Only if the contradiction bothers you (between philosophical naturalism’s expectation of a causal explanation for all phenomena/lawful explanation for all phenomena).
You do not get my point obviously. You did not react on the last 2 paragraphs, where it is explained.
Just to be sure you see it:
Think about the ‘miracles’ we can do in the eyes of people who have no knowledge of our technology. Yes, my definition is ‘a flexible measuring stick’, and I do not see how it could be otherwise. The problem with ‘one time’ miracles, is that we do not know if the witnesses where reliable or trained observers, and if we can repeat the miracle (every time I do this and this then ‘pop!’ a particle is measured, however not at exactly the same place. Hmm, must be some new kind of natural law behind it). Or do I say, ‘he, I can produce miracles in series’!
For an untrained observer, miracles do not exist at all: a young child has no idea what we think would be possible or not, so there is no reason to be astonished about one event over the other. For people with fixed world views, miracles seem possible. When something happens they cannot explain they can say ‘oh, a miracle’. But then: they can stick do this (halleluha!), or investigate. Naturalism is the faith that in the end we will find natural explanations. Without this faith, we could stop doing science
The only reason I’m not cutting it out again is to use if as a referent as I ask you why I shouldn’t cut it out again. Let’s say I missed your point; that it wasn’t the subjectivity of the miraculous. What then is your point?
Bryan - 05 May 2008 07:54 AM
Your entire rebuttal is a waste of time if you view miracles as simply subjective. You would appear to have committed a fallacy of equivocation. Most of us are using “miracle” to refer to refer to something inexplicable in terms of natural law or at least something along those lines. You appear to have opted for a different definition.
Not explainable by physical laws, or even stronger, not possible according to known and proven natural laws, is subjective? Interesting viewpoint. I give up.
How would you reconcile the view of the miraculous that you claim I ignored (including “Naturalism is the faith that in the end we will find natural explanations") with your statement that a miracle is not possible according to known and proven natural laws?
Didn’t you just finish telling me that your faith would assure you that there is a natural explanation for the miracle in the end even if it is not possible according to known and proven natural laws?
If miracles are commonplace, then what is the reservation about believing in the works of Jesus?
Hey Bryan, sorry this wasn’t clear.
The philosophy of naturalism tends to accept things which repeat with evidence as real.
Right, but the reality of either the supernatural or a miracle (if those things are not nonexistent by definition) falsifies the philosophy of naturalism. If nothing repeatable can falsify naturalism then naturalism is itself unfalsifiable--it can encompass all phenomena including the existence of Yahweh (leading to theistic naturalism, as I have already pointed out).
I think we’ve convinced ourselves that the word “miracle” is self-contradictory. If it really, really, actually happens, then it’s not a miracle.
I think you’re probably right--that’s been part of my point all along. If Jesus consistently contradicted known physical laws then the laws would be amended to accommodate Jesus. The formerly “miraculous” Jesus would simply be a another manifestation of the natural (that is, real) world.
Science is gradually enabling us to understand things which occur naturally. Rainbows, the rotation of the earth, earthquakes, diseases, birth. Yeah-- even dinosaurs , because there were a lot of them.
I asked you way back in an earlier query why God doesn’t reveal himself more. You said, that as far as you were concerned, he didn’t need to—you were already convinced. That kind of stalled that line of discussion. Where we are going though is to ask why Christians in general or you in particular find it convincing.
Well, I’ve touched on that in the thread to some extent. I appreciate the strength and coherency of the Christian-theistic world view. As such, I’ll take the greatest interest in the way various worldviews handle the traditional big philosophical issues such as morality, evil, the nature of reality and the like. I won’t tend to place great concern over areas of relative uncertainty (such as Bible passages that are not especially clear and possibly not well understood because of their antiquity). The latter interest me mostly because of the bad arguments that are so commonly associated--which is not to say that a good argument couldn’t be in there somewhere, and that would be interesting, too. I like the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God.
As for other Christians--we have a variety of reasons for belief. I don’t think I’m especially uncommon in favoring the intellectual approach to belief--quite a number of my acquaintances have a similar outlook. Others find a very intuitive draw from God. Circumstances in one’s life will sometimes convince a person that God is reaching out to them.
One can turn this sort of thread into 1,000 degrees of separation with relative ease.
