If you're child thought it was too risky to confront you with wrongdoing, what would you think?

It sounds like if it's risky, then he obviously knew he did wrong.

... it's a shame. The guy can't be trusted.

A trap, call me naive I don't get it? I mean there were at least six people from his campaign that were found guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.

Was he afraid to tell the truth you think?

I agree. Alll his posts seem to be either rants or axes to grind.

Who knows he could be a Fundamentalist in hiding testing his own ideas and using the forum (us) as a proving ground for his rants...

I could see if his posts were different but they're all about the excact same thing... .
I recommended to have him channel his anger in some sort of activism rather than clogging up the server space here LOL

He needs to find an outlet for the pent-up anger and I'm worried he might otherwise get violent.... this is a concern....

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report?

To avoid a perjury trap.

Why would you or he think that? I'm confused...

I just read the Washington Post. Looks like the whistleblower did not base their concern on that call. There were other calls.....Trump's in trouble now.

What do you think when the whistleblower and IG give testimony?

Do you think the transcript was watered down much like Nixon did, without the audio tapes?

BTW, why, I forgot to ask you, why didn't Trump give a personal interview/testimony during the Muller report?

Was he scared? He said he would welcome it. Why did he lie (again)?

Oh, ok, gotcha, thanks for that Echarmion! I think I'm remembering some of that...

I don't know why folks can't call it like it is. I mean , I was embarrassed for the country when Clinton and Monica 'hooked-up' in the oval office (do it after hours in a hotel at least).

I think with Trump, the negatives are outweighing the positives; he's not good for our country. I was praying for the guy that he could break free from some of the old political paradigm's that he said he was going to challenge...but he's just part of the problem now/not the solution.

He's part of the Swamp Team.

You certainly don't come across that way. My understanding of the Gnostics is that they endorsed Love and Spirituality....

Nope, I gave you some facts,hold on, I'll give you more in my next post....

Have you check the deficit lately?

Do you like his character viz. women?

Do you think he is a racist?

Is he really a good business man? He went belly-up numerous times; said in the campaign he was 'the king of debt, and settled out of court for discriminating against blacks. I have more facts if you want them.

How about at least 6 people from his campaign either in jail or otherwise pleaded guilty of wrong doing...

Are those the results a staunch member of the Grand Old Party would support?

You ok with that?

Oh, and I worked for the Government for a bunch of years.

Oh, did Mexico pay for the wall yet?

What is your definition of a 'moral man'? Was Jesus a 'moral man' too?

Ha yeah Frank! One thing I notice is that a lot of Trump supporters also, seem angry...go figure~ LOL

I'm confused, you're a liberal yet support Trump? How does that work?

Are you an angry Atheist?

"I just think it’s an irrelevant and stupid question.

Why do you want to know? "

I'm a Moderate Independent who draws good from both sides (with some minor exceptions of course).

Again, I'll ask, what are you? Far-right I'm guessing(?).

For example, would you like to own a machine gun or a rocket launcher or even a tank? Should that be made available to the public?

Was Reagan a Moderate?

Maybe answering some of those that will help me understand you.

Oh I think I'm understanding now. Are you an angry Atheist?

"Why do you want to know what I am?"

For a lack of a better word, are you embarrassed for some reason, or is it something else you don't care to disclose?

Are you a Christian? LOL

Can you answer the question? ( What are you?)

Dude, with all due respect, get over it man.

I understand the danger's of Fundamentalism/literal interpretations of the Bible and have your ear.
But why not take this same anger-energy and make glass-half-full changes, instead of glass-half-empty?

Are you an activist in your community? Have you ever thought of it? How about starting a Church?

God Bless you man, I'm just trying to help... .

Do you consider yourself a far-right white nationalist, or a far-right religious fundamentalist, or otherwise an extremist?

(The reason I ask is that a lot of folks from his base seem to be those kinds of people.)

Of course you mean far-right Fundamentalist's, no? At least that seems to be the target of your interminable axe to grind... .

Free yourself, become a Christian Existentialist like me! (In layman's terms: Spirituality.)

