Fact Free Frame Up

All other Political discussion that does not affect our ability to enjoy the outdoors.
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#16

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:21 pm

GregD wrote:

I took a shot at your analysis process.

There are some people past and present that assert, more or less, the following: Everything in the Bible is correct. As a matter of logic, with this type of assertion, any counter example proves the assertion false. Remember the bits about "the water above"? It is painfully clear that this bit of the Bible has been proven false, first by astronomy and second by space travel. Your attempts to contort the meaning of the text to fit the data is exactly confirmation bias. I come back to this example because it is simple and clean: the reality is completely clear and the text is clear enough to see that the two cannot be reconciled in any reasonable way. So clearly not everything in the Bible is correct. And yet you don't readily concede this inescapable conclusion.

You have asserted that some things in the Bible are true and could not have been known to be true by the authors without divine intervention. As a matter of logic, with this type of assertion, you cannot prove anything without controlling for all other relevant factors. You never attempt to do that, so what you present is not a cogent argument. It is an expression of confirmation bias - you want this assertion to be true. Jesus drank vinegar and died, therefore vinegar killed Jesus. This example has the same logic flaws as your argument. In both cases there is more to the story, but in your case you do not acknowledge that. Further, as a matter of logic, "divine intervention" is an invalid conclusion because that is nominally the most unlikely situation imaginable; although it is simple to imagine it has innumerable unlikely dependencies. The logically invalid conclusion in such cases is "I don't know". I suspect you object, probably passionately, to the statement that "divine intervention" is logically an invalid conclusion. You really don't want that to be true.
You are totally incorrect, as always, about most of the above. You are however quite correct that I do not want it to be correct to say that "divine intervention" Is logically an invalid conclusion. That is certainly my desire, that it not be proven wrong, just as it is my intense desire that an apple a day would cure cancer. But I am open to factual arguments. Your arguments may not destroy my faith, I hope not.

But still, if you were able to prove to me that some Zionist wrote these prophecies after the state of Israel became a nation again, after the Holocaust and even the earlier expulsion from England and Spain and the Spanish Inquisition etc etc, I will simply have to accept your proof. Hopefully I would keep on believing anyway, as I had my faith long before I began studying these things. But you cannot offer any proof of that Moses or the other prophets did not write these things thousands of years ago, can you? Not even the slightest smidgen of evidence that these verses were not written thousands of years ago? Thousands of years before any one knew about quarantine or how it was a good idea to go outside the camp. with your shovel, so you could bury your waste? Or that it would be a good idea, according to "The God who heals you" to expose the bowls and utensils of the sick to flame, and how otherwise any one must wash in running water and with what turned out to be antiseptic after various contamination? Or being forbidden to eat anything found dead, etc etc? It seems you refuse to admit that these and dozens of other verses are even there. All of that even before the prophecies.

You, are apparently blinded by a bias that will not allow you to see these facts for what they are. You seem to object to facts. As you said before, you will never consider that God did it. That means no matter what the evidence, you will not consider it. So there it is in black and white, but you will not admit that it says what it says and that it was written far before anyone could have known these facts. I am admitting to you that, so far, in one instance, I can not really make my argument that by "waters above" Moses meant the vast amount of water in outer space, since a verse a paragraph or two later invalidates that. But on all the others? You seem to have the opinion that because you have shown this one verse to not be a good argument, that you do not even have to consider the other verses. Do you do that with scientific studies? If some one came up with a study today offering evidence that smoking is good for you, would you throw out all of the other studies?

You do not keep going back to the example of "the waters above" just because it is clean, but because it is- so far - all you have. I have of course conceded that to you long ago, that is a win for your team. Even though the verse about "The waters above" by itself appears to be totally correct by what we know from modern science, the addition of the other verse a little later on cannot be made to work with my original understanding of the first verse. I have admitted this to you long ago. I don't expect to be able to win every point, or explain everything about the Bible and God's Word, just as you say you can not about evolution or the big bang or origins. Considering that I cannot understand all the ways of God, as His thoughts are far above my thoughts, no surprise that I can not explain everything.

But as far as I know, that is your only clear 'win". Once you have gotten that "win", and just because I admit I cannot make that verse work together with the following verses to support my original claim about "the waters above", it appears you will no longer even discuss the dozens of other verses I have provided. Many of those verses have to do with science. I have provided quite a few of those, from Moses and other books of the Bible. I assert that what they have said corresponds with modern Scientific knowledge. Except for that one verse of the dozens, I have seen no valid argument from you(or anyone else) yet that the other verses are scientifically incorrect, or any decent attempt to explain them away. And I've now added to this many, many verses from the prophets, and yet not a single comment from you that I am aware of. Shouldn't all of these prophecies be clearly wrong, and simply wild guesses and easily shown to be so? It seems to me that if they were, someone would be able to make a really good argument for that. And so far you seem to have enjoyed taking the opposite of every point I have ever tried to make, starting with my thread about Thanksgiving Day Proclamations and the idea that the nation was founded in Christian principles. So if you're silent on the prophets-or even all of the other verses that seem to be correct scientifically, or both - it seems reasonable that is because you simply have nothing to say, no good argument to make. I certainly can't believe that is simply because you're not interested in proving me wrong. Or better yet, proving the Bible wrong.


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#17

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:00 pm

Greg, sorry I've taken so far off-topic, but I like to get back to the OP for a moment if you can help me out. I'm trying to understand your logic. I'm trying to understand your analysis technique.

Since you earlier said it is a good thing that I'm not involved in any medical research, I would like to add a word about real-life medical practice. This is based on 36 years in the operating room, giving anesthesia with no bad outcomes! probably way over 20,000 cases with no bad outcomes, thanks be to God! If you don't know either how good or how lucky or both that is, then that would be because you know nothing about anesthesia or surgery. And here's how it worked in this world: if we tried a new drug or technique, even if it had already been approved by the FDA and was being pushed upon us by big pharmaceutical companies, and we had a disastrous– or even bad– out come during the first 10 cases, considering that we were used to not having any bad outcomes most of the time, we would at least be on high alert and considering removing this new agent or technique from our practice. If during the first 100 Times of using it we had five or 10 really bad outcomes( probably not even that many would be tolerated), and nothing else had changed in our practice, that was it. We didn't care what the FDA said or the drug company said, we were going back to what worked. Even though we knew this did not scientifically prove that the new agent was the problem, we still would stop using it until we could be convinced(If ever) the new agent was absolutely not the cause of the sudden increase in bad outcomes. Though I was lucky and never had any bad outcomes myself, I observed this process work itself out with other practitioners over the years.

I never knew a surgeon or anesthesia provider( I trained or practiced all over the country ) who did not approach this in this fashion. The fact that there were 95 other cases using this agent with no apparent problems did not reassure these medical practitioners that the new agent was not the problem. And if it had been 80 cases out of the hundred gone bad, well, you probably would have already lost your license to practice or at least your job if you kept on after the first few times of bad results using the new agent.

Call up any MD you know and ask them if they try a new drug 100 times, and 5 patients die, or 2 or 3 times more than the usual, if they are going to stay with that new drug. They will not if any other older, safer drug is available.

Now about the way you were looking at governments being discussed in this thread. You just said "I took a shot at your analysis process." and "Indeed, you could not accurately say this is the logical conclusion based on any information you have presented on this thread, but you continue to clearly imply it is true nonetheless. In the event that I misunderstand, that you never did intend to imply this in any of your posts in this thread, then I stand corrected. In that event I should have never responded to any of your posts in this thread at all because they were completely irrelevant to the discussion.".

So does this mean that even if we are saying one thing does not definitely prove the other, that even if there are a certain set of results that are to be observed in the vast majority of cases, that we should not even consider the possibility that it is the variable(Dem vs Rep, Lib vs conserv) that is correlated with these bad outcomes it Is also possibly one of the causes of the bad outcomes?

So if we have a list of 100 cities with, say for instance, extremely high violence and murder rates, and 98 of those cities have almost nothing but Democrats in power and have not for decades, and we have another 100 cities that have much lower murder rates and 98 of those cities have republican/conservative governments, then even so we should not even consider the possibility is that the type of government is at least somewhat related to the outcomes? So just because there are two cities out of 20 or 100 run by Democrats that don't have these problems, we should throw out any discussion even considering that there might be a relationship between Dem government and bad outcomes?

Even though you said it was a good thing I am not involved in medical research, you can thank whoever you thank that your medical practitioners will not approach medical practice using that bit of logic, if I dare call it that. If they required 100% correlation for proof in order to even consider the possibility of a causal relationship with a variable, I can assure you there would be a far greater number of disasters in the operating room, as well as all other areas of medical practice.

But is that actually your claim? That if by changing one variable, if there are 1 or 2 good results out of 10 or 20 bad results in a group, then the idea that the variable might be what is accounting for the bad results is preposterous and should not even be considered, or even proposed?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#18

Post by GregD » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:35 am

BillyBob66 wrote: Even though you said it was a good thing I am not involved in medical research, you can thank whoever you thank that your medical practitioners will not approach medical practice using that bit of logic, if I dare call it that. If they required 100% correlation for proof in order to even consider the possibility of a causal relationship with a variable, I can assure you there would be a far greater number of disasters in the operating room, as well as all other areas of medical practice.

