wolfriverjoe

Well, I seem to recall you saying this (post #292): First - How do I know? 1. Inner witness of the Holy Spirit. 2. Preponderance of the evidence. Second - I don't need to seek your approval. Although, as Christians, we are to give answers for what we believe, truth does not need my defense. Truth stands whether or not either of us believe. And the truth is you will have to give an account one day for every thought, word, and deed in this lifetime. So is that saying there is a preponderance of evidence for the existence of God? Or for your beliefs to be valid? Or for the Bible to be 'accurate and true'? It reads like the evidence is for the existence of God, but the other two are possibilities. However, you have yet to produce any evidence at all. Any relevant facts. The "the Bible is true because it says it is" isn't a fact. You say "plenty of evidence". Great. What? Be specific. And the funny part is, you are wrong. Show me facts. Show me evidence. Show me proof. I will change my mind. I am reminded of the time Ken Hamm debated Bill Nye, The Science Guy over evolution. While it was amusing that one of the strongest proponents of Creationism chose to debate a kid's TV show host, the answers to the question "What would change your mind?" were telling. Hamm said "nothing", Nye said "evidence." I searched for a long time for God. And the longer I searched, the less I found. I found lots of reasons to believe in God (a God, not necessarily the God). But none of them required God to actually exist. And I found zero evidence that God does, in fact, exist. At least not outside our imaginations and fantasies. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, it's good to hear that you seem to have a handle on it (or at least think you do). Good luck. Have you read the Skydiving Duck cartoons yet? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, we started off when I asked if Stephen Hawking would get into Heaven. However, YOU are the one who claimed that there is a 'preponderance of evidence' proving the existence of God. You have been asked repeatedly what that evidence is. So is there a preponderance of evidence for God's existence? Or were you just making that up? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You don't really think Pruitt's replacement will be someone qualified, do you? Kelly really needs to sit the Halfwit down and explain to him: "This is not The Apprentice. There is no requirement to fire someone at regular intervals." Given who he has hired, I think it would be pretty cool if he just kept firing people. Somewhat like his 'lawyer situation', it won't take too long for people to find 'good reasons' to decline positions. Before too long, he will be all by himself in the White House. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

So putting a guard in every school is 'too expensive', but remote secure doors and cameras isn't? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

What kind of evidence are you looking for? I don't know. How about actual facts? You are the one who made the claim that there is a preponderance of evidence that God exists. Do you know the definition for that term? You made the claim, you back it up. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

You have to wonder how he broke his leg in the first place. Perhaps this belongs in the "Joke of the Day" thread, but it fits here: What do you call a guy on a motorcycle wearing only shorts, sneakers a baseball hat and shades? An optimist. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Reginald Denny says hey. Well, to be fair, he didn't run anyone over. If he had, he'd likely have been ok. I seem to recall one incident where a hit and run driver was attacked by a mob. But he was attacked because he was driving way too fast, hit a kid and tried to get away (did a quick search and came up empty). I don't recall any where the driver wasn't driving like an idiot and got attacked. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, or couldn't happen. And, in the "you probably didn't know this" category, in WI, school zone speeds are in effect whenever a crossing guard is present. Not just when kids are there. So if the guard is out and the kids haven't been let loose yet, you can still get a ticket. I have yet to find out if that applies if the guard is there early, sets out the 'mid street signs' but is sitting in his car reading the paper (not uncommon in my town). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, yet again, please make up your mind. "Preponderance of Evidence" means just that. ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Not "judged as you would judge a literary work". Not "the Bible is true because it says it is." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

