Thanks for sharing Lib.
And nicely written too. I’ll ponder on it.
Let me put it this way:
Incompleteness does not mean that we discard difference; it simply means that we discard self-recursion when difference is discarded.
A self-aware being cannot know all things.
We DO know that all things EXIST.
We DO know that knowing all things disables the perception of existence.
From this we know that we are incomplete when we can abstract a data field against another body.
We do however, understand that the other body must exist or else order would be impossible and consent would always be contradicting its purpose for being.
When one knows all things, they become the data field… the data field not being a monism; and equally not aware of itself.
When a person is not the data field, but a data field abstraction (a difference from (in the form of) the data fields’ recursion.
It is this ‘lack of’, which provides sentience the elasticity to move.
If however, sentience believes that this ‘lack of’ is absolutely nothing at all (rather than simply a lack of self-recursion), then it negates itself in a means which is know to be demonstrably impossible to do.
It’s like: “You said that you were in Florida, but the homing beacon which is you (or else you cannot exist) states that you were in Louisiana.”
We KNOW that this person is lying, and that the only reason they continue to lie is that they are not aware of how data is considered true against the necessity of non-existence of all being if it is in fact actually false. When they are made aware of the system of detection which exists, they may feel again violated with regards to their exersize of consent in a world of incompleteness which allows their capacity of consent to even exist.
Or am I rambling again…
-Justhink
Forgive me if this post has already been addressed and debated, but I have to call Diogenes on this. The truth is, one may base faith in Jesus Christ on cold, hard fact.
But what sort of facts of God’s existence would cynics like to have?
It is generally true that for the believer, no evidence is required, and for the skeptic, no evidence is sufficient. However, we can factually verify the Bible as accurate in cases where it can
be either proven or disproven.
Let me first mention that I came by my faith the old fashioned way – by conviction of the Holy Spirit. I was watching a football game and some guy had a John 3:16 sign in the stadium. I knew enough to know it was a Bible verse and decided to look it up. This was no simple feat. I literally paced back and forth
between the couch and where the Bible was, and picked up and set down the Bible, several times. There was an uneasiness in my stomach and doubt in my mind as the thought that looking up a Bible verse because someone held up a sign was stupid – perhaps one might say I thought it was immature. Finally, out of
stubborness, I decided that I had already gotten out of my seat and missed some of the game, and my
unease was ridiculous, so I just went ahead and read it. It changed my life.
Blind faith, however acceptable, is not required.
If the Bible is accurate historically and if the Bible says Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven (which it does), then how much of a leap is it to say perhaps that claim is also accurate? Wouldn’t
it be folly to examine the evidence that the Bible is accurate and then reject it’s central assertion?
Some old testament proofs:
Sodom and Gomorrah (and three other cities mentioned along with them in the biblical account of their destruction by God) are actual cities that have been found where the Bible says they were. Bitumen is plentiful in their ruins and it would be accurate to say that brimstone (bitumenous pitch) rained down from heaven on them, just like the Bible described it.
Jericho was a great walled city that the Isrealites (according to the Bible) defeated by walking around the city for seven days and then shouting along with trumpet blasts to make the walls fall. Jericho has been found and excavated. Coinciding with biblical accounts, the following has been shown by the excavation:
the city was strongly fortified; its walls fell outward rather than inward (as would typically occur) so an army could skamper over them and overrun the city; the attack occurred just after harvest time; the inhabitants had no time to flee with their food; the siege was short; the city was not plundered; and the city was burned.
One supposed error was the biblical account of king saul’s armor was placed in the temple of Ashtaroth at Bet She’an (after the Philistines slew him) and his head was placed in the temple of Dagon. Problem is, Ashtaroth was a Canaanite Goddess. Excavations at this site, however, have uncovered these two temples separated by a hallway.
I can quote a slew of archeologists along the lines that archeology has, since 1925, begun to prove the biblical history accurate, including the names and locations of nations that were once known only to exist because they were mentioned in the bible. (in other words, tablets, histories, etc. have been uncovered that coincide with biblical accounts of nations and cities.)
There are internal proofs of accuracy as well. Not the least of which (to me) is the fact that every major character in the old testament has his flaws (and sins) spelled out for us. Moses killed a man in what might be described as a murder. David committed murder to steal another man’s wife. Jacob was a liar and a conniving scoundrel. And more. Not only that, but all of Israel’s failures as a nation are spelled out for us. Time and time again, the Bible points out where the Jews messed up. No offense to my Jewish friends, but your ancestors certainly did nothing to earn God’s favor, but that’s the nature of grace.
What’s remarkable about this is that these accounts were written during a time period when all other historical records were written only to reflect a ruler’s greatness.
Proof of Jesus’ claims to being the Messiah, or savior sent from God:
There were 61 major prophecies in the Old Testament regarding the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled them all. (I understand there were more than 350 in all)
Let’s consider just eight easily verifiable prophecies:
Micah 5:2 points to the Messiah being born in Bethlehem
Isiah 40:3 says he will be preceded by a messenger (John the Baptist fulfilled this)
Zechariah 9:9 says the Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a donkey
Psalm 41:9 says he would be betrayed by a friend
Zechariah 11:12 says that friend would betray him for 30 pieces of silver.
Zechariah 11:13 says that the money would be thrown into the House of the Lord for the potter. (Judas gave the money back and the Jews bought the potter’s field with it.)
Isaiah 53 says the Messiah would be silent before his accusers. (Isaiah 53 pretty much predicts, in sum, the message of Jesus Christ.)
Psalm 22:16 depicts a crucifixion.
Using statistical methods reviewed by a committee of American Scientific Affiliation members and by the same group’s executive committee, Prof. Peter Stoner calculated the odds of fulfilling those seven prophecies at 1 in 10 to the 17th power.
To illustrate 10 to 17th silver dollars would cover the state of Texas two feet deep.
considering 48 prophecies, stoner found the odds to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power.
To conclude, because the post is already long and I could go on for days like this, archeology has proven the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. The odds are staggering that anyone would ever fulfill the prophecies made of the Messiah. Even if I never considered any other non-biblical accounts of Jesus and his miracles, trial and crucifixion (of which there are several), I have to believe Jesus when he claims to be the Messiah. Anything else flies in the face of evidence and is foolish.
**Proof is worthless to those to whom it cannot be presented; the proof that I have witnessed is of great worth to me, but of little or none to third parties; I have said as much already. I’m not terribly bothered if my ‘proof’ doesn’t compel anybody - I don’t expect it to - I mention it only as the basis of what compels me.
**Not at all; I’m actually quite aware of how small a portion of the divine being that I comprehend; it would be quite foolish to start making assertions about what God isn’t without knowing the full picture (which, I suspect, may take me a while).
How is it intellectually lazy or immature to conceive or consider the idea that there might be another plane of reference out there?
I would say that the OP is true of those who cannot fathom a world outside their own little bubbles. God can’t be proven…that’s the whole bloody point! And how obtuse are you, that you can’t get it?
And if the world would be better without religion…it’d certainly be better without self-aggrandized assholes pronouncing judgement on anyone who doesn’t think like they do. Some of the atheists on this board [ahem] MrFoi[/ahem] have proven to me that sanctimonious prat-ness is not a trait held solely by the religious. I’ve had religious people look down at me from their high moral pillars and tell me that I’m living a life of sin because I don’t subscribe to a portion of the bible that they do. But its been the atheists that tell me I’m plain stupid or backward for not believing as they do. And I know which attitude pisses me off more. I don’t believe that there is any difference between Fred Phelps holding a “God Hates Fags” sign or someone like Kalt claiming that anyone who believes a divine being may exist is a literal schizophrenic.
**Libertarian ** didn’t call you to task for your beliefs…he called you to task for being an jackass. That’s the difference between the two of you.
The most intellectually immature statements made on this thread have been from those who don’t understand that most generalizations are illogical.
All that is needed is one example to undermind the thesis.
My step-son was a National Merit Scholar. He was taking graduate math classes while he was an undergraduate. He graduated at the head of his class, outranking the Rhodes Scholar, at a very intellectually exclusive college, where he won the math prize each year that he entered the competition (3). After having read all of the “Great Books of the Western World,” he continued graduate studies in math. The principle that he regards most highly is truth – even beyond compassion.
He is a Christian. Justify calling him “intellectually immature.”
It is intellectually lazy in-so-much that one refuses to aknowledge that their stated ‘other reference plane’ contradicts their behavior. When the declaration of belief for how and/or why things are occurring are not able to reproduce the behavior such a person is exhibiting, that person is considered to be in a state of cognitive denial regarding their perception of ego fulfillment and the actual system which allows them the perception of that state in the first place. It is a refusal to aknowledge theft when the world is not placing the dynamic pressure to test their belief, even thought it is known that this pressure can be applied and will necessarily expose the incongruency.
It’s like: “I’m ‘wealthy’ (of spirit) because I believe in God”
This persons reference frame is depression, destitution, misery and frustration which they have not had a direct, prolonged experience of. They don’t see any contradiction with the ability to brainwash any human being into believing anything that someone wants them to with this staement - such systems are discarded or not looked at. Even if it were true that they weren’t brainwashed in a very individually tailored program, they then use this as evidence that God and free-choice exist for them, because they are ‘holy’ or special to that degree. God selected them to not be a part of a brainwashing program, therefor they are blessed and God exists. These individuals de-tatch potentialities from their actual experience as proof that the contradictions arising from the exersize of these potentialities do not actually exist as being worthwhile consideration to their declaration of belief.
Individuals who believe in God are also removed from the pressure to observe the law of conservation when it suits them to do so. They believe that human joy is a property of infinite potential, not aware that they, as part of the system, are actually stealing human joy from a pool which leaves less for others. They do this without abstracting out this resource in a means which allows others access to it, and see no contradiction between their belief and their action of sitting in a very padded state of existential pressure from which we know one will possess the luxury of ignorance to hold such a belief.
Many things can be proven about God if God does exist. If these proofs are not true, then rationality is disproven entirely. That means the next time you eat instead of not eating to survive, you are contradicting yourself into absolute irrationality.
What can be proven about God is that God is meaningless and necessarily an abusive concept for human beings to exchange, as its only purpose seeks to abuse other humans through non-transparency which removes them from logical/behavioral accountability - the controls which expose the abuses which allow for a successful being less pressure to behave in accordance with the reasons for their success which they declare.
If God exists, we can determine that:
God cannot be omniscient.
God cannot be omnipotent.
God cannot be telling the truth about his eternal life.
God does not possess the power or inclination to have a peer relationship.
God cannot commit suicide, nor does God process ethic regarding the fact that he could: To this degree God cannot actually communicate with us compassionately, because he neither has the pressure or the inclination or the free-will to understand human beings.
God does not give ability to those who ask.
God only gives his highest glory to those who break his commandments.
We know that God does not trust his own truth, because he’s afraid to bestow either truth or power to another being besides himself for all of eternity.
We can know quite a bit about God.
To me the most damaging thing that we can know about God is that God completely covers up the topic of suicide. It is our ability to percieve an action which we can perform to exit this life for a purpose which allows us the perception of our perception that we can act for a purpose. The concept of suicide is the one concept which seperates humans from all of the other species which they seperate themselves from - it is the essence of our awareness.
Were it not for the Biblical EDIT which included one line about suicide being a sin (because people were killing themselves to join family members who were in hell, which was effecting church revenue) - the Bible would not even have the concept written into it! Go figure, the one quality that defines a human being as self-aware of being self-aware of being self-aware… not mentioned once by God. It’s that much more ironic, since it is the logical inclusion of the concept of suicide which allows human being to formulate ethical decisions with a logical and testable base, which can be falsified and reproduced.
It can also be proven that any being who does commit suicide knows something that God does not know about a process of existence or logic (God cannot be omniscient).
We know that God does not provide the option to not play His game. Those who do not follow the rules are sentenced to eternal damnation, those who win recieve eternal life with him.
Nobody is given the choice to not play, nobody is given the choice to exersize any true freedom which might place pressure upon God to analyze the ethic of his own construct or behavior.
But… that’s what religious people do. A person is either rational or they are religious. There is no in-between. A religious person does not have the capacity to actually be a ‘good’ person even if they wanted to. They are too detatched from cause and effect to actually provide tools which others can utilize for the benefit of everyones consent to exist.
Many atheists rely upon non-transparency in precisely the same means that deists do; to this degree they are equally religious.
I would suggest that you are merely critisizing a mirror image of your own reflection here - using the image reverse as proof that it’s not you in the mirror.
Athiests can certainly be religious, in fact many of them are religious and are performing the same system of reflection denial that you are. It is a system of bio-feedback which perpetutes the mutual delusion from confronting mild quantities of pressure from life which challenge these beliefs. It requires very little individualized pressure from another being to remove the space with which to exersize this delusion regarding ones mirror image.
Those who control the mechanisms to place this pressure are only in charge of such vast resource because of the abuse of this system - they spend much of their resource assuring that the pressure is never actually applied to people in their sphere of influence.
This begs the question: “Is it possible for God to hate?”
We do know that homosexuals are cast to eternal damnation via the Bible. The problem is that God seems to be ‘above it all’; “I don’t hate people who I send to eternal damnation, rather then giving them an option to unexist.”
The statement about God is demonstrably true within the Biblical passsages. We can also demonstrate that many schizophrenics don’t believe in God, and that many who believe in god are not schizophrenics. To that degree, these statements are not compatible.
I’m not aware that this is directed at me, but I find Libertarian to generally be thoughtful and helpful. I have also found him to be quick to judge and evasive… qualities I’m sure can equally be ascribed to myself by him. I see this as a translation issue rather than something inherently possed of both of us.
With all of this talk about ‘jackasses’ on one side and ‘cleanliness’ on the other, you might do well to read the current thread on Pacifism which I participated in. This thtread deals directly with responsibility of not contradicting ones belief, and the responsibility to formulate a belief with a sound logical foundation which can be demonstrated to others.
-Justhink
There is a considerable difference between stupidity and being unexposed to pressure which is known to exist, which directly affects the outcome of a perticular belief or behavior with accordance to a belief.
I don’t actually believe concepts like ‘stupidity’, I use them for short-hand to get around the complex verbosity I spin into when attempting to articulate myself entirely. Maybe others are doing the same.
To the degree that this pressure is not being applied to this individual - it can be stated that they have had a lack of exposure.
This lack of exposure directly correlates to the concept of immaturity with regards to the OP. I do believe that immaturity can be tied to the belief in God directly.
-Justhink
There are a number of variables which can allow this type of functionality without the presence of ethical or logical maturity.
Bring your step-son in here to argue his own maturity of belief.
-Justhink
Mithrilhawk (cool name by the way), I’d very much enjoy discussing your list of prophecies and any you may have handy to add to it, in a new thread to avoid hijacking this one. Typology, real and false, is something that intrigues me greatly. And given the mix of believers and scholarly non-believers on this board, it might prove to be a very interesting thread. Care to do an OP on the topic?
There are also a number of variables which can allow people to be intellectually mature and religious. Most logical and intellectually mature people would not be close-minded to that construct.
And since when do mothers have control over their grown sons?
Are you referring to mathematical proof or scientific evidence?
It is not possible to to have the tools to solve for consent violation when a person believes in the existence of an undefined term as their validation for violating consent. The mere belief in such existence disables the capacity to process logic in a consistent means with regards to belief, behavior and result.
Completely open minded people do not eat food or drink water ever; so I’m not seeing where your argument is standing.
As for control over your own son… you may or you may not have that control, it was more a matter of asking your son to participate with his own belief of maturity rather than you non-transparently doing it for him - possibly against his consent.
As for the evidence:
The evidence seperates rationality from irrationality, by setting a barrier which can be demonstrated by anybody at any time, and will lead them to conclude that this barrier which exists does accurately describe the barrier between rational and irrational belief.
What, for example, is your take on the fact that God avoided the topic of suicide in the Bible? The concept of suicide is what allows people their awareness of purposeful and meaningful action as being done by them. It is the concept which allows one to solve for consent, by calculating it down to zero percent usage with 100% ability to use it at any time. Suicide incidentally is also the most powerfully damniung concept to any of the Biblical logic and declarations of superiority and ethical rationality. Again, what is your take on this supposedly perfect being failing to notice that suicide EXISTS as an option, and commenting on this property which clearly is necessary to hold conceptually in order to abstract life for a purpose?
What is so great about Gods truth when he blocks access to the door with which one inquires Him about it? By this, I mean his paniced hiding of the tree of life in Genesis! This is a perfect example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Had God not made that decision, we wouldn’t be having these problems in the first place - he’s simply holding out a shotgun with infinite bullets, with eternal life and with these qualities is standing in front of a door which allows us to interact as peers before being cast to eternal damnation - a judgement incidentally that he is removed from having the pressure to conform to anything.
I’m curious what you think of these precise topics regarding God.
-Justhink
Some cities were found by the Dead Sea that had been destroyed by an earthquake. There is no evidence that they are the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah. Teliological myths often arose to explain natural disasters.
Actually, the archaelogical evidence shows that Jericho had been destroyed by an earthquake long before Joshua arrived there. There is no evidence of walls falling “outward.” In fact there are no walls at all from the time of Jericho. The Israelites arrived at a city which was already in ruins.
There is a lot of pseudo-archaeological nonsense out there which purports to “prove” historical points of the Bible. Obviously you’ve been exposed to some of this. Here’s the real skinny on Jericho.
:rolleyes:
The truth is that there is not a single word in the Hebrew Bible which refers in any way to Jesus. All of the so-called “prophesies” cited by Christians have been taken out of their original context and twisted to fit their own theological agenda. this was done by the NT writers, themselves. Furthermore, the authors of the gospels actually fabricated some details of Jesus’ life in order draw rhetorical parallels with OT figures (birth in Bethlehem, exile in Egypt) It would constitute a major hijack to actually go through and rebut your “prophesies” one by one, but I’d be more than happy to do it in another thread if you’d like. I concur with Poly that a discussion of alleged OT prophesies for Jesus merits its own discussion.
mrfoi, please try to be more careful about attribution, the words you quoted in your last post were not Latro’s.
Now as to what you wrote in that post:
Please read the above quote in the context of your entire post, and then explain irony to me.
A few questions:
Have you studied religion? Theology?
What led you to the belief that religious people are immature? Reason, you may answer? What, then, was the reason you began to attempt to reason your way towards that belief as a conclusion?
What, in your own words, is the difference between maturity and intellectual maturity?
The difference between maturity and immaturity?
Can you give an example (intentionally) of intellectual immaturity?
Can you give an example of intellectual immaturity not involving religion?
Is attacking people’s beliefs a sign of maturity?
Note:
My request to mrfoi concerning attribution was made in the spirit of clarity. I do not pretend or aspire to any authority.
Sort of. I’ve thought about it quite a bit. I do collect thought forms, I have been known to avoid books because the corruption which allow the book to sell depress me.
I was interested in how to know all things. I finally came across a barrier which seperates rationality frok irrationality and noticed that religious people utilize the expected forms of someone who seeks to violate trust and consent without physical accountability or detection.
For sentient beings, being selective about which demontrably true truths they will admit to having an effect upon them. They choose to admit the ones which allow them money and friends and sex, and discard the ones which don’t suit their desires.
Maturity begins to calculate for the consent of other beings when they perform actions, realizing that solving these problems allows them greater capacity for desire fulfillment and the only logical purpose to live without being a complete hypocrite. Immature people will spends their lives fortifying the barriers of existential pressure to change their beliefs rather than confront them head on.
Defending ones self when being attacked has zero logical value.
This would be an immature act. It is demonstrably a result of lack of exposure to the elements of life and is a belief which only exists in a padded little fairy-tale land of ‘arbitrary’ self-centerdness. When cognitive age is increased, the room to wiggle around in these areas of corruption is effectively removed and there is only one consistent choice to be made with regards to calculating all logic and emotional argument.
?
You mean when a doctor gives a child small-pox vaccine when the child is kicking and screaming because they believe it will hurt them? Should the person just attack the child against the child’s consent or should they attack the childs belief or should they let the child leave or should they commit suicide?
A person should be able to solve for informed consent when this situation arises. If they cannot, I believe it is their logical duty to let the child leave or to commit suicide so as to not be a contradictory human being.
-Justhink
I’ve been following this thread with interest and trepidation, because I’m not sure what I need to say will be of any use in the direction it has taken. But it would be my feeling that the spiritually immature tend to need an authority figure who can “fix it when it hurts” and see God in that role. Only slightly more mature is the rebellious early teen who rejects any parental authority and demands total freedom at any cost – and hence rejects any concept of God.
