On 3/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H/D pairs where H simulates D that this D
>>>>>>>>> right here
>>>>>>>>> not some other D somewhere else never reaches its own line 06.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right. But that doesn't prove that the D is non-halting of H
>>>>>>>> gives up on its simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception on this.
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you have agreed that an "Abort Deciders" will decide based on
>>>>>> if THIS DECIDER needs to abort THIS INPUT,
>>>>>
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>> specified above.
>>>>
>>>> H must do what H does.
>>>>
>>>> First note, you have strayed from the actual definiton of the
>>>> problem, (andthus are LYING about following it) because the specific
>>>> D was DEFINED to use a specific COPY of the one decider it was
>>>> designed to refute.
>>>>
>>>> Your D ends up failing to even be a Computation, (when you limit the
>>>> desciption of D to NOT include H) because its behavior is NOT fully
>>>> defined.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, any H that doesn't happen to abort its simulation is not a
>>>> correct decider because it will fail to decide.
>>>>
>>>> That DOESN'T mean that an H that does abort is correct, as every
>>>> different H that is called by D creates a different behavior for D,
>>>> and in effect, creates a "new" D, even though its description (by
>>>> your stipulation) is the same, but that is because you have created
>>>> a non-computation input, and for those, to determine there behavior,
>>>> we need to include the appropriate extra "hidden" information, which
>>>> in this case is the code of H.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if H does abort and return 0, then it is clear that that makes
>>>> a D(D) that will halt, as can be proved by having main call UTM(D,D)
>>>> with that D still refering to that original H (which you keep on
>>>> trying to lie about not being able to do).
>>>>
>>>> Sincd that simulation will reach an end, then it is shown that these
>>>> Hs don't actually NEED to abort, even though (or because of the
>>>> fact) they do.
>>>>
>>>> You can claim this make this an invalid question, and I would agree,
>>>> because your D was built wrong. Build D the RIGHT way, with its own
>>>> copy of H (that is fixed to be the H you finally decide on, and
>>>> doesn't change during your argument) then the question is valid, and
>>>> the H that D was built on is clearly wrong, and any other decider
>>>> could have its own "pathelogical" input defined that makes IT wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  based on if an actual CORRECT SIMULATION of THIS INPUT will run
>>>>>> forever or Halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are stuck with that definition if you want your "abort
>>>>>> deciders" to be at all related to "Halt Deciders", which since you
>>>>>> continue to refer to the Halting problem proofs, you do, you need
>>>>>> to use THAT definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any definition based on looking at the behavior of some other
>>>>>> machine and input, is just illogical, but then, you have shown
>>>>>> that you thinking goes to illogical ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By that same reasoning cats have no common attributes and some cats
>>>>> might bark and some cats might fly because not all cats are exactly
>>>>> the same.
>>>>
>>>> Not *NO* common attributes, but have some differences, so if you
>>>> thing being looked at varies, then not all cat are the same.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, not all cats are black.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't seem to understand the nature of "Categories"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that was all that was needed, ALL inputs could be correctly
>>>>>>>> decided as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, based on the actual NEED for THIS decider to abort for this
>>>>>> exact input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>> specified above.
>>>>
>>>> It must abort to be a decider.
>>>>
>>>> Thst doesn't mean that if it does abort, it knows the right answer
>>>> to the question about the input halting (or needing to be aborted).
>>>>
>>>> They are NOT the same criteria,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since, for our H(D,D) that is programmed to abort and return 0,
>>>>>> the D(D)
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>
>>>> So, are you talking about the ones that do abort, or the ones that
>>>> don't.
>>>>
>>>> You DO understand that these are DIFFERENT programs, and each must
>>>> be looked at individually.
>>>>
>>>> The question is NOT about "classes of Deciders" pair with a "Class
>>>> of Inputs".
>>>>
>>>> The quesiton is about ONE SPECIFIC INPUT, and the answer that ONE
>>>> SPECIFIC decider gives.
>>>>
>>>> You are just proving you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> built on it will halt, then this H(D,D) did not NEED to abort it,
>>>>>> but did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since H is supposed to be a "Halt Decider", the HALTING
>>>>>>>>>> PROPERTY of the input is a very important and relevent fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess you think TRUTH isn't relevent, only whether you can
>>>>>>>>>> make a convincing lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Milk and Cheese and not the same yet both are dairy products.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And Milk is a liquid and Cheese is a solid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to make a glass og "Chocolate Cheese"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or make a Pizza with "Milk" as a topping.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no reason to assume that ANY X are correct, that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> your INCORRECT assumption,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All H that never halt have incorrect halting behavior for a
>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>> All H that halt have correct halting behavior for a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That may make them DECIDERS, but not a HALT DECIDER if they
>>>>>>>>>> say non-halting for an input you have admitted is Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING that you are just a pathetic hypocritical
>>>>>>>>>> ignorant pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you willing to bet your soul on that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, are YOU?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that my soul is the one thing that I cannot afford
>>>>>>> to lose, and what the Hell would I do with two souls when I win?
>>>>>>> I would not bet my soul that 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems you have already lost it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you or I will not be the one to collect.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that because a woman lied about her weight
>>>>> by one pound one time that she will
>>>>
>>>> No, and that isn't what a "Liar" is, the word means someone whose
>>>> life is characterized by falsehoods. (like yours)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Revelation 21:8 NRSV*
>>>>> ...and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with
>>>>> fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’
>>>>
>>>> Right, but you need to look at the context, HIS PEOPLE are not in
>>>> that group, and I know that my name is in the
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also know that God <is> Love and God <has> Wrath is impossibly
>>>>> true. It is the same as H2O <is> water and H2O <has> Carbon.
>>>>> *I go by what makes the most sense*
>>>>
>>>> And that just shows that you do not know him.
>>>>
>>>> So, you WILL find that you will end in that lake of fire.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What seems to make the most sense is that we concatenate
>>>>> "with as much empathy as possible" to the commandment to
>>>>> "love one another" and abolish the distraction of all of the
>>>>> other commandments so that we can unite in a single-minded
>>>>> focus on loving others.
>>>>
>>>> And all the other DERIVE from this, so they are not "abolished", but
>>>> expalined.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not shaving your sideburns is not derived from this.
>>
>> How do you know this?
>>
>> And where do you see a rule about "Sideburns?"
>>
>
> https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-27.htm

