Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

Hope Sarah Palin can do better, although I won't be voting for her, which would not based on her gender. Her church states that she, if elected, and, as she was as Governor, must defer to her husband at home, and even to the male elders when in church, and I agree that this is just as dumb as most of the apostles having had to be male.

It is really that human mammals at large are still in their infancy, except for some very smart people on SciForum, of course.
 
SciWriter said:
Hope Sarah Palin can do better, although I won't be voting for her, which would not based on her gender. Her church states that she, if elected, and, as she was as Governor, must defer to her husband at home, and even to the male elders when in church, and I agree that this is just as dumb as most of the apostles having had to be male.

It is really that human mammals at large are still in their infancy, except for some very smart people on SciForum, of course.
Click to expand...

i think it's more likely "they're" putting mind control drugs in ranch salad dressing.

heh, heh, heh. no seriously...don't eat the ranch.
 
Good, for I only have crumbly blue cheese dressing.

Religion does enough mind control. As for politics, at least they speak of what can sometimes be seen.

Perhaps a bisexual hermaphrodite will be elected President.

(Now, I don't want to hear any curse-word statements about what s/he can do to her-im-self.)
 
Lori, ever notice that English has no gender-neutral (epicene) pronouns, letting men get all the credit, such as talking about doctors and then using 'he' as a refer back?

I will be inventing some gender neutral pronouns, although they may take a thousand years to catch on.

Sometimes the plural "their" is used as singular, but we don't really want to further corrupt that, but to relieve it, say with "eir", for both continuity and for it to be a new and separate word.

In fact, all the new pronouns should start with 'e', so as to make them more systematic, 'e' being the first invention, standing for 'he or she', although s/he still works fine for the written word, when slashed are allowed.
 
SciWriter said:
Good, for I only have crumbly blue cheese dressing.

Religion does enough mind control. As for politics, at least they speak of what can sometimes be seen.

Perhaps a bisexual hermaphrodite will be elected President.

(Now, I don't want to hear any curse-word statements about what s/he can do to her-im-self.)
Click to expand...

that would be great, as long as they weren't as dumb as palin. i swear if that cunt gets elected i'll be convinced "they're" putting mind control drugs into something, and i'm moving out.
 
SciWriter said:
Lori, ever notice that English has no gender-neutral (epicene) pronouns, letting men get all the credit, such as talking about doctors and then using 'he' as a refer back?

I will be inventing some gender neutral pronouns, although they may take a thousand years to catch on.

Sometimes the plural "their" is used as singular, but we don't really want to further corrupt that, but to relieve it, say with "eir", for both continuity and for it to be a new and separate word.

In fact, all the new pronouns should start with 'e', so as to make them more systematic, 'e' being the first invention, standing for 'he or she', although s/he still works fine for the written word, when slashed are allowed.
Click to expand...

while i'm all for inventing new words, i like that there's a he and a she. i think it's all very ying yang. :shrug:
 
Lori_7 said:
while i'm all for inventing new words, i like that there's a he and a she. i think it's all very ying yang. :shrug:
Click to expand...

There still would be a he and a she, as it's only for when we don't know or don't care, since, otherwise we would have put the specific gender of the specific person.

Any new word inventions? Doesn't have to be about a common pronoun, for there also 'mankind' ('humankind'?) and many more to consider, such as 'man-holes' which really can't be called 'person-holes'.

As of now, we also have from you that 'men' = 'dumb', but that's not always true.
 
SciWriter said:
There still would be a he and a she, as it's only for when we don't know or don't care, since, otherwise we would have put the specific gender of the specific person.

Any new word inventions? Doesn't have to be about a common pronoun, for there also 'mankind' ('humankind'?) and many more to consider, such as 'man-holes' which really can't be called 'person-holes'.

As of now, we also have from you that 'men' = 'dumb', but that's not always true.
Click to expand...

i don't think that men in general, are any dumber than women in general, just to clarify. i mean, if women were really that dissatisfied they could just shut their legs right? ha ha! but no.

nothing's coming to mind in the word development department at the moment.
 
Lori_7 said:
i don't think that men in general, are any dumber than women in general, just to clarify. i mean, if women were really that dissatisfied they could just shut their legs right? ha ha! but no.

nothing's coming to mind in the word development department at the moment.
Click to expand...

I once heard a lady tell another shape-worrying lady that, indeed, her legs were good. The response was "Yes, they're good when they're open!"


So, using 'e' for he or she, which still sounds like he or she, separately, but meaning that we don't know or care, plus, 'e' is already used in some forms of British, then perhaps 'erm' is good for him or her, which would naturally extend, such as onto 'ermself' for the gender-neutral case instead of the clumsy "himself' or 'herself", although the wrong usage of 'themself is still available, which now suggests to me that we could even use 'em' instead of 'erm', which still starts with 'e' and even gets used as a contraction for 'them', such as in "Go get 'em".

So we have "E got em, emself", for example. Still, though, 'em' sounds plural, but we still have 'them' for that.


(Maybe we need a new them on how to relieve gender bias)
 
Greatest I am said:
Does God use a full disclosure policy or does he hide information?

Should God, show all consequences to infractions and sins or hide them?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse?
Perhaps it is if the sinner was not fully informed of the consequences.

If the law does not show all significant consequences to a crime or infraction, is the perpetrator really making an informed choice and if not informed completely of all consequences, is he culpable and should the penalties hidden by the law maker be applied to someone who did not know those were part of the consequences?

For example, is it moral for man or God to place a $ 10.00 per mile penalty on speeders when it has only warned of a $ 5.00 posted fine?

What if one of the consequences is a great benefit to the perpetrator?
Should the perpetrator ignore that benefit for any perceived harm?
Especially if that harm is kept from him by the law maker?

The morality of your answers will condemn your God so if you even attempt to answer, so be careful.

I will be relating these question to the myth of Adam and Eve and showing how immoral God was acting within that myth as well as elsewhere in the O T.

We often use the term on earth as it is in heaven. This indicates to me that we are to emulate God as a father figure or parent and law maker.
If God can just add on any arbitrary unknown punishment to a sinner, does that mean that human laws should do the same. Secular law seems to have rejected such notions. Would you?

Regards
DL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YOmgDtk8_M&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpJ8PGT2yY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/TurpisHaereticus#p/u/22/_g52sX8PgX8
Click to expand...
like all issues of full disclosure, if the third party doesn't make the effort to get of their laurels and get the disclosure, they don't.
:eek:
 
Down with undisclosed, invisible, unknown notions, for they don't amount to anything at all, not even a hill of beans.
 
It seems strange that some Hypothetical Being would produce Universal Truths which this Hypothetical Being wouldn't want known.

Can anybody provide a rationale for this?
 
AlexG said:
It seems strange that some Hypothetical Being would produce Universal Truths which this Hypothetical Being wouldn't want known.

Can anybody provide a rationale for this?
Click to expand...

when the truths are obvious (which they are), the entity will become obvious as well.
 
AlexG said:
It seems strange that some Hypothetical Being would produce Universal Truths which this Hypothetical Being wouldn't want known.

Can anybody provide a rationale for this?
Click to expand...
if you factor in the hypothetical illusion of the hypothetical living entity, it should be hypothetically approachable as a rationale ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top