CommanderSouth

Yeah, I haven't seen the show yet, I'm intrigued, but we'll see I don't remember anything close to this either. But then again, Foundation shoots from Empire to First Foundation VERY quickly, and then doesn't touch on the empire as much, so this might be filler earlier on.

And that's fair. My approach is more that I approach some type of panpsychism, that the bottom level of everything has some degree of conciousness. But I wouldn't claim how that would work mechanically.

I also believe strongly in something close to the metaphysical system in Ender's Game (Xenocide in particular). I read that book about 6 months before I struggled with questions of Free Will. I now believe very strongly that this universe is "Philotes doing what they want". But of course, I'm happy to be wrong, I just need God to help me understand later

I don't know, I feel like the description of both sensing, and reaching out and interacting with the emotions and thoughts of another is apt enough. I think Jesus sensing the thoughts of the Pharisees, the impressions we receive, the phrasing of being spoken to in the "mind" and "heart", make this analog sound apt. Mechanically of course, I have no idea.

I have I Robot but not yet. Who did Empire?

Man. What a story. Mild spoilers to follow I am incredibly intrigued by the idea of communication between second foundationers and themselves. And others. I have thought about the spirit along these lines myself. TLDR version is that they communicate through thought and emotions. Thought and emotion are able to be quantified and sensed by them. And also to be pushed out to others by them. When this is done to others that don’t sense this. It can be so subtle that it is just a thought or feeling in one’s mind. They also stress their own secrecy and not give themselves away. I am blown away how much I can gather from even Science Fiction about the spirit. While I’m not hitching my wagon to this horse, I think it has legs and spurs discussing. I think in the end we know that everything real isn’t mystical once understood. And I see this as one of many fascinating possibilities.

I know what I'm about to say is semantics... I won't live that way. I don't believe most people are lying. Lying is a malicious falsehood. Do I take what they're saying with a grain of salt because I'm sure they're trying to be persuasive? Yes. Obviously. Do I assume they know better, don't care, and say a thing anyway? No, I don't. I believe most people generally believe what they're saying, even if I think they're leaning heavy into persuasion. Furthermore, by that logic, you can say every missionary who doesn't open with multiple accounts of the first vision is a liar, they aren't giving the whole "truth" if they don't do that, right? If they don't bring up blood atonement, or Adam God, are they deceiving? Persuasion is not falsehood. It isn't lying. You need to be aware of bias, but that doesn't mean they're lying. Lying requires you to believe one thing and say another, and I don't believe that is happening in MOST, if not all discussions. Realistically I'm still probably hot under the collar from being told I'm trying to "find balance with Babylon". So know that this is grumbly, sure, but not really mean spirited.

Debatable. Not that eternal truth isn't true eternally. I would posit that truth exists apart from God, otherwise it isn't objectively true it would then be subjective to God. But that's a whole other can of worms.

And IMO it sounds like you're passing judgement where you ought not. I want perfection, I believe in eternal truth, but we live in a fallen world where we walk by faith, I'm just working with the lesser evils, trying to do the least harm. If that makes me wrong, then God help me. We live in a fallen world with people who don't believe the same as we do. I don't know when human life begins, that isn't revealed to us. Potential life begins at conception, but when the soul is there, we don't know. That being the case, ending a pregnancy may not even BE ending a human life, and the law allowing it doesn't make it right. I'm not saying it's RIGHT, I'm just saying it being legal can cause less harm and suffering. This isn't to say I vote abdicating responsibility either. But making laws for a plurally religious country isn't so easy... *sigh* We want the same thing I'm sure, I'm leaving it at that.

I think this is good advice, but I think it from the angle of, truth is often interpretation, and subject to perspective. I think MANY times it isn't about "facts" (in -fact- I'm growing to dislike the word). What one person sees as truth or a fact, another may see the opposite. It doesn't mean either is right/wrong or that a thing didn't or did happen, just that perception is a huge part. Someone was killed is the fact. Manslaughter/Self Defense is very much interpretation. This isn't to say everything is loosy goosy and up for grabs, just that, what one calls something, the other may call something else, and both may have valid evidence to justify the opinion. So yes, when I read an article, I have to try to look at both sides, because usually it is slanted towards one or the other, and that isn't malicious, it's just life.

Finally, something we can ALL agree on

I generally agree, but I think the fact that if you know something is going to be misused that should be taken into account. While you say that wicked people causing unnecessary problems is irrelevant, I disagree whole heartedly. If making the law stricter causes more harm to adult women vs viable fetuses, I think that should absolutely be taken into account. God himself allows divorce even though the higher law forbids it apart from adultery. He isn't holding us to that higher standard, yet. Similarly, I think that the issue is multifaceted and the weaknesses of men should absolutely be accounted for. It is true that it doesn't make it RIGHT, or moral, and truth will be truth, but in a fallen world, the fallen state should be taken into account.

