jackwebster

Subsidies? In OK, you'll see field upon field of failed corn. Next year? Same thing. It seems that the farmer is better off failing at corn than planting stuff that'll actually grow.

Are you referring to the couple hundred lines in the Tanahk? The context, here, makes it sound like you're talking about a translation of the New Testament.

So, you think Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Mirandolla, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Anne Hutchinson, Paine and Jefferson, Johnathan Edwards, Kierkegarrd, William James, Rene Girard, Marion . . . Idk . . . You think that shit was just a waste of time? That they were wordsmithing? BTW that you think the Bible -- a famously thorny collection of texts associated with an ever increasing number of sects bc of an ever increasing number of interpretations -- offers the "blunt" truth is . . . Idk, It's something.

Good faith? I began by conceding that there is a god in heaven, that god is YHWH (and his cohorts), and that I believed in him. I argued from there ... If thats not good faith, Idk what you want.

You called me Kamala Harris when I was doing my best to channel Jean Luc Marion

Why should anyone take your theological claims seriously when you can't bother to take them seriously? You sound like a stoner: our relationship with God is "reasonable" AND this relationship is impossible to describe. You said this in summation of your thoughts about the most high. Yeah, yeah . . . You are large and contain multitudes. Or, maybe you dont l have enough respect for your God -- the God of the Word -- to care about the meaning of words. Re word salad: if you say so.

This is just a fan thing, right? No trouble in the room I hope.

Yeah. I assumed there was some sorta crowd.

Question: How did the crowd react when Norman got the td in short time to go up on Fecundo?* *If this scoring sequence didn't happen, I apologize and want to ask the same question about his takedown in the first. ~~> Did GIA show any notable bias in favor of Norman vs Fecundo?

But, faith, man .... like, faith ... ya dig?

You do realize that our conclusions are more or less the same: a relationship with an omniscient and omnipotent god is unreasonable and describing it is impossible. Thus, faith. Idk ... simple answers for a simple man, I guess.

So, I do my best to take your question seriously only for you to reveal that you dont take it seriously?

Let's ignore that the question assumes what it has not proven and just stipulate that God exists and he's identical to YHWH/Jesus/Holy Spirit/it's complicated. Let's also ignore that we have not defined "believe in God" and just stipulate that it means "be certain that God exists." Finally, ignore that we have defined neither "reasonable" nor "unbiased" (much less agreed that they are synonyns) and stipulate that "unbiased" means "reasonable." The non-believer can't have an unbiased opinion of what a relationship with God is, what it looks like, or how it feels. However, the believer suffers from the exact same bias. Even if an observer -- any observer -- were able to extricate himself from the observation process (i.e. not influence the results by the act of looking), YHWH's not like objects of scientific inquiry. YHWH/Jesus gifts agape . . . Or better he agapes. His bounty is as boundless as the sea . . . The more he gives, the more he has to give bc both are infinite. This love has nothing to do with the qualities of the object of love. In fact, it does not depend on an object at all. A relationship with God would entail something like reflecting (in God's image) or reciprocating agape. If so, it is an objectless relationship and thus subjectless. It is ekstasis. This is truly strange and defies everyday language and even grammar itself. If "reciprocating agape" -- ekstasis -- is a fair attempt at describing our relationship with God, then experience (what the relationship "looks" and "feels" like) is impossible. It erases the boundary between subject and object, i.e. the basis of experience and, thus, the record or assessment of it.

Yhwh or Moses or ... depends on which Jews you ask. Point is that the law ties one generation to the next. The law transcends the life (opinions, beliefs, morals) of any individual. If so, it serves the same function you assign to divine morality (not sure how you think this get communicated). Any tradition can serve the same purpose. Re Nietzsche: He said Christianity turned into atheism as soon folks started to believe in a personal relationship with God (i.e. with Luther, i.e. with the Protestant reformation). A personal-relationship-with-God renders Christianity a matter of personal opinion. It kills tradition and the transcendent institutions that bind generations together under the Law or the one Church. Idk maybe this catastrophe happened the moment the Temple veil was rent.

Re no moral basis besides your own: Nietzsche said Luther took care of that . . . You know, having a personal relationship with God and all. In any event, claiming that Christianity is the only avenue to a transcendent justification for your morals is absurd. I mean, the Jews got by with the Law. Any tradition can serve the same end, a transcendence within imminence

Yeah, my bad. I dont have a good argument. I guess I can't get my head around greatness metrics in the era of PSU-dominance.

Kinda misleading when the seeds project 10 top-three finishes.

We always found this funny. We never gave a sh*t about you guys one way or the other.

Who cheers against UVA?

What needs to happen for you to decide that this joke has run its course?

I didnt read the last page or two, so apologies if somebody said something similar. But, the situation reminds me of what Robideau said after he lost to Larkin: my goal was never to win Big XII; my goal was always to win NCAAs. Maybe Bassett's focus and training were always about peaking this tournament.

Agree. DI wrestling grinds up most guy before their eligibility is out, but I wouldn't use this fact to draw conclusions about what will happen to freaks like Basset.

What's his injury history?

Could you go through the particulars? I heard about a dui (or 2) and know that he is the tip of the Arkansas wrestling spear; but, care to connect the dots?

Driving west into "the great concavity" of Indianapolis on I-74 always makes me feel like "a herd of feral hamsters . . . thundering across the yellow plains ... raising dust that forms a uremic-hued cloud with somatic shapes interpretable as far away as" Pittsburgh.