On 3/27/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H/D pairs where H simulates D that this D
>>>>>>>>>> right here
>>>>>>>>>> not some other D somewhere else never reaches its own line 06.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. But that doesn't prove that the D is non-halting of H
>>>>>>>>> gives up on its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception on this.
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you have agreed that an "Abort Deciders" will decide based on
>>>>>>> if THIS DECIDER needs to abort THIS INPUT,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>>> specified above.
>>>>>
>>>>> H must do what H does.
>>>>>
>>>>> First note, you have strayed from the actual definiton of the
>>>>> problem, (andthus are LYING about following it) because the
>>>>> specific D was DEFINED to use a specific COPY of the one decider it
>>>>> was designed to refute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your D ends up failing to even be a Computation, (when you limit
>>>>> the desciption of D to NOT include H) because its behavior is NOT
>>>>> fully defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, any H that doesn't happen to abort its simulation is not a
>>>>> correct decider because it will fail to decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> That DOESN'T mean that an H that does abort is correct, as every
>>>>> different H that is called by D creates a different behavior for D,
>>>>> and in effect, creates a "new" D, even though its description (by
>>>>> your stipulation) is the same, but that is because you have created
>>>>> a non-computation input, and for those, to determine there
>>>>> behavior, we need to include the appropriate extra "hidden"
>>>>> information, which in this case is the code of H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if H does abort and return 0, then it is clear that that makes
>>>>> a D(D) that will halt, as can be proved by having main call
>>>>> UTM(D,D) with that D still refering to that original H (which you
>>>>> keep on trying to lie about not being able to do).
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincd that simulation will reach an end, then it is shown that
>>>>> these Hs don't actually NEED to abort, even though (or because of
>>>>> the fact) they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can claim this make this an invalid question, and I would
>>>>> agree, because your D was built wrong. Build D the RIGHT way, with
>>>>> its own copy of H (that is fixed to be the H you finally decide on,
>>>>> and doesn't change during your argument) then the question is
>>>>> valid, and the H that D was built on is clearly wrong, and any
>>>>> other decider could have its own "pathelogical" input defined that
>>>>> makes IT wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  based on if an actual CORRECT SIMULATION of THIS INPUT will run
>>>>>>> forever or Halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are stuck with that definition if you want your "abort
>>>>>>> deciders" to be at all related to "Halt Deciders", which since
>>>>>>> you continue to refer to the Halting problem proofs, you do, you
>>>>>>> need to use THAT definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any definition based on looking at the behavior of some other
>>>>>>> machine and input, is just illogical, but then, you have shown
>>>>>>> that you thinking goes to illogical ideas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By that same reasoning cats have no common attributes and some cats
>>>>>> might bark and some cats might fly because not all cats are exactly
>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not *NO* common attributes, but have some differences, so if you
>>>>> thing being looked at varies, then not all cat are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance, not all cats are black.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't seem to understand the nature of "Categories"
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that was all that was needed, ALL inputs could be correctly
>>>>>>>>> decided as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, based on the actual NEED for THIS decider to abort for
>>>>>>> this exact input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>>> specified above.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must abort to be a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thst doesn't mean that if it does abort, it knows the right answer
>>>>> to the question about the input halting (or needing to be aborted).
>>>>>
>>>>> They are NOT the same criteria,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since, for our H(D,D) that is programmed to abort and return 0,
>>>>>>> the D(D)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, are you talking about the ones that do abort, or the ones that
>>>>> don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> You DO understand that these are DIFFERENT programs, and each must
>>>>> be looked at individually.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is NOT about "classes of Deciders" pair with a "Class
>>>>> of Inputs".
>>>>>
>>>>> The quesiton is about ONE SPECIFIC INPUT, and the answer that ONE
>>>>> SPECIFIC decider gives.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> built on it will halt, then this H(D,D) did not NEED to abort it,
>>>>>>> but did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since H is supposed to be a "Halt Decider", the HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>> PROPERTY of the input is a very important and relevent fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you think TRUTH isn't relevent, only whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>> make a convincing lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Milk and Cheese and not the same yet both are dairy products.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And Milk is a liquid and Cheese is a solid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to make a glass og "Chocolate Cheese"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Or make a Pizza with "Milk" as a topping.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no reason to assume that ANY X are correct, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is your INCORRECT assumption,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All H that never halt have incorrect halting behavior for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>> All H that halt have correct halting behavior for a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That may make them DECIDERS, but not a HALT DECIDER if they
>>>>>>>>>>> say non-halting for an input you have admitted is Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING that you are just a pathetic
>>>>>>>>>>> hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you willing to bet your soul on that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure, are YOU?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that my soul is the one thing that I cannot afford
>>>>>>>> to lose, and what the Hell would I do with two souls when I win?
>>>>>>>> I would not bet my soul that 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems you have already lost it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you or I will not be the one to collect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that because a woman lied about her weight
>>>>>> by one pound one time that she will
>>>>>
>>>>> No, and that isn't what a "Liar" is, the word means someone whose
>>>>> life is characterized by falsehoods. (like yours)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Revelation 21:8 NRSV*
>>>>>> ...and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with
>>>>>> fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but you need to look at the context, HIS PEOPLE are not in
>>>>> that group, and I know that my name is in the
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also know that God <is> Love and God <has> Wrath is impossibly
>>>>>> true. It is the same as H2O <is> water and H2O <has> Carbon.
>>>>>> *I go by what makes the most sense*
>>>>>
>>>>> And that just shows that you do not know him.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you WILL find that you will end in that lake of fire.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What seems to make the most sense is that we concatenate
>>>>>> "with as much empathy as possible" to the commandment to
>>>>>> "love one another" and abolish the distraction of all of the
>>>>>> other commandments so that we can unite in a single-minded
>>>>>> focus on loving others.
>>>>>
>>>>> And all the other DERIVE from this, so they are not "abolished",
>>>>> but expalined.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not shaving your sideburns is not derived from this.
>>>
>>> How do you know this?
>>>
>>> And where do you see a rule about "Sideburns?"
>>>
>>
>> https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-27.htm
>
> Which doesn't talk about the "Sideburns" but perhaps the upper temple or
> the lower corners of the beard, as done by some pagan forms of worship.
>

On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/26/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/25/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H/D pairs where H simulates D that this D
>>>>>>>>>>> right here
>>>>>>>>>>> not some other D somewhere else never reaches its own line 06.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. But that doesn't prove that the D is non-halting of H
>>>>>>>>>> gives up on its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception on this.
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you have agreed that an "Abort Deciders" will decide based
>>>>>>>> on if THIS DECIDER needs to abort THIS INPUT,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>>>> specified above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H must do what H does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First note, you have strayed from the actual definiton of the
>>>>>> problem, (andthus are LYING about following it) because the
>>>>>> specific D was DEFINED to use a specific COPY of the one decider
>>>>>> it was designed to refute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your D ends up failing to even be a Computation, (when you limit
>>>>>> the desciption of D to NOT include H) because its behavior is NOT
>>>>>> fully defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, any H that doesn't happen to abort its simulation is not a
>>>>>> correct decider because it will fail to decide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That DOESN'T mean that an H that does abort is correct, as every
>>>>>> different H that is called by D creates a different behavior for
>>>>>> D, and in effect, creates a "new" D, even though its description
>>>>>> (by your stipulation) is the same, but that is because you have
>>>>>> created a non-computation input, and for those, to determine there
>>>>>> behavior, we need to include the appropriate extra "hidden"
>>>>>> information, which in this case is the code of H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if H does abort and return 0, then it is clear that that
>>>>>> makes a D(D) that will halt, as can be proved by having main call
>>>>>> UTM(D,D) with that D still refering to that original H (which you
>>>>>> keep on trying to lie about not being able to do).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincd that simulation will reach an end, then it is shown that
>>>>>> these Hs don't actually NEED to abort, even though (or because of
>>>>>> the fact) they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can claim this make this an invalid question, and I would
>>>>>> agree, because your D was built wrong. Build D the RIGHT way, with
>>>>>> its own copy of H (that is fixed to be the H you finally decide
>>>>>> on, and doesn't change during your argument) then the question is
>>>>>> valid, and the H that D was built on is clearly wrong, and any
>>>>>> other decider could have its own "pathelogical" input defined that
>>>>>> makes IT wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  based on if an actual CORRECT SIMULATION of THIS INPUT will run
>>>>>>>> forever or Halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are stuck with that definition if you want your "abort
>>>>>>>> deciders" to be at all related to "Halt Deciders", which since
>>>>>>>> you continue to refer to the Halting problem proofs, you do, you
>>>>>>>> need to use THAT definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any definition based on looking at the behavior of some other
>>>>>>>> machine and input, is just illogical, but then, you have shown
>>>>>>>> that you thinking goes to illogical ideas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By that same reasoning cats have no common attributes and some cats
>>>>>>> might bark and some cats might fly because not all cats are exactly
>>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not *NO* common attributes, but have some differences, so if you
>>>>>> thing being looked at varies, then not all cat are the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For instance, not all cats are black.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just don't seem to understand the nature of "Categories"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If that was all that was needed, ALL inputs could be correctly
>>>>>>>>>> decided as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, based on the actual NEED for THIS decider to abort for
>>>>>>>> this exact input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
>>>>>>> the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
>>>>>>> specified above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It must abort to be a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thst doesn't mean that if it does abort, it knows the right answer
>>>>>> to the question about the input halting (or needing to be aborted).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are NOT the same criteria,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since, for our H(D,D) that is programmed to abort and return 0,
>>>>>>>> the D(D)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>> I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H
>>>>>>> simulates D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, are you talking about the ones that do abort, or the ones that
>>>>>> don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You DO understand that these are DIFFERENT programs, and each must
>>>>>> be looked at individually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is NOT about "classes of Deciders" pair with a "Class
>>>>>> of Inputs".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The quesiton is about ONE SPECIFIC INPUT, and the answer that ONE
>>>>>> SPECIFIC decider gives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just proving you just don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> built on it will halt, then this H(D,D) did not NEED to abort
>>>>>>>> it, but did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since H is supposed to be a "Halt Decider", the HALTING
>>>>>>>>>>>> PROPERTY of the input is a very important and relevent fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you think TRUTH isn't relevent, only whether you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> make a convincing lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Milk and Cheese and not the same yet both are dairy products.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And Milk is a liquid and Cheese is a solid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to make a glass og "Chocolate Cheese"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or make a Pizza with "Milk" as a topping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no reason to assume that ANY X are correct, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is your INCORRECT assumption,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All H that never halt have incorrect halting behavior for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All H that halt have correct halting behavior for a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That may make them DECIDERS, but not a HALT DECIDER if they
>>>>>>>>>>>> say non-halting for an input you have admitted is Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just PROVING that you are just a pathetic
>>>>>>>>>>>> hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you willing to bet your soul on that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, are YOU?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know that my soul is the one thing that I cannot afford
>>>>>>>>> to lose, and what the Hell would I do with two souls when I win?
>>>>>>>>> I would not bet my soul that 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems you have already lost it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you or I will not be the one to collect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that because a woman lied about her weight
>>>>>>> by one pound one time that she will
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, and that isn't what a "Liar" is, the word means someone whose
>>>>>> life is characterized by falsehoods. (like yours)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Revelation 21:8 NRSV*
>>>>>>> ...and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with
>>>>>>> fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, but you need to look at the context, HIS PEOPLE are not in
>>>>>> that group, and I know that my name is in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also know that God <is> Love and God <has> Wrath is impossibly
>>>>>>> true. It is the same as H2O <is> water and H2O <has> Carbon.
>>>>>>> *I go by what makes the most sense*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that just shows that you do not know him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you WILL find that you will end in that lake of fire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What seems to make the most sense is that we concatenate
>>>>>>> "with as much empathy as possible" to the commandment to
>>>>>>> "love one another" and abolish the distraction of all of the
>>>>>>> other commandments so that we can unite in a single-minded
>>>>>>> focus on loving others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And all the other DERIVE from this, so they are not "abolished",
>>>>>> but expalined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not shaving your sideburns is not derived from this.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know this?
>>>>
>>>> And where do you see a rule about "Sideburns?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-27.htm
>>
>> Which doesn't talk about the "Sideburns" but perhaps the upper temple
>> or the lower corners of the beard, as done by some pagan forms of
>> worship.
>>
>
> It is a Levitical ordinance that has nothing to do with loving
> others as oneself.

On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:

> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new coventent,
> so Paul isn't refering to it.
>
>>
>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the side
>>> of the face.
>>>
>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>
>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>
>> Yes you are good on this.
>>
>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>
> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>

*Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
*Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
*Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*

Galatians 5:14 NRSV
For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven unbearable
> with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would be intolerable.
>
>>
>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>
>
> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>

How would you know?
What is your criterion measure?

Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
This proves that art least most of them are wrong.

>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>
> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you are told
> to.
>

What exactly make *you* the judge of this?

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new coventent,
>> so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>
>>>
>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the side
>>>> of the face.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>
>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>
>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>
>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>>
>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>
>
> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*

Which isn't the way the words were meant.

That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking

>
> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>
>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven unbearable
>> with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would be intolerable.
>>
>>>
>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>
>>
>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>
>
> How would you know?
> What is your criterion measure?

Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL of God
first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look at.

>
> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>
>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>
>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you are
>> told to.
>>
>
> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>

You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see how the
Judge is likely going to look at things.

I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not guiding
your life, and thus you do not understand.

On 3/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new
>>> coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the side
>>>>> of the face.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>>
>>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>>>
>>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>>
>>
>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>
> Which isn't the way the words were meant.
>
> That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking
>

What exactly makes you the judge of this?

>>
>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>
>>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven unbearable
>>> with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would be intolerable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>>
>>>
>>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>>
>>
>> How would you know?
>> What is your criterion measure?
>
> Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL of God
> first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look at.
>

Sure simply totally 100% become Christ and then simply love others.
Love others as I have loved you...

>>
>> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
>> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
>> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>>
>>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>>
>>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you are
>>> told to.
>>>
>>
>> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>>
>
> You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see how the
> Judge is likely going to look at things.
>
Ah so you are guessing or estimating.

> I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not guiding
> your life, and thus you do not understand.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/27/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new
>>>> coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the
>>>>>> side of the face.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>>>>
>>>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>
>> Which isn't the way the words were meant.
>>
>> That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking
>>
>
> What exactly makes you the judge of this?

I do my best based on what I know, and issue the warning based on it,

God will make the final decision.

>
>>>
>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>
>>>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven
>>>> unbearable with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would be
>>>> intolerable.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would you know?
>>> What is your criterion measure?
>>
>> Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL of
>> God first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look at.
>>
>
> Sure simply totally 100% become Christ and then simply love others.
> Love others as I have loved you...

You think you CAN become "Christ"?

Do you understand what that claim entails?

Do you understand what falsely making that claim means?

>
>>>
>>> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
>>> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
>>> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>>>
>>>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>>>
>>>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you are
>>>> told to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>>>
>>
>> You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see how
>> the Judge is likely going to look at things.
>>
> Ah so you are guessing or estimating.

No, it isn't a "guess", as the criteria is clearly laid out to those who
are willing to make the effort to understand.

God WILL judge those that oppose his authority, like you are doing.

>
>> I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not guiding
>> your life, and thus you do not understand.
>

On 3/28/2024 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new
>>>>> coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the
>>>>>>> side of the face.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>>>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>
>>> Which isn't the way the words were meant.
>>>
>>> That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking
>>>
>>
>> What exactly makes you the judge of this?
>
> I do my best based on what I know, and issue the warning based on it,
>
> God will make the final decision.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>>> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>>
>>>>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven
>>>>> unbearable with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would be
>>>>> intolerable.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>>>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>>>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would you know?
>>>> What is your criterion measure?
>>>
>>> Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL of
>>> God first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look at.
>>>
>>
>> Sure simply totally 100% become Christ and then simply love others.
>> Love others as I have loved you...
>
> You think you CAN become "Christ"?
>
> Do you understand what that claim entails?
>
> Do you understand what falsely making that claim means?
>
Every Christian is required to become as Christ like as they possibly
can. Love them as I have loved you.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
>>>> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
>>>> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>>>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>>>>
>>>>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you are
>>>>> told to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see how
>>> the Judge is likely going to look at things.
>>>
>> Ah so you are guessing or estimating.
>
> No, it isn't a "guess", as the criteria is clearly laid out to those who
> are willing to make the effort to understand.
>

If that was true then there would not be differing denominations
of Christ.

> God WILL judge those that oppose his authority, like you are doing.
>
I don't oppose God's authority. I vehemently oppose the authority of
fallible humans

Isaiah 64:6 (KJV)
....and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

>>
>>> I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not guiding
>>> your life, and thus you do not understand.
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/28/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/27/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new
>>>>>> coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the
>>>>>>>> side of the face.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>>>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>>>>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't the way the words were meant.
>>>>
>>>> That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking
>>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly makes you the judge of this?
>>
>> I do my best based on what I know, and issue the warning based on it,
>>
>> God will make the final decision.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>>>> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven
>>>>>> unbearable with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would
>>>>>> be intolerable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>>>>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>>>>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>> What is your criterion measure?
>>>>
>>>> Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL of
>>>> God first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look at.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure simply totally 100% become Christ and then simply love others.
>>> Love others as I have loved you...
>>
>> You think you CAN become "Christ"?
>>
>> Do you understand what that claim entails?
>>
>> Do you understand what falsely making that claim means?
>>
> Every Christian is required to become as Christ like as they possibly
> can. Love them as I have loved you.

No, as if that was true, we should all try to be scourged and crucified,
and some how find the power to cast out demons and heal the sick.

Every Christian is called to try to live the life that Jesus described
for his Disciples.

You are just showing you don't understand the Bible.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
>>>>> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
>>>>> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>>>>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you
>>>>>> are told to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see how
>>>> the Judge is likely going to look at things.
>>>>
>>> Ah so you are guessing or estimating.
>>
>> No, it isn't a "guess", as the criteria is clearly laid out to those
>> who are willing to make the effort to understand.
>>
>
> If that was true then there would not be differing denominations
> of Christ.

There shouldn't be, but because people are flawed and divide over things
that they shouldn't, we end up with this.

Also, as you pointed out, many people claiming to be "Christians" aren't
acting like them, and thus it seems reasonable that some of these would
form "Churches" that look something like Christ's Church, but aren't.

>
>> God WILL judge those that oppose his authority, like you are doing.
>>
> I don't oppose God's authority. I vehemently oppose the authority of
> fallible humans

Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will follow?