But is that actually your claim? That if by changing one variable, if there are 1 or 2 good results out of 10 or 20 bad results in a group, then the idea that the variable might be what is accounting for the bad results is preposterous and should not even be considered, or even proposed?
In the medical situations you describe a critical point is whether the population of patients receiving the new drug and the population of patents NOT receiving the drug are comparable; age, general health, allergies, etc. That is part of the process for controlling for other factors. If the patients (cities) self select the drug (elect the political party) that is another factor that must be controlled for. Without controlling for other factors in the sampled populations the correlations obtained by sampling those populations are not meaningful.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#19

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:10 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: Even though you said it was a good thing I am not involved in medical research, you can thank whoever you thank that your medical practitioners will not approach medical practice using that bit of logic, if I dare call it that. If they required 100% correlation for proof in order to even consider the possibility of a causal relationship with a variable, I can assure you there would be a far greater number of disasters in the operating room, as well as all other areas of medical practice.

But is that actually your claim? That if by changing one variable, if there are 1 or 2 good results out of 10 or 20 bad results in a group, then the idea that the variable might be what is accounting for the bad results is preposterous and should not even be considered, or even proposed?
In the medical situations you describe a critical point is whether the population of patients receiving the new drug and the population of patents NOT receiving the drug are comparable; age, general health, allergies, etc. That is part of the process for controlling for other factors. If the patients (cities) self select the drug (elect the political party) that is another factor that must be controlled for. Without controlling for other factors in the sampled populations the correlations obtained by sampling those populations are not meaningful.
OK, then, that is what I thought. So if 20 populations self select a given government and have 18 bad outcomes and 2 good, and 20 others select an opposite style of government a have 2 bad outcomes and 18 good(or at least much better), it is all meaningless. Got it.

How do you decide which style of government is a good one?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#20

Post by GregD » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:50 am

BillyBob66 wrote:How do you decide which style of government is a good one?
Bill, that there is an enormously important question.

I advocate for government that maximizes the number of people that will agree to support it and maximizes the well-being and productivity of those that are governed. That, at least, is my current hypothesis. But I have not so far had the opportunity to critically evaluate it much. I am not so well informed or experienced in this area. Also, this hypotheses appeals to my personal biases so I need to be mindful of confirmation bias. It is always important to be extra careful when you get an answer that you like.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#21

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:26 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:How do you decide which style of government is a good one?
Bill, that there is an enormously important question.

I advocate for government that maximizes the number of people that will agree to support it and maximizes the well-being and productivity of those that are governed. That, at least, is my current hypothesis. But I have not so far had the opportunity to critically evaluate it much. I am not so well informed or experienced in this area. Also, this hypotheses appeals to my personal biases so I need to be mindful of confirmation bias. It is always important to be extra careful when you get an answer that you like.
Well I better be careful then as I just got an answer that I like. ;) But seriously, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to advocate for. The tougher part is how to determine that those goals are being accomplished. Particularly as you can not go by how the people being governed- by different varieties of American government - are doing.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#22

Post by GregD » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:25 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:Well I better be careful then as I just got an answer that I like. ;) But seriously, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to advocate for. The tougher part is how to determine that those goals are being accomplished. Particularly as you can not go by how the people being governed- by different varieties of American government - are doing.
Yes, be careful.

Then why do we keep arguing about stuff? Well, stuff other than the Bible - we're never going to agree on that. But I'm not interested in changing your mind about the Bible. Religious beliefs are a personal choice regardless of what my opinion might be. I'm only really interested in coming to a mutual understanding on how we should try to govern ourselves. Because while we are arguing with each other selfish people are enriching themselves at the expense of us & others.

You say illegal immigrants. I say aspiring Americans determined to improve the lives of their children.
You say thug. I say person.
You say "justified shooting". I say yet another dead person.
I say marriage equality. You say attack on religion.
I say fetus. You say person.
You say protect fetal rights. I say uterus slavery.
I say public investment. You say tax & spend.
You say tort reform. I say corporate malpractice insurance.
You say Democrats. I say collection of diverse individuals.
You say reduce regulation. I say private profits & public pays.
You say prostitution. I say business deal.
You say illegal drugs. I say personal choice.
I say science education. You say atheist proselytizing.
You say its us and them. I say there is only us.

And on it goes.

But in spite of ALL THAT, you stuck with me and we dug down far enough that maybe we found a point of mutual agreement.

kev137
Reactions:
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:05 am
Location: St Augustine fl
Hammock: diy HyperD 1.6oz
Tarp: Warbonnet Mamajamba
Suspension: Whoopie slings tree
Insulation: DIY climashield/ Snu

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#23

Post by kev137 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:42 pm

Man I always enjoy reading what you guys debate. Makes me feel dumb sometimes, but very entertaining.