When one starts with the knowledge of the result, proving it is simply a matter of finding the evidence. Kind of like a court, where only the prosecution gets to present a case, and the judge is disposed to convict. When you know the right answer, it's much easier to prove, because you disbelieve everything that disproves. This presents a twofold problem, however: 1. That means that you're not willing to accept religion on faith, which by its very nature means it can't be proven 2. It's just plain wrong. Learning is advanced by intellectual honesty, which means accepting that sometimes one's most closely-held assumptions are wrong. I'm OK with not being able to disprove faith, it's what faith is about. And it makes it personal, rather than organizational. I'm with whoever it was that said that the study of theology, or what God really meant in the Bible, is truly arrogant. Because it's been corrupted over time with what each society considers to be normal (subjugation of women, slavery, separation from/engagement with political systems, etc). What a 12th-century scholar thought the Bible really meant is quite different from what a modern scholar does. And in another 800 years, there'll be yet another interpretation, consistent with modern (or slightly less than modern) values. Wendy P. Thanks. I always was of the "There's no proof or evidence for God because proof would deny faith, and faith is what it's all about" philosophy. I also find the "this or that is proof of God, you just have to believe it" ideas rather silly. And very arrogant. I have very little problems with those people who "own" their faith. That is, they believe what they believe and express it in terms of themselves. Or, they make their statements of belief about themselves. They say "When I die, I will stand before God in judgement." When someone tries to threaten me with that sort of thing, I tend to express doubt. When someone says "You will stand in judgement when you die", it's a whole different statement. One is simply expressing their own belief. The other is forcing that belief on me. I don't like the second one a whole lot. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Cool. I can trace where you got that specific lie, too. ***Poor guy, being used by the media to promote their anti-gun agenda. Given all the lies you've been fed, and eagerly believed - I don't think that Hogg is the one who is being used. Well, the attacks on these kids are continuing. Laura Ingraham tweeted that he was "whining" about not being accepted to colleges he's applied to. Classy. Fortunately, he didn't simply sit there and take it. He targeted her. Through her advertisers. You know, the ones who pay for her show. 5 of 12 have either pulled their ads or announced that they won't buy any more airtime on her show. So, of course, she apologized. After she found out she's losing her ad revenue. Classy. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Bill, You are not being helpful. Let him chase his tail. I think Bill is being more reasonable and rational than most of the folks in the thread. I'm still waiting for Jay's "Incontrovertible Evidence". All I've seen so far is second hand accounts. What's called "hearsay" in a court of law (note that 'hearsay' is not 'heresy'). And generally inadmissible as "Evidence". "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Steubenville. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Also described as "a very challenged young man." Kinda funny that a terrorist, a 'mad bomber' gets this sympathy. Or is it? "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Only when it is a D president and the R's control Congress. Today, I doubt that they would impeach him. Jerry Baumchen Very true. But I'll bet that the Rs don't control congress after 2018. In WI, the courts have ordered Gov Walker to schedule special elections to fill vacancies. He's stalled for a while. The general consensus is that he knows full well what has happened in the other special elections around the country, and doesn't want to lose those elections (Walker is R). "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

And you can never beat the food. Always thought the portion sizes were a little small. Little cracker and a sip of wine if you are lucky. You have to experience a Methodist or Baptist feast to believe it. The spread at Leon Wv when I'd jump for their Ultralight Weekends was close, but nothing quite matches a Methodist pot luck. ^This. Big time. This is Southeast Ohio, right? My mom grew up there. Cuisine in the central Appalachian region (is that the Allegheny range?) is basic and 'standard American fare', but is absolutely amazing. Fried chicken as good or better than any in the 'south'; casseroles that you never would have thought of, and likely never would think would work that are delicious; cakes, pies and other desserts that make you wish you hadn't eaten so much of the other food. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, Stormy Daniels' lawyer is going for the big 'homerun'. He wants to depose both Trump and Cohen, under oath. Oh my. This could be interesting. There is already precedent that a sitting pres is not immune to a subpoena of this sort. And there's precedent that lying under oath during one of these is an impeachable offense. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Cool. I can trace where you got that specific lie, too. ***Poor guy, being used by the media to promote their anti-gun agenda. Given all the lies you've been fed, and eagerly believed - I don't think that Hogg is the one who is being used. Its almost a losing cause to compete with the FSB, Fox news, Breitbart, etc. They work 24/7 to supply the uninquisitive with brain numbing drivel. Which the target audience laps up like Pavlov's dogs. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/david-hogg-on-campus-rumor-hoax/ Far more that they supply the lies that the targets for their propaganda want to believe. They really aren't 'uninquisitive'. They simply want to believe their version of the story more than they want to hear the truth. Not unlike some to the religious zealots. Not surprisingly, many of them fall into both categories. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I did say that there are unexplainable things in the Bible. The resurrection, for example. However, there are eye-witness accounts that it occurred. Just because I don't understand how it happened and it's not revealed in scripture how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't. Well, first off none of the Bible is an "Eyewitness Account." All of the Gospels were written down a long time after the disciples were dead. At best they are a 5th or 6th hand retelling of the story. Second, in accident investigation, eyewitness accounts are often the least reliable information (the word 'evidence' for eyewitness accounts is a bit of a stretch). There was an eyewitness to James Dean's fatal crash that swore for years (still does if he's alive) that Dean was not driving, that the plaid shirt was in the passenger seat. Nobody else saw it that way, and the position of the victims after the crash was pretty clear. When TWA Flight 800 exploded over Long Island Sound, there were thousands of witnesses. Most of them gave conflicting stories, almost none of them gave a story that matched the physical evidence (plane wreckage, radar data, flight recorder data, ect). Some claimed they saw a missile (or something that looked like one) go towards the plane before the explosion. This was not supported by any actual data. There's zero evidence of God's existence. You want to believe it, fine. That's your right. But to claim that there is actual proof is baloney. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

No. The license is issued by the sanctioning body. I'm not certain, but I think the DZs in Japan are USPA DZs. My copy of Parachutist lists 3 of them. You can go to the "DZ Locator" tab on here, or search "United States Parachuting Association." For the most part, each country has it's own organization. However, countries with very few DZs will often not go to all the effort of forming one, and just choose to associate with a different one. And, again for the most part, countries will often recognize licenses from other places. For example, Canadian jumpers can jump in the US with a CSPA license. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Too late. And thanks for sharing that, Bob. Really cool story. Regardless of my issues with organized religion, showing the kids something really cool is special and very kind of you (yeah, I know you wanted to jump there anyway). Kids are the best spectators. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