I'm agreeing with you, that it does sound like some folks are being sneaky and silent quitting/being obstructive. To me that's ceding that everyone isn't denying care out of fear. I'm just not willing to go much farther than that. But I am saying that rejecting the idea of doctors being leary even when right isn't surprising GIVEN that unjust suits happen. The suits happen, that can be scary, believing at least a portion of articles saying that is enough for me to believe it happens and is an unfortunate byproduct of ending Roe V Wade. That's my whole angle

While which sources I believe does have something to do with it. The issue is as I said above, it isn't about what YOU know, or what YOU think. ANYONE can be accused of ANYTHING, right or wrong. We have absolutely seen again and again this play out. Someone might be right, but they can be drug through the legal system until they can't fight anymore. So I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. Also, you're still arguing with me while I'm ceding your point? Nice... All or nothing thinking is a fallacy.

This. This is the trick. You may well be in the right, that doesn't stop you from getting put out of house and home before you can be vindicated in court. It isn't about being "dumb" and thinking you will lose or aren't right, it's about thinking someone un/misinformed will still sue you. Bleem proved emulators were legal. They were right, but they still got driven out of business...

It isn't about the doctor being wrong or dumb, it's about the accuser being dumb and/or unconcerned with the depth of the situation. I swear, I'm about to have to bust out with an "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

And since it was doctors and not laymen making the law we should be TOTALLY fine. Given that the wording is TOTALLY unambigious and could NEVER be used incorrectly, we should be fine. Given that every case is reasonable, we should be fine. When you have people claiming that Jews and/or Democrats are making hurricanes, it's not hard to believe SOME doctors, even ones that AREN'T dumb are worried about the legalities of things. As with a lot of cases, it isn't that they would be found guilty, it's that they would have to fight in the first place. But again, I only speak to some folks in some cases, and I think it's presumptuous to dismiss the argument out of hand, or just say someone is making excuses.

As a second point, and more direct, I guess. You are correct, but the reason SOME doctors hesitate is that they fear the law will be used to say something was an abortion even if it wasn't.

Again, I am not a doctor and I don't speak for them, but the articles I have read (including the ones linked above) seem to indicate that some doctors in some states doctors are afraid because what the law says and how the law is actually applied can be two VERY different things. If you don't see that from the IVF issues that have been reported, then I think it will be hard for us to agree. The letter and spirit of the law can be used wholly differently. I'm not saying that SOME doctors aren't "silent quitting" in protest of however it is best described, but it does NOT seem to be the case across the board.

I wasn't quoting the first set of articles, I was quoting the second, which had nothing to do with the points you make. In fact, the ones I posted seemed to contradict what you were saying and I was asking for clarification. It is taking a lot for me to not snap back at this. But I will make one snide remark. I'm so very glad YOU speak for ALL doctors. It is very presumptuous and dismissive to speak this way. I'm glad you are able and willing to do what needs to be done, but there are some that are concerned about their livelihood. The attitude you seem to put forth is 90 percent of my problem with many who are pro-life. I consider myself pro life as well, and I CERTAINLY don't think abortion should be used as birth control, but I feel there IS much more nuance to the situation than many of either side acknowledge.

Ummm... He kind of did. I'm not a doctor, but are these articles incorrect?

This is where my mind goes. If one CHOOSES to reject the light, nothing can be done. God can take away all of one's power to act in many ways, but he cannot MAKE a person believe. If one were to reject ALL truth, this would be the logical outcome. I feel Outer Darkness is the nothing (figurative, we don't do true Ex Nihilo) from which all something comes, you go back to the bottom, to be there for an indeterminate infinity.

I figured, but I wanted to make sure I defended her Just think of Arnold yelling "I'm not a pehvet, I just want tha turbo man doll" or in this case SHE isn't the "pehvet"

Eh, perhaps, but her curiosity got the best of her, and I don't even remember what we said to each other. I probably told her I'd find her a church picture if she REALLY wanted to know. I took it more as "gross but lol, calm down". Honestly it was out of character.

I didn't necessarily expect much unique to the church, the arguments to be strawmen, and the use of the Sisters as a framing device, which is fine with me. My family member felt more compelled by the arguments made, I see them as a misrepresentation, but honestly, that's typical. Though I'm not digging the garments, the first thing my Mom did when I visited after being endowed was grab my garments under my shoulder, so it's actually topical to me, even though it's invasive...