What’s on your mind?
- By RileyG
- MILLENNIALS (1981 to 1998)
- 212 Replies
Can I have it all?You can have my share of the world's snow all to yourself if you want.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can I have it all?You can have my share of the world's snow all to yourself if you want.
AI Overview
Morphic resonance is
a theory proposed by biologist Rupert Sheldrake that suggests all natural systems, including organisms and crystals, have a collective memory that influences their form and behavior over time. This proposed mechanism of "formative causation" claims that past forms and behaviors of similar systems create a cumulative, invisible influence that shapes the development and patterns of present systems, rather than being governed by fixed physical laws alone. It implies that nature is habitual and that new behaviors can spread more rapidly through a species because of this shared, non-physical memory.
Key concepts
Collective memory: Each species, from animals to plants, possesses a collective memory that individuals can access and to which they contribute.
Habitual nature: The theory suggests that the regularities of nature are more like habits that have been reinforced by repetition, rather than being immutable laws.
Similarity: The resonance is based on similarity. The more similar an organism or system is to past ones, the greater the influence it will have.
Behavior and form: Morphic resonance is said to influence both the physical form and the behavior of a system. For example, it is proposed to explain instincts and how certain patterns of behavior, like a new trick learned by rats in one location, can be learned more quickly by other rats of the same breed elsewhere.
Individual memory: The resonance of a system with its own past is also suggested as a way to explain individual memory, where memories are not entirely stored in the brain but are accessed through a resonance with the brain's past states.
Thank you, Pop D.PLEASE don't forget to pray for Andrew!
Statistically you right, I think the elevated status of war is because nearly everyone is spending more and there are far more rumours of war going on now. Let's hope the causualties go down instead of ramping up.It's exactly the opposite of what you think.
From here (albeit from 12 years ago):
'In fact, over the course of the last two decades, warfare has been quietly disappearing from the planet. The world in 2012 is a less violent, less belligerent place than at any time in recorded history.
Although it may seem counterintuitive to those whose historical perspective has been warped by the twenty-four-hour-news cycle, levels of conflict, both in terms of number and magnitude, have been dropping steadily since the end of the Cold War. A series of empirical analyses done in the United States and Canada have consistently shown that the number of wars of all types—interstate, civil, ethnic, revolutionary, etc. —declined throughout the 1990s and into the new century. The risk for the average person of dying violently at the hands of enemies has never been lower.'
And as regards Israel's attack on Iran, from here: https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...es-hit-site-iran-abc-news-reports-2024-04-19/
'Iran's foreign minister said the drones, which the sources said Israel launched against the city of Isfahan, were "mini-drones" and that they had caused no damage or casualties.'
If that's what you want to propose as a definition World War III then maybe you need to look up the word 'hyperbole.'
This one thinks it's excellent. My wife and I made a point of putting a little extra into our super fund over the years via what is called Salary Sacrifice. That's where part of your salary goes into your super and you don't pay tax on tax on it. So we retired with quite a decent amount. And we don't pay tax on the super fund when we access it.
Employers contributions are mandatory and you can pick your own fund managers or DIY. Our fund manager is doing a great job. We live very well on it. We've been drawing on it since we retired 7 years ago and there's actually more money in the fund now then there was when we retired. Not being able to spend it fast enough is just the sort of problem you want.
The federal pension is not accessible to us as it's means tested. So a decent super fund means you're totally self sufficient. That seems fair. If people do spend most of it (maybe I'll get that Harley and we'll start flying everywhere first class) then the government eventually steps in.
I have been feeling sick lately, dealing with a stubborn cold.
This animation is going to include the events from the beginning of chapter 19, the parts where they decorate the tree and play in the snow. Do you believe that being born again ("regeneration") is the result of the Spirit of God taking up residence within one (which is what I take you to be referring to as "spiritual baptism"), or is it the cause of the Spirit of God taking up residence.
In other words, do WE generate valid faith, or does God (the Spirit of God) generate it within us, fully valid? (The amount of faith is another question, not related to its validity).
It was not a lie. It was a threat. And, indeed, if they had not repented, he would have destroyed them. (By the way, if he had not intended that they repent, why would he go to all that trouble to send Jonah in the precise way that he did?Do you not think God set out to destroy Nineveh in 40 days? If not, why did He tell them He was going to destroy them in 40 days? Does He have to lie to get them to repent?
That's a side issue. I'm not saying he's happy that most will perish.Correct, God did not set out to redeem all mankind, but He is not happy about the result that all mankind will not be saved.
No. I'm saying that it is a logically self-contradictory notion. (Nobody but God is entirely free). So why would he even consider it? It's not that he can't. It's that it is a non-thing.Are you saying God is not capable of making us entirely free to choose without being caused/compelled to do so?
The story of Nineveh and Jonah is not about salvation, by the way, so it is not the same sort of repentance. I can go to the fridge to get cream cheese for my bagel, go to the living room where my bagel is, and when I open the cream cheese, it has gray hair growing in it. I repent of my course of action. I go back to the kitchen for something else. The people of Nineveh were wicked, God demanded they change their ways or else. This is not repentance concerning their sinfulness. It is simple repentance of what they were doing. Would you claim they loved God after that repentance? It was still corrupt. But, at least, and for a time, they stopped what they were doing.If one chooses to repent, from a corrupt spirit, is it not still a valid choice to repent, even if the power to accomplish perfectly it is lacking? Were the people of Nineveh then not really repentant, and God's mercy not the right response, since it was a corrupt and faulty repentance?
