Burl

25 years in NO. Late '70's to almost the end of the century. Lived Uptown, Mid-city, Broadmoor, Quarters. Now in Central Florida.

No, a dialog is not where one person asks all the questions. This was an interrogation. A dialog is two-sided. Tia did not drill the microphone guy on his belief structure. That would have been a dialog. A good example is In debate no questions are allowed. Each party presents their case for or against the proposal and the auditors judge the presentations. A good example is I am willing to engage in a proper online debate here on any topic of interest.

Poor Tia is just indoctrinated, naïve and undereducated. For dialog all parties need to put forward their axioms and postulates. This interviewer is just trolling Tia into looking foolish. Note how the troll always asks questions without ever making a positive contribution. He just barbs Tia with questions, and is deliberately trying to make her appear ignorant. The interviewer works from a hidden agenda. He trolls Tia into following his lead and is always looking for her weak spots while being careful to avoid making any statement of his own thoughts and opinions. The troll avoids an honest, two-way comparison of ideas. He just wants to lure Tia into embarassing herself.

Sorry about the response lag here. I'm on a mini vacay to NY for the wedding of an old friend and finding time for a thoughtful response is difficult. "Lies, damned lies and statistics". http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~ricko/CSE3/Lie_with_Statistics.pdf The most common statistical error I find is a faulty assumption that the variables are normally distributed. Normal distributions are rare (Prieto distributions are much more common) and assuming that the arithmetic mean is the best measure of central tendency. ANOVA/MANOVA analyses are worthless if the variables do not conform to a normal distribution. It is also very uncommon for randomly selected control groups to be truly random. There is also a common inferential conclusion that group results can be applied to individuals. "You are 50% more likely to get health problem X if you do or do not do Y". This error is similar to the gambler's fallacy.

Haven't read the book. It may be possible to scientifically determine the physical conditions which are required for the creation of matter but only if matter is actually created. This "piecing together" of science by unscientific means is where the dragons lie. Extrapolation, generalization, correlation, probabilities and other methods of informed guesstimation are often incorrectly passed off as science.

No. A debate is a comparison of facts and observations. When one party avoids making definitive statements and simply needles the other party that is trollage and not debate or discussion. The fundamental requirement is to always put new information on the table. Oxford style debates function quite well without any questions whatsoever.

So your question is, "Is it proper to ask a question?"? Yes, but the person being questioned is not obligated to respond.

What is your point, Rom? This discussion was over a month ago. Do not ask a question. Make a constructive statement and we can proceed from there.

What is specifically it that seems difficult? Science is based on data collected through repeated, controlled observation. If there is no data, no repeatability or no observation there is no science.

Number of years "working in science" is meaningless. Is a person who has worked in nutrition for 46 years qualified to question a chef or a farmer?

Hey baby, quois ça dit? Where 'yat? Opelousas? Gran Mamou? 'Tit Mamou? Erath? Maringoin? Lacassigne? Carencro? Or the big city? Tell Boudreaux an Trosclair I said hi!

Matthew 9:35-10:23 35-38 Then Jesus made a circuit of all the towns and villages. He taught in their meeting places, reported kingdom news, and healed their diseased bodies, healed their bruised and hurt lives. When he looked out over the crowds, his heart broke. So confused and aimless they were, like sheep with no shepherd. “What a huge harvest!” he said to his disciples. “How few workers! On your knees and pray for harvest hands!” The Twelve Harvest Hands 10 1-4 The prayer was no sooner prayed than it was answered. Jesus called twelve of his followers and sent them into the ripe fields. He gave them power to kick out the evil spirits and to tenderly care for the bruised and hurt lives. This is the list of the twelve he sent: Simon (they called him Peter, or “Rock”), Andrew, his brother, James, Zebedee’s son, John, his brother, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, the tax man, James, son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon, the Canaanite, Judas Iscariot (who later turned on him). 5-8 Jesus sent his twelve harvest hands out with this charge: “Don’t begin by traveling to some far-off place to convert unbelievers. And don’t try to be dramatic by tackling some public enemy. Go to the lost, confused people right here in the neighborhood. Tell them that the kingdom is here. Bring health to the sick. Raise the dead. Touch the untouchables. Kick out the demons. You have been treated generously, so live generously. 9-10 “Don’t think you have to put on a fund-raising campaign before you start. You don’t need a lot of equipment. You are the equipment, and all you need to keep that going is three meals a day. Travel light. 11 “When you enter a town or village, don’t insist on staying in a luxury inn. Get a modest place with some modest people, and be content there until you leave. 12-15 “When you knock on a door, be courteous in your greeting. If they welcome you, be gentle in your conversation. If they don’t welcome you, quietly withdraw. Don’t make a scene. Shrug your shoulders and be on your way. You can be sure that on Judgment Day they’ll be mighty sorry—but it’s no concern of yours now. 16 “Stay alert. This is hazardous work I’m assigning you. You’re going to be like sheep running through a wolf pack, so don’t call attention to yourselves. Be as cunning as a snake, inoffensive as a dove. 17-20 “Don’t be naive. Some people will impugn your motives, others will smear your reputation—just because you believe in me. Don’t be upset when they haul you before the civil authorities. Without knowing it, they’ve done you—and me—a favor, given you a platform for preaching the kingdom news! And don’t worry about what you’ll say or how you’ll say it. The right words will be there; the Spirit of your Father will supply the words. 21-23 “When people realize it is the living God you are presenting and not some idol that makes them feel good, they are going to turn on you, even people in your own family. There is a great irony here: proclaiming so much love, experiencing so much hate! But don’t quit. Don’t cave in. It is all well worth it in the end. It is not success you are after in such times but survival. Be survivors! Before you’ve run out of options, the Son of Man will have arrived.