>
> Isaiah 64:6 (KJV)
> ...and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

Yep, if we try to do it "our way", we are just "filthy rags".

We need to let God take over so he can change us, not try to define how
God is to work.

>
>>>
>>>> I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not
>>>> guiding your life, and thus you do not understand.
>>>
>>
>

On 3/28/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new
>>>>>>> coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the
>>>>>>>>> side of the face.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>>>>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>>>>>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>>
>>>>> Which isn't the way the words were meant.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What exactly makes you the judge of this?
>>>
>>> I do my best based on what I know, and issue the warning based on it,
>>>
>>> God will make the final decision.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>>>>> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>>>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven
>>>>>>> unbearable with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would
>>>>>>> be intolerable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>>>>>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>>>>>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>>> What is your criterion measure?
>>>>>
>>>>> Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL of
>>>>> God first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look at.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure simply totally 100% become Christ and then simply love others.
>>>> Love others as I have loved you...
>>>
>>> You think you CAN become "Christ"?
>>>
>>> Do you understand what that claim entails?
>>>
>>> Do you understand what falsely making that claim means?
>>>
>> Every Christian is required to become as Christ like as they possibly
>> can. Love them as I have loved you.
>
> No, as if that was true, we should all try to be scourged and crucified,
> and some how find the power to cast out demons and heal the sick.
>
> Every Christian is called to try to live the life that Jesus described
> for his Disciples.
>
> You are just showing you don't understand the Bible.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
>>>>>> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
>>>>>> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>>>>>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you
>>>>>>> are told to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see how
>>>>> the Judge is likely going to look at things.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah so you are guessing or estimating.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't a "guess", as the criteria is clearly laid out to those
>>> who are willing to make the effort to understand.
>>>
>>
>> If that was true then there would not be differing denominations
>> of Christ.
>
> There shouldn't be, but because people are flawed and divide over things
> that they shouldn't, we end up with this.
>
> Also, as you pointed out, many people claiming to be "Christians" aren't
> acting like them, and thus it seems reasonable that some of these would
> form "Churches" that look something like Christ's Church, but aren't.
>
>>
>>> God WILL judge those that oppose his authority, like you are doing.
>>>
>> I don't oppose God's authority. I vehemently oppose the authority of
>> fallible humans
>
> Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will follow?
>

Which laws do you think are still in effect?

>>
>> Isaiah 64:6 (KJV)
>> ...and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
>
> Yep, if we try to do it "our way", we are just "filthy rags".
>
> We need to let God take over so he can change us, not try to define how
> God is to work.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not
>>>>> guiding your life, and thus you do not understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/28/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 6:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new
>>>>>>>> coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the
>>>>>>>>>> side of the face.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like
>>>>>>>>>> circumcision that was done away with.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes you are good on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
>>>>>>>>> does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as
>>>>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>>>> *Not if Galatians 5:14 is literally true*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't the way the words were meant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is DEVIL WORSHIP talking
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly makes you the judge of this?
>>>>
>>>> I do my best based on what I know, and issue the warning based on it,
>>>>
>>>> God will make the final decision.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>>>>>> For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>>>>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven
>>>>>>>> unbearable with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would
>>>>>>>> be intolerable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
>>>>>>>>> law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
>>>>>>>>> is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would you know?
>>>>>>> What is your criterion measure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loving as God would love. Which means you need to understand ALL
>>>>>> of God first, not just the one aspect that you are willing to look
>>>>>> at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure simply totally 100% become Christ and then simply love others.
>>>>> Love others as I have loved you...
>>>>
>>>> You think you CAN become "Christ"?
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand what that claim entails?
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand what falsely making that claim means?
>>>>
>>> Every Christian is required to become as Christ like as they possibly
>>> can. Love them as I have loved you.
>>
>> No, as if that was true, we should all try to be scourged and
>> crucified, and some how find the power to cast out demons and heal the
>> sick.
>>
>> Every Christian is called to try to live the life that Jesus described
>> for his Disciples.
>>
>> You are just showing you don't understand the Bible.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every denomination believes that they are the one that is
>>>>>>> correct and this cannot possibly be true for every denomination.
>>>>>>> This proves that art least most of them are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
>>>>>>>>> screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you
>>>>>>>> are told to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly make *you* the judge of this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't understand. I am not the actual Judge, but can see
>>>>>> how the Judge is likely going to look at things.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ah so you are guessing or estimating.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't a "guess", as the criteria is clearly laid out to those
>>>> who are willing to make the effort to understand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that was true then there would not be differing denominations
>>> of Christ.
>>
>> There shouldn't be, but because people are flawed and divide over
>> things that they shouldn't, we end up with this.
>>
>> Also, as you pointed out, many people claiming to be "Christians"
>> aren't acting like them, and thus it seems reasonable that some of
>> these would form "Churches" that look something like Christ's Church,
>> but aren't.
>>
>>>
>>>> God WILL judge those that oppose his authority, like you are doing.
>>>>
>>> I don't oppose God's authority. I vehemently oppose the authority of
>>> fallible humans
>>
>> Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will follow?
>>
>
> Which laws do you think are still in effect?