I went on hiatus??? can you prove that? or are you in the process going to attempt to get me a ticket to a different planet this time? ...well, actually if you really can arrange that I am willing to consider it, Yeah, NASA is a killer subsitute to having A question answered, I would love to go on an outter space trip . I was not on hiatus, I came to this thread everyday and read, I thought I’d enjoy as well as learn from the big boys way of disecting). In the process I saw how evading your are with your reasoning and quite bit of your answers. I commented, you demanded that I back that up, I gave an example, just one, there are others. I asked how proverb 31 answers the question I posed and you yourself said it doesn’t.
you brought that one up, remember?
Yes, and you ignored it until you decided to come back pages later and charge me with obscurantism, remember?
to the charge that I ignored it I refer you back to my answer above.
and based on that I can fairly assume that its theme is one that is of interest to you.
Splendid reasoning. Perhaps you’ll attach that reasoning to the statement you made that prompted me to respond with Proverbs 31.
Well, let me think, you yourself said that it did not answer the question I asked, so clearly you didn’t link it for that purpose. What is then the alternative? unless, in the process (as I hinted earlier) of not being able to answer my question you thought that the content of that sad sorry clip about women would make me shy away as it does the women of your church? and of course this can’t be, so I am thinking you like it ? I mean you’re defending god and his word, based on that, it is hard for one not to conclude that you like The Package.
Just one more time, you took the back door when you were expected to gloriously march through the main entrance.
(or maybe not, referencing my previous statement)
Early on, you answered “I don’t know” upon me insisting that you address a different question, and I had no problem with that whatsoever, you could have done the same thing with this one and everything would have been more than fine. Intead of simply being straightforward you seem to like marooning people, if they act marooned, you don’t have any problem with that but if they challenge you, you protest.
You still didn’t comment on the prvb 31 clip that commands that the miserable and the poor be drowned in alcohol and beer as way of sweeping society’s misery and povrety under the carpet being an effective solution or a disastrous dark aged one. I didn’t ask you to quote me this part, now that I am asking an honest question in its regard, I would appreciate an answer. Thank you.
I was not on hiatus, I came to this thread everyday and read, I thought I’d enjoy as well as learn from the big boys way of dis(s)ecting).
A hiatus from posting is still a hiatus from posting, even if you continued to read along.
In the process I saw how evading your are with your reasoning and quite bit of your answers. I commented, you demanded that I back that up, I gave an example, just one, there are others.
It’s a good thing there are others, because telling you that I did not intend to address your issue about women in the Bible and then questioning one of your assumptions (while using Proverbs 31 to support that question) does not reasonably qualify as obscurantism. I was quite clear on the point.
I asked how proverb 31 answers the question I posed and you yourself said it doesn’t.
Right, and that was a red herring because I had already informed you that I would not be addressing your issue (and that I would refer you to Glenn Miller instead). It was later after you continued pressing the issue and making odd assumptions about the text that I offered Proverbs 31.
There has been no other issue that I have expressed an unwillingness to discuss; I have only made the reasonable statement that I do not intend to address questions that demand exhaustively long answers.
you brought that one up, remember?
Yes, and you ignored it until you decided to come back pages later and charge me with obscurantism, remember?
to the charge that I ignored it I refer you back to my answer above.
Better late than never, I suppose.
and based on that I can fairly assume that its theme is one that is of interest to you.
Splendid reasoning. Perhaps you’ll attach that reasoning to the statement you made that prompted me to respond with Proverbs 31.
Well, let me think, you yourself said that it did not answer the question I asked, so clearly you didn’t link it for that purpose. What is then the alternative? unless, in the process (as I hinted earlier) of not being able to answer my question you thought that the content of that sad sorry clip about women would make me shy away as it does the women of your church? and of course this can’t be, so I am thinking you like it ? I mean you’re defending god and his word, based on that, it is hard for one not to conclude that you like The Package.
I’ve already pointed out the alternative, and I have no idea how you could reasonably assess Proverbs 31 as “that sad sorry clip about women.” The proverb suggests an important, active and responsible role for women rather than the baby factory notion you had suggested. Though you seem to be doing a good job of obscuring that fact with your current argumentation.
Early on, you answered “I don’t know” upon me insisting that you address a different question, and I had no problem with that whatsoever, you could have done the same thing with this one and everything would have been more than fine. Intead of simply being straightforward you seem to like marooning people, if they act marooned, you don’t have any problem with that but if they challenge you, you protest.