Yes, I agree to your first point.

The idea of Hell is another Bible translation error. So you're okay!

I think it's probably time for him to step down, no?

If you look at it objectively, the minuses are now beginning to outweigh the positives.

The GOP should try for a moderate republican instead...yes?

You said: "Sure, ones POV will change when one changes ones view of what god is."

So I think you answered your own question. The Christian God did not condemn us, we humans condemned him.

Yep, agreed!

By definition, it assumes that a Deity can do or be, both logical and illogical or possible and impossible things.

Those unresolved paradox's are clues to the probability of that description or idea, and can be reasonably inferred as such. Good points!!

Yeah, good point. In the absence of a tape, it's the whistle blower and his boss' ( who ironically was appointed by trump) testimony that will likely be more persuasive.

Awesome questions! It reminds me of that movie (can't remember the name but it had Gene Wilder in it with a bunch of brains in a jar lab talking to one another).

Because I think that God is Spirit only, my instinct is telling me that he is both male and female. Which of course is consistent with the paradox of self-reference, thus defying logic.

Of course the closest we come to that 'physically' is the phenomenon known as 'ambiguous genitalia babies'.

...sure. It's all about where the priorities are... .

The official reason though is that it's apparently cheaper to give aid to that Soviet Union-bordering country than to fight wars, boots on the ground, and other aggression, etc...

And yes everyone in the global community needs to do their part. The problem is he apparently mixed partisan election politics.

It's unfortunately laughable since now he is part of the undrainable Swamp Team.

We need more Moderates in our political and religious institutions!

Until consciousness can be explained, mystery is alive and well!

It's sad to say but unfortunately the transcripts will probably be doctored up. Very reminiscent of the Watergate situation where Nixon doctored up transcripts.

But when the tape came out, that's when Nixon resigned.

By the way I'm a moderate independent.

Don't mean to double-team, but indeed you've hit a nerve there:

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Some atheists should take a chill-pill and use a little common sense. I think one can safely infer that God is spirit, and not 'a man'. But I suppose that would be Metaphysical LOL.

Not really. It can be interpreted metaphorically that Father's are traditionally the protectors of the family, and historically the bread-winners. God is proclaiming Himself as our protector and supplier.

In the NT there are passages that state God is not a man, but rather a Spirit. (1 John 4:12 say, "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." In Exodus 33:20 God says, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.")

However, in the Bible we see masculine pronouns and responsibilities in order to reveal Himself to us. By using the male titles, God supposedly made it easier for us to understand Him [Jesus]. But there again, there are translation issues, lost gospels, early church politics, and other information that could have shed better light on that... .

"2. Anything with a design is created by an intelligent designer."

I think that statement is more highly probable than not. For instance, why would someone create a watch, if it confers no survival advantages? To make our quality of life better?

And most importantly, why should we care or even wonder about it(?).

In a phrase, Metaphysics is : Theories about theories.

The next question could be, are any of those 'theories' probabilities(?).


As you were.... .

I hope you had a great weekend Solvedit! Thank you for that careful analysis. As we both know explaining consciousness or conscious states of Being is very much a reductionist challenge to say the least. There is a lot to unpack, but let's take one at a time.

I agree, here's where we have agreement; you said:

"Are we aware of our levels of awareness?

I believe it is the last one we are trying to identify with..." Are we aware of "our" levels or focus of awareness as it relates to a combination of activities set in motion at varying moments in time.

Where does our levels of mental awareness go when involved in more than two different activities?"

Solvedit, as we know self-consciousness and self-awareness is generally thought of as the big distinction between us and lower life forms. It's still a mystery in and of itself. But it is that very existential thing, that creates the kinds of contradictions I've been trying to explain. For example, consider the following statements:

Socrates: "What Plato is about to say is false."
Plato: "Socrates has just spoken truly."


Which statement is true?

I'm sure I'm missing something because it can't be this easy. To re-word what Poetic said: all events must have a cause.

Let's assume there's a high probability that that's true. Then wouldn't that also assume that energy created is never lost?

Excellent post, subscribed!!!