Why do you ask?

Did you not understand my previous description?

There is the Ceremonial Law, that talks of how Israel was approach God.
It has still some generic applicability, in that it helps us understand
the nature of Gd, and helps us understand general principles, but the
details of the regulations are no longer applicable. For example, we no
longer need to be physically circumcised, as a symbol of being part of
his people, as we are given the Spirit as our sign.

Then there is the Social Law, that talks of how Israel was to be a
people and govern itself. Again, this show general principles of how we
should live, but again, many of the detail are not applicble, as we are
not living under a Theocracy.

Lastly, there is the Moral Law, which deals with how we deal with other
people. These laws still apply, and in some cases are enhanced, as we
are given a better understanding of the nature of God and what he
expects. (Like when Jesus points out that "Getting Angry" is akin to
Murder, and Looking Lustfully is akin to physical adultery.

So, ALL are still in effect, but some under a more spiritual understanding.

>
>>>
>>> Isaiah 64:6 (KJV)
>>> ...and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
>>
>> Yep, if we try to do it "our way", we are just "filthy rags".
>>
>> We need to let God take over so he can change us, not try to define
>> how God is to work.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see much in what you do that makes it clear that God is not
>>>>>> guiding your life, and thus you do not understand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 3/28/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

>>> Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will follow?
>>>
>>
>> Which laws do you think are still in effect?
>
> Why do you ask?
>
> Did you not understand my previous description?
>
> There is the Ceremonial Law, that talks of how Israel was approach God.
> It has still some generic applicability, in that it helps us understand
> the nature of Gd, and helps us understand general principles, but the
> details of the regulations are no longer applicable. For example, we no
> longer need to be physically circumcised, as a symbol of being part of
> his people, as we are given the Spirit as our sign.
>
> Then there is the Social Law, that talks of how Israel was to be a
> people and govern itself. Again, this show general principles of how we
> should live, but again, many of the detail are not applicble, as we are
> not living under a Theocracy.
>
> Lastly, there is the Moral Law, which deals with how we deal with other
> people. These laws still apply, and in some cases are enhanced, as we
> are given a better understanding of the nature of God and what he
> expects. (Like when Jesus points out that "Getting Angry" is akin to
> Murder, and Looking Lustfully is akin to physical adultery.
>
> So, ALL are still in effect, but some under a more spiritual understanding.
>

That is a good start, now which actual laws are still in effect?

Galatians 5:14 NRSV
14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

*Literally says that every law of God is subsumed under this one*

When fallible humans say ALL they actually mean MOST.
An infallible being would not make this same mistake.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/28/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will
>>>> follow?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which laws do you think are still in effect?
>>
>> Why do you ask?
>>
>> Did you not understand my previous description?
>>
>> There is the Ceremonial Law, that talks of how Israel was approach
>> God. It has still some generic applicability, in that it helps us
>> understand the nature of Gd, and helps us understand general
>> principles, but the details of the regulations are no longer
>> applicable. For example, we no longer need to be physically
>> circumcised, as a symbol of being part of his people, as we are given
>> the Spirit as our sign.
>>
>> Then there is the Social Law, that talks of how Israel was to be a
>> people and govern itself. Again, this show general principles of how
>> we should live, but again, many of the detail are not applicble, as we
>> are not living under a Theocracy.
>>
>> Lastly, there is the Moral Law, which deals with how we deal with
>> other people. These laws still apply, and in some cases are enhanced,
>> as we are given a better understanding of the nature of God and what
>> he expects. (Like when Jesus points out that "Getting Angry" is akin
>> to Murder, and Looking Lustfully is akin to physical adultery.
>>
>> So, ALL are still in effect, but some under a more spiritual
>> understanding.
>>
>
> That is a good start, now which actual laws are still in effect?

As I said, ALL of THEM, in various degrees.

Too manu to tr

>
> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
> 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>
> *Literally says that every law of God is subsumed under this one*

But "Literal" isn't the proper hermeneutic for reading a work.

>
> When fallible humans say ALL they actually mean MOST.
> An infallible being would not make this same mistake.
>

Nope. ALL MEANS ALL.

Because we don't look at it from fallible man, but need to try to see it
from the view of the perfect God.

You are just proving you don't knpw what you are talking about.

The Bible IS "From God" (through men), so we need to interpret it as such.

On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/28/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will
>>>>> follow?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which laws do you think are still in effect?
>>>
>>> Why do you ask?
>>>
>>> Did you not understand my previous description?
>>>
>>> There is the Ceremonial Law, that talks of how Israel was approach
>>> God. It has still some generic applicability, in that it helps us
>>> understand the nature of Gd, and helps us understand general
>>> principles, but the details of the regulations are no longer
>>> applicable. For example, we no longer need to be physically
>>> circumcised, as a symbol of being part of his people, as we are given
>>> the Spirit as our sign.
>>>
>>> Then there is the Social Law, that talks of how Israel was to be a
>>> people and govern itself. Again, this show general principles of how
>>> we should live, but again, many of the detail are not applicble, as
>>> we are not living under a Theocracy.
>>>
>>> Lastly, there is the Moral Law, which deals with how we deal with
>>> other people. These laws still apply, and in some cases are enhanced,
>>> as we are given a better understanding of the nature of God and what
>>> he expects. (Like when Jesus points out that "Getting Angry" is akin
>>> to Murder, and Looking Lustfully is akin to physical adultery.
>>>
>>> So, ALL are still in effect, but some under a more spiritual
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>
>> That is a good start, now which actual laws are still in effect?
>
> As I said, ALL of THEM, in various degrees.
>

EPHESIANS 2:15 NRSV
He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that
he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus
making peace...