I don’t see how it would maroon you any worse than you were in the first place not to answer your question. If I had answered “I don’t know” on this issue I would not have been particularly truthful with you. I have studied the issue somewhat (a good bit of that through Glenn Miller’s writings) and I have opinions about it that I can support but it simply doesn’t interest me that much. Pick a sport that bores you and let’s talk about that for a few pages.
You still didn’t comment on the prvb 31 clip that commands that the miserable and the poor be drowned in alcohol and beer as way of sweeping society’s misery and povrety under the carpet being an effective solution or a disastrous dark aged one.
I didn’t ask you to quote me this part, now that I am asking an honest question in its regard, I would appreciate an answer. Thank you.
Set aside some time and read through the proverb carefully as though you’re reading literature. Carry out the normal process of interpretation that you would go through if you were watching a movie or reading a book--try to discern the main ideas the author is trying to convey. Then get back to me.
Update - It is Geert Keil, I feel confident we can go by the page heading and the title of the paper is; ‘How the Ceteris Paribus Laws of Physics Lie.’
Your conclusion agreed with mine regarding the authorship of the piece.
The paper is available separately as a .pdf file, here:
I consider reading and working to absorb what is being said in this forum just as important if not more than participating via posting. And in respect to this thread, this is precisely what allowed me to discern your pattern of discussion though I really didn’t need to do that to see it at the first place.
To answer the above should I adopt one of your deflective strategies such as “rather, the better question is...” or “the question should be....” or in this case the right approach is ...”? perhaps you should do what I’ve done for a little while to see what I ma talking about.
It’s a good thing there are others, because telling you that I did not intend to address your issue about women in the Bible and then questioning one of your assumptions
What assumptions? I can tell you assume too much yourself. The adultress was being punished (and don’t tell me this is not one of the examples I gave), yet the adulterer was not there to be punished too, since she couldn’t have committed it with herself and still be accused of adultery, that means what? that the story was made up by a group of criminal dopes who think they are scribes, or even if the story is true and if this woman really committed adultery, then we need to know who she committed it with since the other party is 50 % guilty if not more being the man. Can you tell me who that is because the bible crookedly doesn’t, and that give me the right to conclude that this book is thug’s book since on one hand it claims to be righteous and crap and on the other hand, when it comes to proving that, it demonstrates nothing but first degree thuginess, there are numerous examples that I am sure as much of an expert as you are you know about. One of them is that Jesus and Mary, He as the son of Fred qualifis to be god but her as the mother of the son of Fred doesn’t. How does that add up?! This is not one subject that you are willing to talk about because you don’t have much to say about it, and this is the only reason since it gives you no room whatsoever to blow some of that smoke you got.
(while using Proverbs 31 to support that question) does not reasonably qualify as obscurantism. I was quite clear on the point.
First your proverb didn’t support anything. Second, who is talking about this? if you read right, you’d notice I made that comment right after I went on “"hiatus"” for like what??? “"27 pages"”??? You and I hardly spoken, read your posts to others, that’s what I aimed at when I said obscurantism, and there is plenty of your confections to support my remark.
I asked how proverb 31 answers the question I posed and you yourself said it doesn’t.
Right, and that was a red herring because I had already informed you that I would not be addressing your issue (and that I would refer you to Glenn Miller instead). It was later after you continued pressing the issue and making odd assumptions about the text that I offered Proverbs 31.
Again, what assumptions? that in regard to the problem of povrety, misery and despair, prvb 31 commands kings to allow the drowned to drink themselves to death? ...I am no king but I know the last thing I would do is encourage someone to indulge in alcohol abuse to self-medicate for any reason whatsoever. that is unhealthy, un-ethical, ignorant, greedy as well as evil (for alcohol dealers to sell it to the miserable --and non miserable alike if they started to have drinking problems-- to make a profit), etc. This is not an assumption, it iiis Wriiteeen if you claim not to understand a bible clip in the future, please refrain from unloading it on those that at the very least try to.
There has been no other issue that I have expressed an unwillingness to discuss; I have only made the reasonable statement that I do not intend to address questions that demand exhaustively long answers.
you generously gave exhaustively long answers on questions that were totally irrelevant to the human existence from what this threads pages show, yet you can’t seem to care about issues as basic as this one. I can tell that you have no mother, sister, wife, daughter or even a female friend.
