversial than what i'm proposing so if anyone should have to prove themselves it should be you. Do you have an article?

Nope. Try again. Perhaps you are misinterpreting WebMD or is that your own philosophy? That doesn't line up with reality

Also, you don’t run from a bear because you’re scared. You get scared when your body starts to run. Reaction first, experience second, or it might be too late. It’s also why people often do or say things they don’t “really” mean. — Zelebg

I can promise you even people who stay and don't run from the bear are still scared, its not that simple.

Collective consceeennce or collective soul. Its actually very popular among new agers and also others. I can't entirely deny it either myself. I've come up with my own potential variation that doesn't collide with the pail of orthodoxy. I'm not going to waste your time with my version. Yeah but either collective consceeeence or collective soul.

oh ok.