Here it is in every other translation.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ephesians%202:15

> Too manu to tr
>
>>
>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>> 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>
>> *Literally says that every law of God is subsumed under this one*
>
> But "Literal" isn't the proper hermeneutic for reading a work.
>

It must either be (a) literal (b) some infallible way of knowing
exactly what degree of figurative meaning is the intended degree.

>>
>> When fallible humans say ALL they actually mean MOST.
>> An infallible being would not make this same mistake.
>>
>
> Nope. ALL MEANS ALL.
>

"You do that ALL the time", never means {You do that ALL the time}.

> Because we don't look at it from fallible man, but need to try to see it
> from the view of the perfect God.
>

Then Galatians 5:14 does subsume all of the other laws.

> You are just proving you don't knpw what you are talking about.
>
> The Bible IS "From God" (through men), so we need to interpret it as such.

The biblical inerrancy people have a different view.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/29/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Then why do you "pick and choose" which commands of God you will
>>>>>> follow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which laws do you think are still in effect?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you ask?
>>>>
>>>> Did you not understand my previous description?
>>>>
>>>> There is the Ceremonial Law, that talks of how Israel was approach
>>>> God. It has still some generic applicability, in that it helps us
>>>> understand the nature of Gd, and helps us understand general
>>>> principles, but the details of the regulations are no longer
>>>> applicable. For example, we no longer need to be physically
>>>> circumcised, as a symbol of being part of his people, as we are
>>>> given the Spirit as our sign.
>>>>
>>>> Then there is the Social Law, that talks of how Israel was to be a
>>>> people and govern itself. Again, this show general principles of how
>>>> we should live, but again, many of the detail are not applicble, as
>>>> we are not living under a Theocracy.
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, there is the Moral Law, which deals with how we deal with
>>>> other people. These laws still apply, and in some cases are
>>>> enhanced, as we are given a better understanding of the nature of
>>>> God and what he expects. (Like when Jesus points out that "Getting
>>>> Angry" is akin to Murder, and Looking Lustfully is akin to physical
>>>> adultery.
>>>>
>>>> So, ALL are still in effect, but some under a more spiritual
>>>> understanding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a good start, now which actual laws are still in effect?
>>
>> As I said, ALL of THEM, in various degrees.
>>
>
> EPHESIANS 2:15 NRSV
> He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that
> he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus
> making peace...
>
> Here it is in every other translation.
> https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ephesians%202:15

Right, the "Law of Moses", with its sacrifices of atonement was
abolished as the method of being made right with God, and in its place
were the instruction of Jesus, which kept in place the requirements of
the "Moral Law", (if not the exact retributions for its violation).

Loving God is STILL the highest rule, and to do that, we need to look at
ALL the Law to see what he is like.

Again, taking a TEXT out of CONTEXT just makes it a PRETEXT.

>
>> Too manu to tr
>>
>>>
>>> Galatians 5:14 NRSV
>>> 14 For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
>>> “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
>>>
>>> *Literally says that every law of God is subsumed under this one*
>>
>> But "Literal" isn't the proper hermeneutic for reading a work.
>>
>
> It must either be (a) literal (b) some infallible way of knowing
> exactly what degree of figurative meaning is the intended degree.

Why?

False Dichotomy.

>
>>>
>>> When fallible humans say ALL they actually mean MOST.
>>> An infallible being would not make this same mistake.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. ALL MEANS ALL.
>>
>
> "You do that ALL the time", never means {You do that ALL the time}.

And if you do say "You do that ALL the time", you are either
1) Correct, as they literally do that all the time
2) Lying, as they don't, or
3) Using a Figure of Speach that has a somewhat defined meaning.

Idioms are one reason you can't just take all words literally.

>
>> Because we don't look at it from fallible man, but need to try to see
>> it from the view of the perfect God.
>>
>
> Then Galatians 5:14 does subsume all of the other laws.

Only in its context, where it is assumed that the person has already
dedicated their life to the serving of God. What you are already doing,
you do not need to be instructed to keep on doing.

>
>> You are just proving you don't knpw what you are talking about.
>>
>> The Bible IS "From God" (through men), so we need to interpret it as
>> such.
>
> The biblical inerrancy people have a different view.
>

Nope. You don't understand what that term means. Like you have shown a
lack of understanding of many words.

And WHICH "Biblical Inerrancy" group of people do you mean?

There are many different camps, the biggest believes in the original
autographs, but also acknowledge that they were written down in
idiomatic vernacular, and so we can't just take a wooden literal reading.