If you could have any of the following for 20 years, starting at age 20, and in perfect health (but can still grow old and get a disease), and exclusive of the others (as in you can only have one), and start out with any of these things in the USA in the town with the least crime, which would it be?:
1) A starship that can seat four with only enough space for four 120 oz coolers stacked on top of each other, able to destroy forty three ton asteroids made of iron in one hour before its weapon became useless, and able to travel anywhere in the universe instantly for a period of 20 years straight (but doesn’t come with a ready-made star map built in for automatic navigation, and no voice command or brain command) and which can be destroyed by armor piercing bullets when the shields are down (and they must be down to leave and enter the ship).
2) To be the most beautiful person of your sex for 20 years, but never rich for the same period of time.
3) To be the most rich for 20 years, but with average beauty at the time, and no restrictions but the usual ones in whatever country you were in as to what you could do with your money.
4) To be as wise as is possible for 20 years, meaning, to have the most useful knowledge of anyone on Earth, to know all that every other human on Earth knows, including military scientists, and ability to figure out what the best thing to do was in whatever circumstance you were in, BUT to have only average self-control at the time (with the possibility of improvement). But then lose all the wisdom after 20 years and revert back to average, (but not any gain in self control).
5) To be the most patient person on Earth for 20 years (meaning to have the most self-control, so that it would be extremely hard to anger and annoy you easily, though you could still become angry and annoyed after a long time of persistent provocation or long after the angering events occurred), but start out with just a little higher than average intelligence, and only average looks, and four gold coins.
6) To have the most beautiful woman (or man), age 14, on Earth as your wife/husband, who also has the most beautiful speaking voice (but only a little better than average singing), and who is also the most loving, who is a fundamentalist Calvinist type Christian, but who only has a little above average intelligence and wisdom, and who will be sterile for 30 years (at which point she/he will have high probabilities of having children who will end up being miscarried or severely brain-defective. And these are other things in the way: You are both famous and though it’s legal in your state to be married, in many other states, the law does not apply, and many liberal governors and police are dying to jail you as soon as you cross over into their state. Further: you will not be rich for 20 years, and will only have average intelligence and wisdom and looks to start out with, no car, no job, and only a crude bike and a small pure silver coin the size of a dime to start out with.
7) To have average looks and intelligence, average wisdom, no money, but, at 12 PM, become completely invisible (including anything within 2 inches of you) for one hour, ever day, for 20 years.
8) The same as 7, but rather than invisibility, you have the ability to withstand temperatures down to 20 degrees below zero and up to 190 degrees without getting injured or sick (however your hair will still freeze or dry out unless protected), for 20 years.
9) To be the first person to capture a living bigfoot and have it put in mass public display for all to see, and not once, but more within hours of whenever you felt like it, more. And not only that, to be the first person to capture living dinosaurs found surviving in remote places, including deep underground, large ones that were thought to have gone extinct by many evolutionists, like T-Rex and Brontosauri, Pterodactyls etc., and even fire breathing ones, even dragons, so that the entire world would be in wonderment of you as much as the animals you were catching. However, you start out with far below average looks, are five feet tall, start out with just a crossbow and a few crossbow arrows and will have a hard to overcome lisp for 20 years.
10) To be of average looks and a little above average intelligence and wisdom, poor for 20 years, with no wife or kids of your own, and no car, only crude to a little above average bikes to use at times, or a middle class bus or plane, much more sad than happy, nearly depressed all the time, and often uncomfortable, and rarely getting good sleep and often be persecuted and will die in chains with your head cut off. But for 20 years will be a genuine prophet of God and know for sure that he loves you and that after the 20 years of prophesying, at which point you will die, will die knowing that you will eventually wake up to find yourself looking like a god, feeling like you are in perfect health, and always at peace and happy, always, as in forever, but as for the other nine choices, you will not have such assurance, not even close, of going to Heaven, and should you ever attempt to, would only have weak faith, even after the 20 years had passed, and a little less than often would wonder if you were going to Hell, a thought that would sometimes interfere with your enjoyment of life.
Which of these ten lives would you choose?
(Continued from the previous post):
In order of what seemed to be most relevant (in my opinion):
According to “The New Liberalism” “liberalism was strategically misrepresented libertinism” by unnamed persons, so for all anyone knows this is just a delusion or lie by the writer who himself recognizes a real connection.
According to “The New Revolution: Libertine Liberal vs Classic Liberal”:
There is a difference between “liberal” and “libertine”. We have, in the course of many social revolutions, struggled to define that line with varying degrees of success. “Libertine” behavior has and will always be looked upon askance because the connotation of “libertine” means the breakdown of society and the breakdown of society has not always been for the good of society. “Libertine” is to be free, not only in thought and expression, but from morality and societal norms. “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.
Therein lies our problem with modern day definition of the term “liberal”. Somewhere around 1967 the term “liberal” became confused with the “libertine” revolution of the counter culture. While the movement began in the grandest of idealism of freedom and equality for minorities, retaining its “liberal” idealism for a time, it quickly slipped its anchorage and drifted resolutely towards the “libertine”.
My thoughts on “Liberal” is to believe in and support the idealism of freedom of thought and expression, but to lend it support from a moral base.” is that it sounds like to me, “Liberalism is libertinism only with the attempt to justify it using morals” which is an obvious contradiction. It seems analogous to me like saying (without the pretentious “idealism” word), “Liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think whatever you feel like without being punished, and studying how to justify this belief using current (Christian?) morals or believing that they are (for what reason?)”. Therefore, liberalism is the belief that you should be able to think (what about “and feel”?) whatever you want to, from abusing and raping, torturing and murdering for fun, to imagine and express with delight abusing kids and the destruction of all moral beings with the justification for doing so with (Christian?) morality. This is obviously a contradictory belief system, just like Hinduism with it’s original practices of widow-burning and ritualistic murder of strangers/travelers yet claiming that it’s about enlightening yourself by avoiding “evil”, and not saying what “evil” is.
Strangely, Wikipedia (which says a libertine is a person without morals) has a hidden key phrase on its libertinism entry: “Classical liberalism”. Being that Wikipedia is controlled by liberals (the head being the liberal and atheist Jimmy/Jimbo Wales (who also apparently has narcissism disorder), it’s obvious to me why they would hide saying that liberalism was based on immorality. Why they would hide the phrase though, is something I don’t understand, though I can imagine a demon was mocking God in a connivingly and malicious way, by possessing someone and getting them to place that hint. I tried to see if the phrase was simply an outdated Google result by looking at Google’s cache, but found nothing. The Classical Liberalism entry also makes no connection. The only page in which the two are mentioned together is the Individualism page (which by the way is worded pretentiously and not something a “lay person” could easily understand).
Side note: To my surprise I found out that John Calvin had interacted with and spoke against “libertines” (1)(2)(3), surprised because that man figures prominently in my life, and just didn’t think it would have anything to do with him.
The sad thing is is that “libertine” would best have been associated with Christianity, especially Catholics who became true Christians after being freed from Roman Catholicism, but “freethinkers” (many of whom seem to be atheists) messed that up, just like they did with the words “free”, “liberal*”, “science” and “skeptic” (1)(2). They also try to do this with logical fallacies (which has to do with philosophy). The only atheist I can think of who made a decent contribution to any of these fields is Bertrand Russel for philosophy and Tesla for electronics and engineering. Mark Twain contributed to humor.
*The link to the word liberal (above) links to a blog on the ancient meaning of the word liberal and uses a certain word for a certain male private part that some may consider offensive.
Where do these words come from and how did they get their meanings?
Quack (and quackery): http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-1913/2-progressivism/8-quackery/index.html, http://users.tinyonline.co.uk/gswithenbank/curiousq.htm, http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-qua1.htm
Moron: http://listverse.com/2007/08/28/10-slang-words-and-phrases-explained, http://voices.yahoo.com/origin-word-moron-eugenics-racism-henry-474052.html, http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8632, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moron, http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8632
Dummy: Some might instantly think that this wasn’t even worth mentioning because the meaning would be so obvious: a wooden dummy being the meaning behind calling someone a dummy, which is what I thought, but wanting to give full coverage of common insults, and curious if anyone looked deep into the word, found out I was wrong (and forgot the word “dumb” in the King James version of the Bible I realized when reading the second website linked to the second link), http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dummy, http://www.dailywritingtips.com/numskulls-noodles-and-nincompoops, http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-meaning-nincompoop
Imbecile: http://web.archive.org/web/20100718113934/http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/further/negative.html, http://clir.pacscl.org/2011/01/10/idiots-imbeciles-and-morons http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/6513
By the way: while looking up these words, I ended up on Codelphia.com due to Google having an outdated lookup for the word “kook”, and while looking for the now gone definition, saw the word libertine defined on top. I learned, with some deduction of my own, that it used to mean a person who was freed from Roman slavery, but later freethinkers (often associated with atheists) started referred to themselves as such, and then Christians associated the word libertine with those who were immoral/without morals, and then though maybe that that was where the word “liberal” may have come from. I came across this interesting site on the meaning of “freedom” while doing research to see if I was right. Was my guess right?…
A few minutes ago I just looked at a site on carm.org that had explanations as to why “If God is love why would he send billions of people to Hell?” which are topics I wrote about a day or two ago and last year and which related to free will, because groups of certain belief types bring it up. While reading it, I came to this disappointing answer:
Second, if someone says that it is wrong for God to allow someone to be born and who will go to hell, then would he rather have God remove our freedom to rebel against Him so that no one can be blamed for sin? If the critic says he only wants those people born who go to heaven, then how are they truly free and how would that fulfill the ultimate plan of God to sacrifice His Son for the redemption of mankind?
This answer seems Arminian-like to me, because they have an obsession with free will, as in a belief that their free will is above God’s or free of his will (which are wrong and false beliefs). It makes no sense, because by that logic than the angels that never sinned, which God’s Spirit no doubt prevents from sinning (just as it directly or indirectly causes humans whom God loves, to do true good) are not free, or that humans that are “filled with the God’s Spirit” don’t have free will or rather, are “robots” or “zombies” as certain Christians, especially Mormons, would say. It also does not make sense because it implies to other wrong things: 1) that free will is sacred and must not be turned off or it’s some sort of sin God would be committing, and 2) that God could somehow get a person to sin by controlling their will directly, which I think is implied because of this part: “would [you] rather have God remove [your] freedom to rebel against Him … then how are [you] truly free [unless you can do what offends him? (etc.)]” Do you see how sick that sounds? That is how those who hate God, and Arminians think though. It sounds very sick to a person like me who loves God.
To Tina Fiorda and Tilde Cameron:
Hi, I’m a logician. I don’t like to waste time so I will go right to the point:
You made a false claim that God, because he “is love” wouldn’t punish. God isn’t literally love, if so, he’d not be God, he’d be an emotion, which makes no sense, because emotions aren’t alive, they are are response of living beings. Further, if God could only love, he wouldn’t have a free will, he’d be a slave to love so to speak (supposing there was such thing as living love that could be God at the same time, but he’s not. It’s too convenient and wishful thinking.
So, major error there. Also, it’s common knowledge you punish for two reason: justice and to teach, just as you said, to teach. Is God NOT teaching by causing pain? Or is he not teaching when he exercises justice? Using your logic, no one should punish, people should get away with crimes, no one should be restrained even. Your logic is one sided and biased too, because you’re saying God shouldn’t have the right to exercise his truly free will.
Your second error: You said he gave us free will. Free will doesn’t justify doing wrong, it’s not a free ticket to do wrong or to try and do whatever we want.
Third error: You said, in response to the Christian who corrected you with the Bible, that “we feel” such and such. Feeling is inferior to reasoning. It’s by following your feelings over reasoning that is the main reason for fights (not as others say in a vague way, “religion” as in, “being religious.”) Simple example: children fighting, bad marrying decisions, unprepared pregnancy, leading to endless baby-murders, divorces and wrecked lives.