Define free choice. Uncaused choice? That makes no sense. Only God chooses, uncaused to do so. If you like, we can into the details of that. Can you show me how anything happens uncaused to do so? Only God is uncaused.So God can't make a being that can make a free choice. God can't do it at all, since only He is the first cause?
Does the capability of rejecting God's commands, and even God's offer of forgiveness and salvation, imply free will? Demonstrate to me that there is anything we do entirely spontaneously. For starters: Is there anything we do that we don't most want to do at that instant of decision?Why not? What prevents God from making a person that can then reject His will? Yet you are saying that no one can reject God's will--it is impossible for God to make such a creature.
Here and above, you consider "God's will" as only one thing. The implication is that God fully intended that we all be holy as he is holy; yet, somehow, only Christ Jesus has been able to do that.Which means that no one ever has acted against God's will, right? So everyone, for all time, has been completely within the will of God, and therefore God punishes people for doing His will, exactly as He wants them to do.
Can you expand on this please."All" scripture, not "only" scripture.
Why is it that people on the left didn’t bat an eye when Obama broke the law and spied on his political opponent, or when Biden unleashed the power of the federal government against his political opponent, but when those very same people are being held accountable for their crimes, all of the sudden Trump is the dictator with nefarious plans for the country when he did absolutely nothing similar to all that nonsense in his first term?If we end up with Trump as a forever president, as dictatorships go (though at his age "forever" is a stretch) don't worry you'll probably get your dream of imprisoning political opponents and dissident voices.
And all of us anti-Trump folk will get to live out our lives in concentration camps and reeducation centers.
Daddy Trump will make the "leftists" pay for exercising their constitutional guaranteed free speech. Because in Trump's America, dissent is the same thing as treason.
MAGA utopia at its finest.
Yet everyone is praising China for its progress in renewable energy. I could probably say that the US is responsible for all the pollution in the world with no need for reference.Even before Trump took office, the U.S. was producing more oil and gas than any nation on the planet
www.thenation.com
When I listened to the conversation, the room broke out in laughter when she said that part. She is dumb but I would say that she was joking.I certainly hope it was a joke. She's not the brightest person in the world, but that would be world-class stupid, wouldn't it? My first impression was that it was satire. Apparently not.
Graduate school. I was writing about graduate school. The topic I commented on was the "more liberal with more education" and the shift over time from "moderate" to "liberal" among the graduate school attending cohort.You're point on number 1 is interesting, and admittedly I hadn't initially considered that.
However, when you mention that there wasn't much political talk when you were in college,
That survey doesn't really seem to capture graduate students. 18% were in community college. all were 25 or younger. 20+% were in private 4-year colleges.that was was my experience as well, but the polling I linked would indicate that the environment may have changed a bit.
72% of College Students Believe Professors Influence Political Views - Intelligent
54% of students say some or many of their professors express their political views in classwww.intelligent.com
What we can't tell is what the surveyors or the respondents thought "getting political" meant. My freshman Eng. lit class professor discussed lesbian themes in the 19th century works we were reading in that part of the class. Is that political? I don't know, and we can't know if students taking the survey would think so. (I'm not sure if I had taken the survey at the time how I would have responded.)Results like this:
When asked if they have professors who talk politics during class, 32% of respondents said that they have a few professors who do, 41% say they have some professors who do, and 13% say they have many professors who express their political opinions in class. Of these 85%, two-thirds say their professors occasionally (52%) or frequently (15%) express these ideas.
I don't know that I could tell you any of the professors' politics from when I was in college (I mean, you can make guesses, but they never went out of their way to discuss it). Even in a Poli-Sci elective class, the instructor in that course obviously talked politics in a general educational sense, but I don't know that they ever overtly made clear which "side" they were on, on the various issues.
I was supervising two graduate students in 2004, both were republicans and one was baffled that I was undecided on my vote a month before the election.The fact 85% of students are reporting that their professors are "getting political" marks a shift away from the college environment you or I were in. (assuming that we were in college around the same time)
View attachment 373990
I would've been in that circled demographic, during the time where the biggest share of the pie was still the "mixed" category. (even among the post grads in 2004, the "mixed" group is still the biggest.
Which has nothing to do with a claim of "professor political activity".The only social catalyst I can think of during that time period would've perhaps been that Bush 2 was a bit of tumultuous presidency (although, people seem to see him as "one of the good ones" in retrospect), and I do recall in the mid-2000's, there was a certain "coolness" associated with being Anti-Bush among some of the younger crowd.
For those who remember these that came out in late-2004:
View attachment 373991View attachment 373992
(and it was actually a pretty star-studded line-up on that)
But my time in college was drawing to a close for that period...so who knows, maybe 2006 would've been a very different environment on campus.
Yes new heaven, and earth then the new Jerusalem comes down to it. By the sound of it it is not made of periodic matter like we have now carbon nitrogen etc as the gold is clear sheets which does not exist in our world. So the new heaven, and earth is not made of periodic matter whatever it is made of. You never answered my question- are you IO preterist?