I’ve already pointed out the alternative, and I have no idea how you could reasonably assess Proverbs 31 as “that sad sorry clip about women.” The proverb suggests an important, active and responsible role for women rather than the baby factory notion you had suggested. Though you seem to be doing a good job of obscuring that fact with your current argumentation.
Proverb 31 draws an ideal that is simply unreachable, AN IDEAL!… for the back then average woman, Todays wealth is within the hands of 1% of the earth’s population. The back then wealth was held by even less than 1. People were struggling to just stay alive, and by that I mean just have some food in their shrunken bellies, many still often are today. And here is this fat lazy ignorant woman dictating to them how they should act. Let me ask you something Bryan: ACT OUT OF WHAT????? this reminds me of an old anectode of a king whose population was so starven that they revolted breaking in violent riots that carried many of them to the luxurious palace where he was at the time they went off. When he’s been told that many are at the front demading that he acts, at the moment, he was shoving bananas down his throat, in the spur of it, he went “well, tell them if the bananas are not enough they can go ahead and start eating them with their skins.” Stupidly assuming since he is having bananas therefore everybody else must be. This is the story of this creature.
proverb 31:29 says “she opens her mouth with wisdom and her tongue is the law of kindness.” is this what she mean by telling her son to let his populataion drink itself to death???? ...as I said I don’t have time to go over it all.
I don’t see how it would maroon you any worse than you were in the first place not to answer your question. If I had answered “I don’t know” on this issue I would not have been particularly truthful with you. I have studied the issue somewhat (a good bit of that through Glenn Miller’s writings) and I have opinions about it that I can support but it simply doesn’t interest me that much. Pick a sport that bores you and let’s talk about that for a few pages.
I was not marooned (and sorry to burst your bubble I still am not) though you hoped I and others would be after we read you after aaaaall these pages.
You still didn’t comment on the prvb 31 clip that commands that the miserable and the poor be drowned in alcohol and beer as way of sweeping society’s misery and povrety under the carpet being an effective solution or a disastrous dark aged one.
Foolish me, I took it as a literary contrast to the father’s counsel to his son to (as a ruler) avoid heavy drinking and skirt-chasing (see the two verses preceding).
You’re saying that he was recommending a national policy?
Set aside some time and read through the proverb carefully as though you’re reading literature. Carry out the normal process of interpretation that you would go through if you were watching a movie or reading a book--try to discern the main ideas the author is trying to convey. Then get back to me.
If I wanted to waist my time, I do it on something that is worthwhile not that proverb. Beside, you are too good to talk about certain issues, right?
I consider reading and working to absorb what is being said in this forum just as important if not more than participating via posting. And in respect to this thread, this is precisely what allowed me to discern your pattern of discussion though I really didn’t need to do that to see it at the first place.
That you don’t personally consider not posting for about a week a hiatus is not relevant to the point I was making.
To answer the above should I adopt one of your deflective strategies such as “rather, the better question is...” or “the question should be....” or in this case the right approach is ...”?
That’s up to you. You can try, but since I asked no question (but was answering one instead) it doesn’t make much sense to suggest a better question unless you’re thinking you should have asked a better question originally.
perhaps you should do what I’ve done for a little while to see what I ma talking about.
I’ll take that under consideration if you don’t flub your current argument. So far I’m not encouraged.
It’s a good thing there are others, because telling you that I did not intend to address your issue about women in the Bible and then questioning one of your assumptions
What assumptions?
“Well, on one hand, the bible claims that she is this and she is that, and on the other, as far as her notoriety being the mother of Jesus, she is merely mentioned if not completely ignored, in which fashion she might as well be any other female, and we know what all others’ main purpose was set to be back then.”
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/36806/
(bold emphasis added)
And regarding Proverbs 31:
“Tell me Bryan, is this how as a mother of a king, this creature counts to resolve such grave social problems as the one the above verses highlights????”
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/37538/
I can tell you assume too much yourself.
Then you can easily set me straight on my misunderstanding of what you were saying. I’d suggest that you could have taken the opportunity still earlier by addressing my question as to whether you viewed the portion of Proverbs 31 regarding the use of alcohol as a recommended national policy intended to address sickness, suffering and despair.