My undereducated Georgia boy ( the county I graduated high school from lost it's accreditation a few years ago ) 2 cents worth is this. Very few people get into politics for altruistic reasons, and the ones who do don't last long ( president Carter comes to mind). Almost every politician has an alterieior motive for being involved in politics, and it usually involves increasing their personal wealth. Sometimes we are lucky and benefit from there greed, and sometimes we suffer. The only reason any politician cares about his constituents is an interest in self preservation. That is to say they want to keep having a job, so they work to please us so we will vote for them again.

I do vote, even though I feel it's futile, but never along party lines. Democrat, Republican, or liberterian, I'm choosing the one I think is most qualified for the job and is going to do the least harm. As to our current president, mama always said if you can't say something nice... Time will indeed tell. I'm hoping I'm wrong about what the next 4 years hold, but we shall see.

And Sarge I found the humor in your original post, even though I don't agree with the statement. But I guess I find humor in lots if things that others find offensive.
" No sympathy for the devil. You buy the ticket, you take the ride", Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2067
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#24

Post by sarge » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:29 pm

kev137 wrote:
And Sarge I found the humor in your original post, even though I don't agree with the statement. But I guess I find humor in lots if things that others find offensive.
One good thing to have when discussing politics is the ability to laugh at one's own self, and see the humor in others.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#25

Post by BillyBob66 » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:26 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:Well I better be careful then as I just got an answer that I like. ;) But seriously, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to advocate for. The tougher part is how to determine that those goals are being accomplished. Particularly as you can not go by how the people being governed- by different varieties of American government - are doing.
Yes, be careful.

Then why do we keep arguing about stuff? Well, stuff other than the Bible ...................
And on it goes.

But in spite of ALL THAT, you stuck with me and we dug down far enough that maybe we found a point of mutual agreement.
Well, I guess we keep arguing about stuff because we fundamentally disagree about all of those things on your long list. ( I am also betting that you have chosen the wrong hammock and insulation ;) ) I do indeed agree with "I advocate for government that maximizes the number of people that will agree to support it and maximizes the well-being and productivity of those that are governed." I can not see a problem with that statement. But what we apparently will never agree on is the means of accomplishing such a goal. And also, apparently, as I said "how to determine that those goals are being accomplished.". For example, if you can not look at results in cities governed by Dems vs non-dems, I do not know how we are to figure out which works, which is why I asked you how that is done. Hopefully you know some way to determine this.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#26

Post by GregD » Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:40 am

BillyBob66 wrote:Well, I guess we keep arguing about stuff because we fundamentally disagree about all of those things on your long list. ( I am also betting that you have chosen the wrong hammock and insulation ;) ) I do indeed agree with "I advocate for government that maximizes the number of people that will agree to support it and maximizes the well-being and productivity of those that are governed." I can not see a problem with that statement. But what we apparently will never agree on is the means of accomplishing such a goal. And also, apparently, as I said "how to determine that those goals are being accomplished.". For example, if you can not look at results in cities governed by Dems vs non-dems, I do not know how we are to figure out which works, which is why I asked you how that is done. Hopefully you know some way to determine this.
If we both agree with this and are both logical there are at least a few items on my long list that should be fairly easy to resolve with a mutually agreeable compromise.

I would think a focus on the effects of particular policies would be far more effective at identifying what makes cities work better than a focus on political party.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#27

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:20 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:Well, I guess we keep arguing about stuff because we fundamentally disagree about all of those things on your long list. ( I am also betting that you have chosen the wrong hammock and insulation ;) ) I do indeed agree with "I advocate for government that maximizes the number of people that will agree to support it and maximizes the well-being and productivity of those that are governed." I can not see a problem with that statement. But what we apparently will never agree on is the means of accomplishing such a goal. And also, apparently, as I said "how to determine that those goals are being accomplished.". For example, if you can not look at results in cities governed by Dems vs non-dems, I do not know how we are to figure out which works, which is why I asked you how that is done. Hopefully you know some way to determine this.
If we both agree with this and are both logical there are at least a few items on my long list that should be fairly easy to resolve with a mutually agreeable compromise.

I would think a focus on the effects of particular policies would be far more effective at identifying what makes cities work better than a focus on political party.
Once again, we are in agreement at that last sentence. It s the policies that are the problem. But don't the policies pretty much reflect the platforms of the party, and the thinking of most of the people, more or less, who elect those in the party? How am I supposed to get my dem mayor and city council( just a for instance) to change their policies to my less liberal and more conservative ways?Especially if the realize I (and others like me) did not vote for them in the first place?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#28

Post by GregD » Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:59 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:How am I supposed to get my dem mayor and city council( just a for instance) to change their policies to my less liberal and more conservative ways?
How could they possibly resist your charm, wit, wisdom, and reason?

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#29

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 10:29 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:How am I supposed to get my dem mayor and city council( just a for instance) to change their policies to my less liberal and more conservative ways?
How could they possibly resist your charm, wit, wisdom, and reason?
You make a good point.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “All the other Political Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest