Rocky

TLC, just curious, can you back up that claim (about the erroneous premise) with scripture? The record of Daniel and some of his pals suggests that material facts provide a reasonable basis for decision making. In fact, the record in Daniel chapter 1 provides the basis for how to model scientific experiments, specifically medical research. 3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome,showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians.[b] 5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table.They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service. 6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel,Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. 8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9 Now God had caused the official to show favor and compassion to Daniel, 10 but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your[c] food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.” 11 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, 12 “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink.13 Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16 So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

sigh...

I don't think the word ubiquitous means what you think it means. Then again, I could be wrong. adjective existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent

#Sad

The thread title should be Ol' Loy was a PIKER compared to these guys.

Y'all ever heard of a cult called NXIVM? (pronounced "nexium") (video of an interview with Catherine Oxenberg at the link) NEW YORK (AP) — A co-founder of an embattled upstate New York self-help organization has pleaded guilty in a case featuring sensational claims that some followers became branded sex slaves. Nancy Salzman pleaded guilty to conspiracy during a hearing in federal court in Brooklyn on Wednesday. She’s to be sentenced on July 10. There was no immediate response from her lawyer. Salzman was a co-founder of NXIVM, a cult-like group based near Albany. Prosecutors say a secret society within the organization branded women with a spiritual leader’s initials and forced them to have sex with him. The leader, Keith Raniere, is set to go on trial next month. Also charged in the case are Salzman’s daughter as well as Seagram liquor fortune heiress Clare Bronfman and TV actress Allison Mack.

There's profit and then there's profit (prophet?). I recently viewed a documentary about the global economy. One point in it is that some people make a living by doing or making something that adds value (to the economy) and others do so just by shifting existing value from one place or person to another. If VeePee created something that some people found value in (e.g. PFLAP) then the splinters are just shifting it around.

It's only 19 days until 4/1/19.

I bet Stephen King could make that story sing!

Ummm... "rational thought" is about the last thing people who are needing to be persuaded actually take heed to. The resources for learning persuasion are numerous, here is one. Perhaps one of the most significant resources of our era is the seminal research of Robert Cialdini, emeritus professor of social psychology and author of Influence. But I digress.

Looks like Raf abstained from posting on Sunday this week.

Yelling doesn't make it so. But thanks anyway. Define quantitative and qualitative evidence Quantitative: Numerical or statistical information (data), which often comes from surveys, surveillance or from administration records. Qualitative:Descriptive information, which often comes from interviews, focus groups or artistic depictions such as photographs.

Btw, by definition, Kata, witnessing instantaneous healings would be qualitative, not quantitative proof, if anything. Quantitative evidence has to do with numbers... which might be related to what Raf said.

Easter is after Tax Day this year.

And the photo IS of the same David Craley that edited the Way Mag.

I don't need your apologies. If you're going to post remarkable claims, it is your responsibility to provide the links and the back up documentation. Full stop.

Where's the documentation that he was "born without a brain?"

Figure it out. If you can't figure it out, don't bother telling people to do some convoluted search process.

Indeed, Thomas Paine, one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers, was a Deist. He took a lot of crap for his essay on the Age of Reason. Because it undermined the superstition that dominated religion in that era.

I prefer to try to read to infer what the writer is trying to communicate. If I was teaching a class on English grammar, I'd agree with you. OTOH, did you go on Quora to ask the writer of that question for clarification? Did you post some snark there too about the grammar?

Why don't you just post the YouTube link here?

Maybe I'm dense, but I read the question, even with the commas, as that it was only a subset of atheists who believe that Jesus never existed.

As you seem to have noticed, I used an "I" statement (I don't see how...). Just claiming it WAS germane doesn't automatically make it germane. It's also not a great leap to recognize that I was implying that I had never become FB friends with him but simply referenced HOW I came to understand that he's on FB. Thanks for the clarification. I never implied that I trust FB friend suggestions. I don't recall ever having met Craley. But obviously am familiar with his name.