The adultress was being punished (and don’t tell me this is not one of the examples I gave), yet the adulterer was not there to be punished too, since she couldn’t have committed it with herself and still be accused of adultery, that means what? that the story was made up by a group of criminal dopes who think they are scribes, or even if the story is true and if this woman really committed adultery, then we need to know who she committed it with since the other party is 50 % guilty if not more being the man. Can you tell me who that is because the bible crookedly doesn’t, and that give me the right to conclude that this book is thug’s book since on one hand it claims to be righteous and crap and on the other hand, when it comes to proving that, it demonstrates nothing but first degree thuginess, there are numerous examples that I am sure as much of an expert as you are you know about. One of them is that Jesus and Mary, He as the son of Fred qualifis to be god but her as the mother of the son of Fred doesn’t. How does that add up?! This is not one subject that you are willing to talk about because you don’t have much to say about it, and this is the only reason since it gives you no room whatsoever to blow some of that smoke you got.
Like I said, you can believe what you want to believe.
(while using Proverbs 31 to support that question) does not reasonably qualify as obscurantism. I was quite clear on the point.
First your proverb didn’t support anything. Second, who is talking about this? if you read right, you’d notice I made that comment right after I went on “"hiatus"” for like what??? “"27 pages"”??? You and I hardly spoken, read your posts to others, that’s what I aimed at when I said obscurantism, and there is plenty of your confections to support my remark.
You have been attempting to use the issue of women in the Bible as your example of my supposed obscurantism. I’m not going to defend myself from phantom examples. There’s no point in that. If you want to believe things based on no evidence that’s up to you.
I asked how proverb 31 answers the question I posed and you yourself said it doesn’t.
Right, and that was a red herring because I had already informed you that I would not be addressing your issue (and that I would refer you to Glenn Miller instead). It was later after you continued pressing the issue and making odd assumptions about the text that I offered Proverbs 31.
Again, what assumptions? that in regard to the problem of povrety, misery and despair, prvb 31 commands kings to allow the drowned to drink themselves to death?
Yep, that’s one.
...I am no king but I know the last thing I would do is encourage someone to indulge in alcohol abuse to self-medicate for any reason whatsoever.
So as king you would bar the practice of allowing a cancer patient (by analogy) the ability to regulate his own dosage of prescribed morphine. Do I understand you correctly?
There has been no other issue that I have expressed an unwillingness to discuss; I have only made the reasonable statement that I do not intend to address questions that demand exhaustively long answers.
you generously gave exhaustively long answers on questions that were totally irrelevant to the human existence from what this threads pages show, yet you can’t seem to care about issues as basic as this one. I can tell that you have no mother, sister, wife, daughter or even a female friend.
Correct. I was not born to a human mother but was instead conceived in a test tube and raised by automobile factory robots up through the age of 75.
No, you make no assumptions. How could I have suggested such a thing?
I’ve already pointed out the alternative, and I have no idea how you could reasonably assess Proverbs 31 as “that sad sorry clip about women.” The proverb suggests an important, active and responsible role for women rather than the baby factory notion you had suggested. Though you seem to be doing a good job of obscuring that fact with your current argumentation.
Proverb 31 draws an ideal that is simply unreachable, AN IDEAL!…
Isn’t it kind of stupid to paint an ideal as other than what the authoritarian males posited as the proper role for women (subjugated baby factories)?
It was probably just part of their ingenius plan--any woman hearing Proverbs 31 would probably realize that she could not attain the ideal and then meekly accept her (proper!) role as a mindless baby factory. Is that your reasoning?
proverb 31:29 says “she opens her mouth with wisdom and her tongue is the law of kindness.” is this what she mean by telling her son to let his populataion drink itself to death???? ...as I said I don’t have time.
[...]
If I wanted to waist my time, I do it on something that is worthwhile.
If want to discuss the Bible but you don’t spend enough time on the Bible text to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the text as it reads, then you really are wasting your time. As well as mine.
I’ll take that under consideration if you don’t flub your current argument. So far I’m not encouraged.
You have been attempting to use the issue of women in the Bible as your example of my supposed obscurantism. I’m not going to defend myself from phantom examples. There’s no point in that. If you want to believe things based on no evidence that’s up to you.
Isn’t it kind of stupid to paint an ideal as other than what the authoritarian males posited as the proper role for women (subjugated baby factories)?
It was probably just part of their ingenius plan--any woman hearing Proverbs 31 would probably realize that she could not attain the ideal and then meekly accept her (proper!) role as a mindless baby factory. Is that your reasoning?
This demeaning, haughty, and arrogant attitude in your posts really needs to cease, Bryan. It is not condusive to conversation, to say the least.
I’ll take that under consideration if you don’t flub your current argument. So far I’m not encouraged.
You have been attempting to use the issue of women in the Bible as your example of my supposed obscurantism. I’m not going to defend myself from phantom examples. There’s no point in that. If you want to believe things based on no evidence that’s up to you.
Isn’t it kind of stupid to paint an ideal as other than what the authoritarian males posited as the proper role for women (subjugated baby factories)?
It was probably just part of their ingenius plan--any woman hearing Proverbs 31 would probably realize that she could not attain the ideal and then meekly accept her (proper!) role as a mindless baby factory. Is that your reasoning?
This demeaning, haughty, and arrogant attitude in your posts really needs to cease, Bryan. It is not condu(c)ive to conversation, to say the least.
I don’t understand your complaint (for example, I am not calling Daisy stupid at all, I suggested that she was assuming stupidity on the part of the Biblical authors, thus presenting a counterintuitive argument).
But the solution is simple enough, I suppose. I’ll stick with my stated intent not to discuss Daisy’s issue.
Bryan, you have now been warned at least three times about your behavior on this forum. We have bent over backwards to allow you to continue here because of your beliefs. However, if this pattern of conduct continues, you will be banned. This will be your final warning.
If you had, or are familiar with his ideas, could you tell me what you think (put it in book form and have it published by this afternoon - thanks).
Yes, I’m familiar with Swartz’s arguments regarding natural law as prescriptive, among other things. In terms of science I agree with him, but it settles nothing with respect to the world view of philosophical naturalism.
Nah, just an overview maybe. The naturalist philosopher, Michael Ruse has some critiques of Swartz’s book ‘The Concept of Physical Law’, which if you are aware of his work may be of interest - http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/physical-law/ruse.htm
Thanks--I did run across that and gave it a once-over while double-checking my critique of Doug’s position. Ruse is an interesting guy in his own right.
Thanks for the pdf, I had found the paper on Geert’s university web site (about the only paper in English). For whatever reason it does not open from here or there, no matter, I got the general idea I think. How do you compare his ‘no law’ argument with that of Swartz, sorry - I’m rambling… (if I’m asking to much, just tell me to bugger off)
Honestly, I haven’t given Geert’s paper a thorough enough reading to compare it to Swartz’s ideas except to note that on the face of it their notions overlap.
This caught my eye from the Michael Ruse paper, do you feel this fairly captures Swartz’s idea (or yours)?
Michael Ruse -
Take first the question of miracles. How does one deal with them, given the existence of physical laws? They are troublesome, we learn, only if you hold to a necessitarian view of law. If this is your position, then you have the problem of explaining how miracles come about. For the regularist, miracles are no such problem. Understood as a violation of a law of nature, miracles are simply conceptually impossible! What happens is what happens and that defines physical necessity. If Jesus really walked on water, then that was part of the natural order of things. It was undoubtedly a remarkable event – a marvel – but it was no miracle.
I don’t feel that I have a doctrinaire position in this matter. For all I know, God established prescriptive laws for the natural world and breaks them now and then--but even if that’s the case it’s hard to separate that from the description offered by Ruse on behalf of the regularist.
Add: Bryan, I’m only on my first cup of coffee, so please pardon this next question. When you brought up ‘physical law’ in contrast to ‘casual law’, were you not assuming Doug would know your definition of ‘physical law’? It almost appears, if I’m understanding this correctly (most likely not), that you argued from an undefined position to say what was a false ‘casual law’?
I was making use of the distinction going back to Mill (according to Geert and confirmed by other sources I used). As such, I believe I am using an accepted view of “physical law” rather than one that is private and personal to me, albeit you’re correct that I rely on trust (and perhaps subsequent argumentation) that Doug will settle on the same understanding of the term.
, because there were a lot of them.
Yeah, NASA is a killer subsitute to having A question answered, I would love to go on an outter space trip 
. I was not on hiatus, I came to this thread everyday and read, I thought I’d enjoy as well as learn from the big boys way of disecting). In the process I saw how evading your are with your reasoning and quite bit of your answers. I commented, you demanded that I back that up, I gave an example, just one, there are others. I asked how proverb 31 answers the question I posed and you yourself said it doesn’t.
? I mean you’re defending god and his word, based on that, it is hard for one not to conclude that you like The Package.