The thoughtful adult has come to a reasoned and mature understanding of why his or her parent did what they did, and accepted it, sometimes with ill grace, and has resumed an adult/adult relationship with the parent. Likewise, one can think through what one knows and feels, come to a decision about God and one’s relationship with Him, and make a mature decision regarding Him. (This can, of course, be the reasoned conclusion that there is no or inadequate evidence for His existence, and hence Occam’s Razor calls for an assumption of atheism – what we’ve referred to on this board as “soft atheism,” as opposed to the belief-based conviction that there absolutely cannot be a God.)
I would like to think that my acceptance of the reality and particularly of the loving nature of God is a mature, philosophically based understanding of how the Universe He created and has planned truly works, not an escapism into “letting the Big Daddy in the Sky take care of poor little me.” I can respect an atheist who has similarly weighed the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion, but who will respect my right and mental capacity to believe as I do.
** Libertarian ** Thank you for taking the time to write you heart out. I found it to be a great read and appreciated many aspects of it.
Although i am not Christian - nor will i ever be. I heartfully understand the dawning you speak of.
I am Agnostic - I know something is there, the same as most people do. I am just not vain enough to think i can understand and comprehend it.
Once again however. Thank you.
You’re welcome, Trader, as are you, Latro.
If I were to write an epilogue, I would explain how, over time, my intellect caught up with my spirit. The more I researched, the more it all made sense to my brain.
And there really is nothing at all hard to understand or comprehend. Jesus said, “Thank you, Father, for hiding these things from those who think they know it all, and for revealing them to children and to people with simple minds.”
What actually happened in that moment of revelation was that I surrendered. I stopped resisting. I looked at the words and, driven by frustration with what I thought was my failure to translate properly, I felt humbled and vulnerable. I opened myself up. It was into that emptiness — that vacuum of ego — that God poured Himself.
You can’t hear what someone is saying while you’re talking. You can’t see the sky while you’re looking at the ground. You can’t expect someone to come in when the door is locked. You can’t pour anything new into a bucket that is already full.
God’s message is the simplest I’ve ever heard: “I love you”.
Mrfoi wrote:
No, actually, he didn’t. I wrote that. 
Yes, I did believe in “god”. In a meaningless, intellectual sort of way.
Yeah, but I walked around naked for a pretty long while. Remember this? “Time passed. In defiance of both God and Satan, I became an atheist. A hard atheist. An arrogant and almost militant intellectual who delighted in mocking people of faith.”
I’m afraid it isn’t. But in general, I’m skeptical of things that are obvious to a man who is oblivious.
Quite frankly, I haven’t spoken of anything of the sort.
Well, you might be right. I wonder whether you would be willing to bring your considerable expertise in logic to bear upon this:
Definition
G = G
Hypothesis
G
Axioms
- G [symbol]Þ[/symbol] G (From the definition)
- [symbol]Ø[/symbol][symbol]Ø[/symbol]G (Law of Necessity)
Inferences
- [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G (Excluded Middle)
- [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G [symbol]Þ[/symbol] [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G (Becker’s Postulate)
- G [symbol]Þ[/symbol] G (The Modal Axiom)
- G [symbol]Ú Ø[/symbol]G (Law of Exclusion)
- G [symbol]Ú[/symbol] [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G (From inferences 4 and 6, Substitution)
- [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G [symbol]Þ[/symbol] [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G (From Axiom 1, Modus Tollens)
- G [symbol]Ú[/symbol] [symbol]Ø[/symbol]G (From Inferences 7 and 8, Substitution)
- G (Disjunctive Syllogism)
Conclusion
G (From Inferences 5 and 10, Modus Ponens)
My question is, do you agree with the conclusion? If not, which inference is invalid?
Yes, if only we could understand you, we would be enlightened. And our disagreement with you is, of course, damning evidence of our incomprehension.
I can’t speak for others, but I’m afraid that my ennui for your rant precludes any excitement.
A man would do well to think at least as much as he laughs.
Actually, there’s a formal name in logic for what you’re accusing me of. Did you spare us its use so that we wouldn’t think you are pretentious?
Sorry, but I’ve never watched “Touched by an Angel”.
I don’t ordinarilly use the pronoun “it” to reference people. I didn’t then, either.
Freedom is the absence of coercion. Jesus said to those who believe in Him, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Got it. You’re just teasing us with your dandruff right now. But later, you will regale us with the effluence of your full blown psoriasis, is that it?