The original Heathens! Topic was lost in the last software upgrade.

Hi Paul, You have at least four questions there, so I will pick one. Compare and contrast with this verse: How might these two verses relate to each other?

Matthew 9:9-26 9 Passing along, Jesus saw a man at his work collecting taxes. His name was Matthew. Jesus said, “Come along with me.” Matthew stood up and followed him. 10-11 Later when Jesus was eating supper at Matthew’s house with his close followers, a lot of disreputable characters came and joined them. When the Pharisees saw him keeping this kind of company, they had a fit, and lit into Jesus’ followers. “What kind of example is this from your Teacher, acting cozy with crooks and riffraff?” 12-13 Jesus, overhearing, shot back, “Who needs a doctor: the healthy or the sick? Go figure out what this Scripture means: ‘I’m after mercy, not religion.’ I’m here to invite outsiders, not coddle insiders.” Kingdom Come 14 A little later John’s followers approached, asking, “Why is it that we and the Pharisees rigorously discipline body and spirit by fasting, but your followers don’t?” 15 Jesus told them, “When you’re celebrating a wedding, you don’t skimp on the cake and wine. You feast. Later you may need to pull in your belt, but not now. No one throws cold water on a friendly bonfire. This is Kingdom Come!” 16-17 He went on, “No one cuts up a fine silk scarf to patch old work clothes; you want fabrics that match. And you don’t put your wine in cracked bottles.” Just a Touch 18-19 As he finished saying this, a local official appeared, bowed politely, and said, “My daughter has just now died. If you come and touch her, she will live.” Jesus got up and went with him, his disciples following along. 20-22 Just then a woman who had hemorrhaged for twelve years slipped in from behind and lightly touched his robe. She was thinking to herself, “If I can just put a finger on his robe, I’ll get well.” Jesus turned—caught her at it. Then he reassured her: “Courage, daughter. You took a risk of faith, and now you’re well.” The woman was well from then on. 23-26 By now they had arrived at the house of the town official, and pushed their way through the gossips looking for a story and the neighbors bringing in casseroles. Jesus was abrupt: “Clear out! This girl isn’t dead. She’s sleeping.” They told him he didn’t know what he was talking about. But when Jesus had gotten rid of the crowd, he went in, took the girl’s hand, and pulled her to her feet—alive. The news was soon out, and traveled throughout the region.

Right, Jung was a Freudian. He later expanded on Freud and is now considered a neo-Freudian along with Adler, Erikson and Horney. Jung was psychotherapeutic and he built on the Freudian principles of the symbolic/dream experience of subconscious thought, universal psychological drive states and defense mechanisms. Jung was not a mystic and was empirical by the standards of his day. He was a physician and psychotherapist concerned with curing psychatric conditions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Freudianism Jordan B. Peterson has three interesting lectures on a Jungian deconstruction of Disney's "Pinnochio" in his maps of meaning course at the University of Toronto which are available free on YT. I think it is lectures 3-6.

May God bless you and help you through this.

Oh well. Just remember Jung was a Freudian psychotherapist and read him in that context.

You are mixing conceptualizations. Go back to your idea that all are one and set Jung's peculiar neo-Freudian terminology aside. The archetypes and collective unconscious are the loosely formed metanarratives created by Humanity as a whole. The hero, the savior, the warrior, the mother, the father, the Good King &c. The persona is created by the individual on top of this common archetypical base from personal experience and temperment/personality.

June 18, 2017 Matthew 7:21-29 21-23 “Knowing the correct password—saying ‘Master, Master,’ for instance—isn’t going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience—doing what my Father wills. I can see it now—at the Final Judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying, ‘Master, we preached the Message, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking.’ And do you know what I am going to say? ‘You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important. You don’t impress me one bit. You’re out of here.’ 24-25 “These words I speak to you are not incidental additions to your life, homeowner improvements to your standard of living. They are foundational words, words to build a life on. If you work these words into your life, you are like a smart carpenter who built his house on solid rock. Rain poured down, the river flooded, a tornado hit—but nothing moved that house. It was fixed to the rock. 26-27 “But if you just use my words in Bible studies and don’t work them into your life, you are like a stupid carpenter who built his house on the sandy beach. When a storm rolled in and the waves came up, it collapsed like a house of cards.” 28-29 When Jesus concluded his address, the crowd burst into applause. They had never heard teaching like this. It was apparent that he was living everything he was saying—quite a contrast to their religion teachers! This was the best teaching they had ever heard.

Hello Bonnie!

I once had a very different revelation. I was driving in the country on a Saturday around noon CST and saw a shining golden cross on a small cloud in an otherwise clear sky. I had an immediate sense that this was not meant for me, but that the Pope had just died and it was related to that and was of no importance to me personally. The two events were indeed about the same time.

The article is simply propaganda and fear porn. Anytime some one tells me the human race will come to an end unless . . . . . I think of Lamarck and his faulty extrapolations. Abortion is an extremely nuanced topic and touches on economics, religion, law, philosophy, ethics, sociology, science &c. Only a politician is shallow enough to make it purely a question of legality. My personal opinion is that we need to make all medicines, including contraceptives and abortifacients, over the counter and simply make abortion an irrelevant question. The Christian position has varied over time. In the early days of Christianity abortion was decried as was the Roman method of infanticide by exposure. Some ethicists are calling for a return to infanticide, which is ghastly. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html