Fourth error (though is the same as the third one): Does that “resonate” with you? You said that your message “resonates” with you. What does that mean? It’s a vague statement that explains nothing. You also said that spirits can also be positive and not negative, and asked, “Why must they only be negative”? However your question is a rhetoric fallacy: your question doesn’t prove that spirits communicating in a way forbidden by the Bible won’t always be negative.
Fifth error: You’re use of the word “negative” is also vague. It has multiple meanings that don’t match. Negative can mean, “Displeasing”, “not having messages or an attitude conveying happiness” or “being unthankful and/or having a fault-finding attitude out of hatred”. The first two aren’t necessarily bad, the third is, so these definitions are not all compatible. Your question therefore could not be understood, it was meaningless. If you hadn’t used that deliberately deceptive New Age term and instead used the biblical “evil”, you would have been understandable and not teaching and spreading confusion.
The Bible makes it clear that consulting a spirit will have negative consequences because God forbade it, and sin (going against his command/s) leads to punishment, or what you might vaguely call “negative consequences.” That is why you will always. if “a spirit” really is speaking to you, get a deceptive message over all (not that every single thing said is going to be a lie). It’s also not the same as a sin like theft, in which you may have a temporary “positive” as you might call it, result, like getting a bottle of aspirin and getting rid of a headache. A demon doesn’t do anything beneficial, nothing significantly beneficial, not usually at least. It’s intent is always to deceive or facilitate some deception, including just by being silent if that’s all it feels like doing or was told to do by Satan. A demon is not like a genie in a bottle. It’s like an angry tormented snake covered in sharp thorns that wants to relieve its pain and is willing to harm you if it thinks it can ease its pain by doing so.
Sixth error: You’re use of the word “spirit” is also deceptively vague. You’re purposely avoiding specifying angels and demons and attempting to make people think that you can also talk to dead humans. There is no evidence, with the exception of one debatable verse in the Bible, that humans, especially unforgiven ones, will communicate after dying.
Seventh error: You said God unconditionally loves. Who says that, and what is the evidence for that? The Bible certainly doesn’t teach that, and if it did, it would be a major contradiction using your interpretation. You’re picking and choosing which verses you want to believe, and simply going with what is convenient and sounds most pleasing to your ears.
Eighth error: You can’t create a reality and there is no such thing as more than one. That’s an incorrect usage of the word. The way in which you use it goes opposite of one of the only definitions, which is, “The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be.” So you’re midefining it, completely going against it, by saying there is more than one reality. The word has not been used that way till New Agers started misusing it. It’s a delusional use of the word and sets people up for a fall and can get people killed because you are teaching people that they can literally cause dangerous things to be safe just by wishing or that lies can be true just by wishing, like making child abuse a good thing that directly helps children, or driving on the wrong side of traffic something that will improve safety, or jumping off a cliff something that will be a positive experience that leads to enlightenment and immorality rather. It’s an extremely against common sense delusion. It could even cause children to become mentally ill if they were repeatedly taught to believe in imaginary things and told that they can wish things into reality or wish things away, like the sun, and are later traumatized into a permanent mentally deluded state when someone abuses them, by endlessly responding with delusional defenses like pretending that the abuse is good, and even becoming worse by becoming addicted to abuse. Your reality creating fallacy is actually one of the roots of all logical fallacies: denial of absolute truth or rather, that there are absolute lies. And to deny that leads to endless confusion and mistakes. Your claim that we can create realities therefore refutes your very claim, because I can, according to you, create a reality in which you are completely false (and yet that can’t be true either because you deny that there is anything that can be completely true), hence why I said your reality is unworkable. An analogy of your teaching would be if we lived in a completely red universe, yet you say, “The universe is blue, but not truly, really, it’s red, but not really; because we can see blue if we want too, because we have free will. Just imagine you’re seeing red only?” And of course you ignore the test: just check to see if anyone is able to see red only using something other than your feelings and imagination.
So, you’ve created a life-wrecking, false and contradictory reality if anything, one that isn’t loving as you repeatedly insisted during your interview by Noory. And your using vague words makes it harder for the ignorant, gullible and stupid to realize that.
I hope you appreciate my patience in using my “free will” and valuable time to correct your mistakes for the benefit of all. You can learn how to be saved via the salvation link above.