See the problem? No. They don't. They can't differentiate between objective truth, fact based truth, reality based truth and their own beliefs. Or worse, they put their beliefs ahead of those sorts of truth. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, yes and no. Some of them collect the data on what you buy, and then offer discounts related to that. For example, my grocery store sends me coupons every month or so. They are based on my prior purchases (recorded by my card) and are usually for stuff I don't buy, but that their data says they can induce me to try with the coupon (and in theory, buy at full price in the future). Maybe a different brand of what I already buy, or a different version. For example, I got a coupon for "Powerade Zero" (sugar free sports drink), when I regularly buy the sugared version of it. I don't consider that 'nefarious', but it's a bit intrusive. Not enough to bother me (or give me any incentive to get a new card with either no personal data or incorrect data). I'm not sure if I consider that "offering the most value to the consumer" or 'getting the maximum dollars out of the consumer'. A similar technique is the 'smart coupon dispenser' at the checkout. It takes note of what you purchase and prints out coupons for that. One that I always found amusing was when I bought a 6 pack of single serving V-8 juice, I would often get a "discount off purchase of next 6-pack". If I used that coupon, I'd get a "discount off purchase of 2 6-packs." If I used that coupon, I'd get a "discount off purchase of 3 6-packs. I kept getting coupons, but the effective value dropped as I used them. My sister's husband is in digital marketing, and he has lots of opinions on this sort of stuff. He publishes some of them every now and then. It's really a fascinating area. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Yes. The biggest issue would be staying current. You need to jump on a regular basis to keep your skills 'fresh' and be reasonably safe. There are a couple DZs in Thailand, one or two in Japan, and a bunch in Australia. No clue what else is anywhere near you. Your best bet would be to take a good sized chunk of time (a few weeks) and devote yourself to getting trained and licensed. After that, you don't need to stay as current, but you still need to jump every so often to keep your skills up. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well put up or shut up. To which verse are you referring? Plenty of very learned biblical scholars back up what I told you with regard to the judgment of Jerusalem as the meaning of what would occur during their generation (e.g. AD 70). It does not say that Jesus will return in the lifetime of any 1st Century Jew. Please review what was discussed concerning the unconverted vs. the converted nature of man. Well, in both of these you seem unable to make up your mind. Is the Bible accurate, inspired, literal history? Or is it "subject to interpretation? Is it "impossible for man to not sin"? Or is it a choice? In both cases, you want both. And you obviously don’t understand the differences and meaning behind the laws described in the bible. That being civil (that pertaining only to the Nation of Israel), ceremonial (those whose purpose was to foreshadow the perfect sacrifice which was to come; one which wouldn’t merely “cover” their sin but take it away; fulfilled in the work of Christ on the cross), and moral (which still are applicable for us today). The bible is a progressive revelation of God's plan of salvation for his people. It describes the historical trials and tribulations, successes and failures, of a people who repeatedly turned away from and back towards God as he directed them out of a pagan, polytheistic, culture. And you definitely do not comprehend the holiness of God who cannot be in the presence of even the smallest sin. However, you are correct in that there are some more grievous than others. There are also more severe levels of punishment in hell. However, at that point, it doesn’t really matter. It’s still hell. That’s why people often refer to all sin being the same. So, again, the laws laid out in the Bible are "subject to interpretation". Yet so many of the fundamentalists like to quote them when discriminating against people. The OT rules on gays is one of the more popular today, but others have been well used in the past. And I thought Jesus came to give salvation to the Jews, who had 'lost their way' in regards to the sin offerings and sacrifices. Not to the other faiths, especially those in places they didn't even know existed. And the 'you're going to burn in hell for the slightest transgression' is just more fear tactics. If God cannot be in the presence of even the slightest sin, why did he create us that way? You are right that I don't understand that holiness. Or that arrogance. Or that intolerance. *** It is my understanding that we are born with a sin nature because of original sin. A child is considered innocent until they reach the age of accountability. That is, when the child can discern two options the tendency is to choose in favor of egocentric reward and not to choose spiritual relationship with God. The latter decision is sin... ...1 Timothy 4 [ The Great Apostasy ] Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ... The Holy Spirit spoke to me this morning. He said, when the admirers, the sceptics and, the make believers have left the disciples will remain. And, they are Mine. These are signs of the latter days You said a couple weeks ago that all babies are born evil. But now they are considered innocent? And is a "sin nature" automatically 'evil'? Please make up your mind. And "signs of the latter days". Again? Didn't we go through the "End of Days" back in September? Bill Cole predicted it in 2012, and a couple times before that, too. And Harold Camping predicted the "Rapture" a few years ago. And so many others have predicted the "End Times" or the "Latter Days" over and over again. For a long, long time. Are you the "Boy who cried 'the End of the World is Coming!!'" I would confidently predict that you, and I and everyone else posting here will die (of causes natural or other) and your "End Times" will still not have arrived. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo