I love love citat

The best and the worst thing about love is that it cannot be expressed in words. When you truly love someone, it may be hard to express those emotions through words. In fact, real love may make you feel weak in the knees and unable to speak. 2020-jul-09 - Utforska Maria Ullaeuss anslagstavla 'Love' på Pinterest. Visa fler idéer om Citat, Citat om kärlek, Romantiska kärlekscitat. A great relationship doesn’t happen because of the love you had in the beginning, but how well you continue building love until the end. Most relationship fail not because of the absence of love. Love is always present. It’s just that one loves too much and the other loves too little. Love: it's a many-splendored thing, or it's all you need — sometimes it's even a battlefield. There are times when words fail us in matters of the heart, so it's nice to know that we can turn to ... Explore 1000 Love Quotes by authors including Martin Luther King, Jr., Lao Tzu, and Oscar Wilde at BrainyQuote. 2020-sep-11 - Utforska Josefine Nilsson-Ströms anslagstavla 'Love poem' på Pinterest. Visa fler idéer om Citat, Citat om kärlek, Kärlek. 2018-apr-04 - Utforska Adrian Ädels anslagstavla 'Love, Citat' på Pinterest. Visa fler idéer om Citat, Citat om kärlek, Kärlek. Love is each other's favorite song 'Love is a friendship set to music.' — E. Joseph Cossman. 38. Love is selfless 'Love never claims, it ever gives. Love ever suffers, never resents never ... „Love is the mystery of divine revelations! Love is the effulgent manifestation! Love is the spiritual fulfillment! Love is the breath of the Holy Spirit inspired into the human spirit! Love is the cause of the manifestation of the Truth (God) in the phenomenal world! Love is the necessary tie proceeding from the realities of things through divine creation! Today I love you more than ever; I want you more than ever. I'm a man of fifty years of age coming to you, feeling like a teenager in love, asking you to give me a chance and love me back. Rosie Dunne, I love you with all my heart.

APA 7 Citations for COVID research? [PSY: Senior Seminar, undergrad]

2020.09.18 21:25 missuhree APA 7 Citations for COVID research? [PSY: Senior Seminar, undergrad]

Hi all,
I probably sound like a fool doing COVID research as an undergrad but I figured it would be an interesting topic to cover from a psych perspective and look at facets of personality that influence behavior. However, I'm accustomed to using citation machine to cite all of my sources and fixing them up from there-- however, I'm having trouble figuring out how to deduce what each "source" is. For example, the CDC's website for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions...Is that a website, federal report, or?
Also, any other tips you might have for citations and keeping up with research that is relevant to these awful circumstances...it's really taking a toll on my mental health because I would LOVE to take a break for the day, but uh...unfortunately it's all around us and I'm working myself into a frenzy with my perfectionism/ambition/anxiety...Some might say it would've been a good idea to switch topics, but
  1. too late for that and
  2. if I'm going to get into a good grad program I want to have a study that's relevant to the world we're living in.
  3. I'm very frustrated with family members being anti-mask and thinking they can debate me about this **** on facebook, and I want to be able to just drop a pdf and hit them w/ that "I know more about this than you" hubris so they shut the **** up and take this seriously instead of turning it into political discourse...Petty? Yes. Adler would tell u that's bc I'm the youngest and have an inferiority complex but honestly? As a first generation college student I'm really tired of having people with high school diplomas (in my family, no shame to high school grads) tell me what they think they know from Fox News. Ugh.
Please help, ordinarily I would clean this up and make it less disorganized but i don't have anywhere to vent and I'm RAPIDLY losing my sanity by ignoring my professor's email asking if I'm okay and if she can help me...I feel bad but I've been h*lla anxious lately, and I'll respond I just...need a lil time. It was due last night. I've accepted that it's gotta be submitted tonight.
TLDR: HOW DO I FIGURE OUT WHAT SOURCES ARE WHAT...I am only familiar with scholarly articles, journals, and online databases...what does the CDC fall under?
Edit: censored my potty mouth, my bad...let me know if I missed anything
submitted by missuhree to HomeworkHelp [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 23:32 Braydeennnn Am I the idiot?

Alright Ive been a 1L for about 4 weeks now and I have some serious questions. I promise this isnt me trying to flex about how smart I am or whine about how stupid I am. Quite honestly im really confused. I have a few thoughts I want to share and I’d love some feedback.
  1. Are class discussions practically worthless on the final exam? I feel like 95% of the information is a discussion teaching us why the court interpreted a standard or a set of rules a certain way, and 5% of the time is useful analysis of the rule itself. Why the hell is the class 2 hours long for something you can sum up in about 15 minutes?
  2. The case readings are about 99% absolutely useless and 1% helpful. Learning the story behind a rule of law and that rule of law is great, but on the exam I don’t see how almost any of that information is applicable to anything other than the rule of law or not looking dumb if you get cold called on. What is the point of this 99%?
  3. The Bluebook sucks and there needs to be an easybib equivalent made for it yesterday. Do lawyers in the real world not just copy the citation from west?
  4. My time is consumed for prepping for my next class but the usefulness of those hours of information can fit on half a page in my outline. This ratio is messed up. Is there something I can do to boost my productivity?
Most importantly: Am I just an idiot whos outlook this law school thing is so horribly wrong? Am I missing the point here?
submitted by Braydeennnn to LawSchool [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 22:30 Arophax1 Why are you religious and why is it important to you?

I was told you guys would like this kind of question so I figured I'd give it a shot.
This got taken down. Before on change my view. If it gets taken out again I'll remove the more sensitive questions since this is important to me.
If a reddit moderator is reading this no i am not pushing athiesm. That is not my goal. I am not trying to disprove god. I genuinely want to learn from the religious. Learn about their beleifs and why they beleive it. I want to understand is all because I have become toxic towards religious people irl which is making me a bad person. I want to be a good human being and an accepting one. That requires understanding. The queer questions I am not debating. If someone explains why they don't like trans people (I am trans and gay so you know) I am not going to debate them or escalate things. I simply will ask why, and once explained move on.
I may disagree but I'm not trying to change minds I'm trying to understand them. If this does not fit your reddit I understand and okay but I just want to try and ask with those added questions since they are important to me. I will remove them if they are too much though.
Up front, some of these questions get deep and hard to answer. Comments will probably have pro lifers, anti lgbtq, and anti feminists.
I do not agree with those opiolnions but I am asking for them. I want to understand them. Not all of the questions are doom and gloom! Some are quite peaceful, just wanted to warn if your're sensitive to those viewpoints don't view the comments and don't argue with them over their opinions. I'm not going to personally. I asked their opinion, I can't then argue about it I can only ask why. I will argue over false information but that's it. If you say gay people are bad because they kiss the same sex I won't agree with it, but you formed your opinion on a fact so I can't argue against it.
This post may not be bigotry but the comments may be so I understand if my post just gets deleted. I am NOT trying to instigate. I just want the opinions. I don't want to argue over anything but facts not opinions. This is also mainly pertaining to religion. I want to know how religion backs up their claims. Once again to understand. I do argue with these types of people but not today, today I want to understand.
This is a discussion mainly pertaining to religion and the religious/spiritual. Please, no athiests giving their opinion on what religious think. If you used to be religious and have a reason why you used to beleive a certain point then that's fine but I don't want any "it's because christians blank" stuff. You aren't them so you can't vouch for them.
Some of the questions don't require religious affiliation so athiests can respond to those but if it's specific to religion, please don't put your opinion. I'm asking for theirs specifically.
Alright for starters I'm athiestic, born in the Bible belt and raised in church.
I am not currently going to change my athiestic views, I found happiness in it. Does that mean I'll never change my views? No. But it is a pretty big viewpoint that would take me more than one discussion. Right now I want to change my opinions on religion. I am currently dismissive. Others should beleive what they want but often, and this is a bad trait of mine, if you say you believe in gods or spirits or an afterlife I roll my eyes and think "stupid but okay" which is wrong.
I cannot truly be neutral on religion if I view it negatively and get upset when asked to join in a prayer or would groan if asked to go to church with someone on a special occasion. I should be open to it and not force myself not to enjoy something simply because I don't beleive in it.
I will make my world views clear. I am athiestic and a TST Satanist. For those who do not know TST satanism is a denomination that mainly surrounds separation of church and state and pushing forth that all religions and lack of religions should be viewed equally.
This post is to help with me better practicing one of our tenets which is not to force others to be athiestic or TST Satanist and instead accept all view points so long as there is no harm. Despite this I will be asking for viewpoints surround harm to. I won't agree with you but understanding is how we change minds so regardless of that's right now, I will listen.
I personally do not beleive any religious text should be in law, nor is a reliable foundation for law. It's fine if you use it to dictate your own life (once again given the text isn't telling you to harm yourself majorly in order to please a deity, fasting is fine to me but self harm like cutting or other things of the sort i do not agree with) but when you use it to dictate others is when I no longer agree with you
I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH THIS OPINION. I want to make.it absolutely clear this point is not to convert you to athiesm. It is not push athiest good Christian bad. It is to understand differing viewpoints. That is all. I am biased to think religion is bad. I want to change that.
I may ask questions about lgbtq and women's rights. That's not because I think all christians are anti queer etc. They are not but those who are I want to understand why they have that opinion. The better I understand people the better I can be and understanding a viewpoint even if it's against my own helps me better understand people who think that way.
If you comment why you are anti lgbtq I'm not gonna try and change your mind. I'll ask why and that will be the end of it because for now that is all I want to know. I don't really want other people to respond to responses under this comment. This is not a debate. If someone gives an opinion and explains why move on, even if you disagree. I am meant to disagree with some of these points that's the point, I can disagree so long as I understand. If you bring up false factual information I will inform you of that but I won't scream "you're wrong!" That's not the goal here.
If you ask me something to clarify I will and if you ask for sources I will give them. Don't debate me. My opinion is my own. Ask why but once I explain move on. You can criticize sources same as I can yours and you do not need a source to lay your opinion. Just an explanation.
There are a lot of questions but they all pertain to the same general topic. It just specifies the question a bit more.
Here are a range of questions I have along with some opinions. If a questions strikes you please answer it but let me know the question number so I know what you are referencing. It will make things much smoother. Not all questions need to be answered by everyone. You can if you want but I'm expecting you respond to what's important to you. Now let's beging.
  1. Why does religion bring you comfort?
    Why does it bring you comfort, and if you beleive athiesm is sad, why is that? Sure I joke about being a piece of sentient meat flying on a speck of dirt but that doesn't make me feel meaningless. Things will end and I will never feel this again. Is that scary? Sure, all unknowns are scary, but it's also cool. What if you never became a sentient creature? Nothing much would be lost, you wouldn't know, but being here now is really cool.
  2. Why are humans more special than animals or plants? Why are we gods special little creatures.
I don't ... Let me phrase this right. I'm not saying the religious are pretentious or self rightous (understand the main religion I understand is christianity, you may have a religion where the point is you aren't devine or special, I simply may not have learned about it and if you do please inform me below. I love to learn!) But I personally don't understand why being made by a deity would bring me comfort. What's the purpose in that?
I suppose it's neat but I don't see how it brings life purpose. I am not above anything. I eat meat such as cows, but that's not because I feel I'm above them or think they are worth less than me. They satiate my hunger and keep me alive, I respect every animal I eat for providing me with life and I understand the importance of respecting them for this reason. If I was eaten tomorrow by a black bear I'd be fine with it and wouldn't want it hunted down. I am not above or below. We are one. If I take from nature to nurture myself as we all do, I must give back to nature in my death. I wish to rot out in the open, I wish for cows to feast upon grass that contains my nutrients. It only seems fair.
So the sort of idea that a god made us specifically as the top, as his special creations is peculiar to me. Why am I more special than that bear? A lot of people answer with sentience but all animals are sentient. They take actions to survive. Monkeys do things specifically for pleasure that have nothing to do with survival. If you live and breathe you're sentient. Even a worm knows it's alive.
  1. Is hell moral? What do you think hell is like? Who deserves hell? Does a hell even exist to you?
Another question I've always wondered is if your religion has a hell do you think it's moral? I know to most the god makes morality so if he sees it as moral than it is but as I see you also have free will as well. I want your honest opinion on hell. Do you think eternal punishment is fair for anyone? Do beleive in hell but only beleive it's preserved for the worst of the worst? If so who are the worst of the worst and where do those in the middle go? Do they still go heaven or are they stick in between?
Do you beleive a soul in hell can be redeemed? As in hell is like a prison you are punished and then freed, or do you think it's simply game over for the sinner? Do you think it's fair for someone to be eternally punished for mistakes they made within a 100 year time period?
  1. What are your views on heaven? Does/can it exist? Are you truly happy or forced to be? Who gets into heaven?
If you beleive in a heaven how do you think it works? Are you forced into euphoria? If someone you loved was in hell do you think you could truly be happy in heaven? Do you think happiness can exist without misery to contrast and vise versa?
For those who beleive not believing is reason for hell do you think those who never got the chance to learn are included? If so why? If not, why not? If I am just by happenstance someone who doesn't beleive but lives by his rules. Of course do minor sins in my life but as a whole try my best do I still go to heaven or am I to go to hell?
  1. Is your god all loving or is he to be feared? Is he both? If so how?
Is god loving or hateful? It took the sacrifice of jesus for God to offer people redemption. Why couldn't he simply offer it based on character and if a person tried to be good in life or not? Why do you beleive it required sacrifice?
Am I to fear him or love him? If he is indeed all loving why would there be a need to fear? Wouldn't he be understanding and if we failed our earth test teach us in heaven ?
  1. Is your religious text law? Why or why not?
For those who beleive that the bible or any holy book is law why? Some of this is specifically aimed at christianity but if this applies to your religion as well please comment your response. Why should we follow the laws of your text? Which laws do we follow? Is the old testament valid or invalid. If it is valid then is stoning people okay? If not how do you know?
Why are you personally religious? I don't mean "I was raised in church" but rather did you ever ask yourself why you beleive and why you continue to beleive. I don't not want to convert to athiesm I just want to know why YOU chose to beleive something.
  1. Do you truly think God isn't flawed at all? Is he omnipotent and all powerful? If so why doesn't he help those who need him?
If god is omnipotent he knows if you are going to heaven or hell and exactly how you'll respond to every scenerio. In that case what is the point of earth as a trial? I may misunderstand what you mean by omnipotent to please inform me but this has always confused me.
If he is all powerful why does he refuse to help some but help others? Some people live entirely miserable lives of no fault of their own, some of these people are even religious, but he doesn't seem to help them. I see the bible perceived as fact a lot (you may be christian and not beleive this, and that's valid and I would like to know why) but if it is factual and he did split open oceans and cause plauges could he not make sure that homeless man isn't picking the rotten parts off dumpster sandwiches to survive?
I know trials are a thing but but why are these trials so vastly different? Some people don't get into the college they wanted while others are diagnosed with cancer at 5. Those are not equally easy to overcome or even close to as much of a strain on faith as the other and seems kind of unfair. If you give two people a test, one an sat, another a 5th grade biology test and the sat tester fails it kinda seems set up and rigged against them?
I am once again trying to understand. I don't understand, there can be a reason that you have that I did not know and I would like to know so I can understand why people beleive despite horrible tragedies.
  1. What's the buzz about faith? Why is it necessary?
If faith is necessary to your beleifs why? Why would having proof of a god eliminate free will. People could still choose to follow or not follow him. It would give people more free will I think. I just personally find it unfair to require someone to beleive in your existence with no solid proof of said existence.
If you're response to that question is "science is faith based too" why do you beleive that?
9.Should children be brought up into your personal religion? (My personal opinion is no but please let me know if you beleive otherwise and why you think so.)
This one is touchy though I guess this all is but do you think it's morally right to push an impressionable (I use impressionable not to try and make religious who do this sound evil, I don't think they are but was the best word I could use to describe how children beleive just about anything coming from and authority such as parent therefore find it difficult to fo their own opinions) child into any beleifs, athiestic, theist, or religious? My personal stance is no. People should be given an array of religious texts and choose for themselves which brings them most comfort, I wouldn't even want my child to become an atheist because papa is, I would want them to make that choice on their own. But if you think otherwise then why?
  1. Why do you beleive in reincarnation, ghosts, and or souls?
Reincarnation and ghost people, why do you beleive in that? How do you imagine it works? If you are reborn and don't remember the past life why does it matter. How is that different than simply dying/ being born? If not, why?
I'm assuming you beleive in souls if you beleive in ghosts. What is the soul and why do you beleive in it? Why aren't ghosts present everywhere? Odds are somebody at some point has been burried beneath where you are so why aren't we all haunted? (This is a western understanding of the ghost, if you have a different beleif once again share. I really want to learn!) Could there be a happy ghost or do they all have to be miserable?
  1. Why are you pro life? How does your religion tie into it if you are?
Another touchy one, so please no violent arguments. I'm pro choice, that isn't going to change, but you may be able to change my understanding and not assume being pro life means being unsympathetic for having a singular opinion. People are sums of their parts. One part doesn't make them bad even if I strongly disagree. The world isn't black and white. Why do you think abortion is wrong? If a baby is too much for the mother's body and she is dying does the child or mom's life come first? For rape victims why do you think they should follow through with birth? Child rape victims too, I just want to understand.
12.Do you agree with sex ed? Do you think it's a famly matter? Do you think people should practice abstinence? Why? Should people wait til marriage? Is causual sex wrong to you?
Do you think sex ed is good? Why or why not? If you think it's inappropriate then why? If you think it's a family matter then why? Why shouldn't kids learn of their body and about sex from people who have studied sex organs and sex their whole life. Why no condoms or birth control if your're against it? It's lowers std spread and teen pregnancy, and birth control also helps people who have bad periods or crazy hormone levels so if you are, why are you against it?
If you beleive in a abstinence why? I beleive people should choose if they want sex before or after marriage absolutely! But why it wrong for others to want to explore that beforehand. Some people such as myself don't ever wish to get married so why would it be wrong? if you are waiting on marriage why? That's not a bad thing at all I think it's wonderful for people to know what they want for themselves but what's special about waiting for marriage to you?
13.Are you anti lgbtq? If so why? If not , why not? Do you think the bible backs your beleifs? How so? Would you still vote for queer rights even if you personally don't agree. Why or why not?
Once again touchy. No fighting In comments. I want to try and understand please and no discussion goes anywhere by just spewing hate. If you think the bible or any religious text is anti lgbtq why? Do you think gay people are immoral? Why do YOU beleive being gay is wrong, not just the religious text, but do you think being gay causes harm or is a bad thing? If you don't beleive it causes harm but still see it as wrong why do you think God sees it as wrong?
Do you think queer people should be allowed to be queer even if you disagree? Why or why not?
Should trans people be allowed to transition even if you disagree? Why or why not? How do you define gender? If based on gentalia how do you define hermaphrodites? Why do you think God thinks transitioning is wrong?
Do you view us as evil? I know that's far out there but some do see us as really bad and almost demo like. If that's you please explain your beleif and why you beleive it. Do you think I'm a bad person for being queer or misguided? Do you think gay people deserve hell?
  1. Is man above woman or equal? Are men to be the leaders and women servants? Why?
This confused me in church a lot as well. The whole idea that every man was to lead his wife despite some women clearly being smarte stronger than some men. Do you beleive this is true? Should men have the final say, if so why?
I'd that how it was meant to be taken? If so how was it mean to be taken. What does man leads the house mean to you?
  1. What do you think about bible controdictory/mistranslation.
Is mistranslation okay? There are many rewrites of the Bible that contradict eachother, is the text still valid to you? Is it valid but only the original translation? If you use one of the modern translations why do you trust It? If you use a specific modern translation why that specific one?
This isn't to disprove your beleifs just understand the bible more, and why people use the Bible more. I'm not trying to do an "unreliable text" jab. I just want to hear your ideas on which bible is the one people should listen to and why, if you follow the bible at all.
  1. Do you think your religious text is constantly misunderstood and used wrong. If so why?
I've met christians who are pro choice, pro lgbtq, and pro feminism who claim the bible supports their views and that people use the text wrong. How so? Why are their interpretations incorrect? How did you conclude that the bible supports your opinion and not a different one? Do you even beleive in the bible or do you skip it and simple beleive in the Bible's version of god?
  1. Do you beleive in voodoo/ witchcraft. If so why and why is it important to you? Also if it works then why not use it as often?
I've been introduced to voodoo and witch type people and cannot grasp the beleif. I don't understand how certain rocks (this is a simplictic explanation, there's more to it than that but still usually some natural elements are often used because of special "powers") and things cause things to happen. Why do you beleive it and is it more than just positions and revenge. (I'm also not talking about nature witchcraft, you may share that too below but this is aimed more towards magic kind of witchcraft.
  1. Is your religion a cult..why or why not?
To explain I see a lot of religions as cults.it's why I often view them on a bad light so I need to understand why it isn't and how it's different. I don't want to view it that way anymore because it doesn't seem that way but it ticks the boxes.
Things like indoctrination of the young and threat of punishment of hell if you left never sat well with me so what do you think and how do you think it's different? Once again I don't beleive it's a cult but I can't quite figure out why. (Another one aimed at christians. Let me know if your beleif views differently though)
  1. Do you beleive in science? Do you think of science as a religion? Is science faith based to you?
Some religious people don't trust science and I'd like to understand why not. Both science and your beleifs can be valid simotaneously since god is supernatural and science deals with natural things so why is science bad to you?
Do you think science is flawed, if so how and why?
You do not have to answer every single one of these questions. Just If a few pop out to you I want to hear your response. I'm not gonna say I'd never be religious but it's not my aim in this post, nor is the aim to make you lose your beleifs I just want to learn form people and not just the insane angry christians on facebook. That isn't all of you and it's unfair to shape my opinion of you on that so to be less judgmental I must listen to you all.
I am open and wanting to change my honest underlying hatred of the religious due to abuse and upbringing. No I'm not religiously traumatized and that's why I "lost faith" I don't want any of those. I lost faith because I love facts, and I simply didn't like the idea of the religion not being based on anything that I could see to be proven factual. You can argue I stopped going to church because it made me uncomfortable but it wasn't the reason I stopped beleiving.
Even if I disagree strongly with some of you, which I will, it is impossible to live and not disagree strongly. Some of these disagreements may lead me to not really like you but I must respect your personal opinion so long as that opinion isn't forced unto others. Even if you are forcing it I'm not gonna argue about that under this post. I am asking for your opinions regardless if I agree or not so I cannot get mad when you give them.
The abortion and lgbt question I know is going to make a lot of people devicive. I don't like pro lifers or anti lgbtq people but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I shouldn't learn from or try to better understand them. Understanding gives me self peace and even is someone here beleives I shouldn't be trans if they're honest about it and explain it's easier to move on than constantly wondering why. I prefer that to saying you aren't against me being trans but constantly trying to make me doubt being trans or detranstition. You obviously aren't okay with it. Just say it and we can all move on.
Reddit may auto delete some comments unfortunately because of anti lgbtq sayings or opinions. I want to hear them so if it gets deleted dm me and I'll try to respond. Answer here if you can it's easier to keep track of but if you have a lot of questions for me you can DM me as well.
This once again is mainly aimed at christianity but if you are of a different religion and find some of these questions pop out at you let me know about your religion! It makes it easier to respect and understand others if I know all of what's out there :).
Once again please don't try to convert me. Give me facts and your opinion if those facts/ opinions change my mind so be it but please no "you must find god in your heart" or " listen to the word of God" that stuff isn't going to change my mind or forward the discussion. I live in georgia. I hear that all the time and if a church lady at my door can't convert me with those words, you will not be able to convert me with the same words over text.
I am once again not trying to convert you. My beleifs are that differencing beleifs are essential for us to move forward as a society even if some of those beleifs are uncomfortable.
Don't be malitious, I'm not trying to diss your religion and I'll try and word responses so it doesn't come off that way I'm not trying to change your beleif but understand and offer my opinion. If my opinion changes your beleif so be it but I will not be the guy to go "well I didn't see jesus walk on water so it didn't happen" I cannot prove or disprove your god or beleifs if they are supernatural. I can't do that so it just makes the discussion go circular and lead nowhere. The only argument I will make is if information you give me is false in which I will dispute it and offer citation of where I got my information which you are free to criticize!
I'm not gonna tell you your opinion is wrong but if you say "gay guys are rapists" I will dispute that. You can have the opinion that you don't like gay guys, you can't spread false information. That's just manipulative and shapes other people's opinions based on the same false information which means they aren't making choices based on reality but your reality.
Since age is important and sex too for some people regarding these issues I am 17, I am a transgender male, I am gay.
Thank you in advance for sharing and helping me better myself and understand. It really does mean alot no matter how hard the pill may be to swallow.
submitted by Arophax1 to INTP [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 22:25 Arophax1 (Serious) Why do you beleive in religion/ the supernatural and why is it important to you?

This got taken down. Before on change my view. If it gets taken out again I'll remove the more sensitive questions since this is important to me.
If a reddit moderator is reading this no i am not pushing athiesm. That is not my goal. I am not trying to disprove god. I genuinely want to learn from the religious. Learn about their beleifs and why they beleive it. I want to understand is all because I have become toxic towards religious people irl which is making me a bad person. I want to be a good human being and an accepting one. That requires understanding. The queer questions I am not debating. If someone explains why they don't like trans people (I am trans and gay so you know) I am not going to debate them or escalate things. I simply will ask why, and once explained move on.
I may disagree but I'm not trying to change minds I'm trying to understand them. If this does not fit your reddit I understand and okay but I just want to try and ask with those added questions since they are important to me. I will remove them if they are too much though.
Up front, some of these questions get deep and hard to answer. Comments will probably have pro lifers, anti lgbtq, and anti feminists.
I do not agree with those opiolnions but I am asking for them. I want to understand them. Not all of the questions are doom and gloom! Some are quite peaceful, just wanted to warn if your're sensitive to those viewpoints don't view the comments and don't argue with them over their opinions. I'm not going to personally. I asked their opinion, I can't then argue about it I can only ask why. I will argue over false information but that's it. If you say gay people are bad because they kiss the same sex I won't agree with it, but you formed your opinion on a fact so I can't argue against it.
This post may not be bigotry but the comments may be so I understand if my post just gets deleted. I am NOT trying to instigate. I just want the opinions. I don't want to argue over anything but facts not opinions. This is also mainly pertaining to religion. I want to know how religion backs up their claims. Once again to understand. I do argue with these types of people but not today, today I want to understand.
This is a discussion mainly pertaining to religion and the religious/spiritual. Please, no athiests giving their opinion on what religious think. If you used to be religious and have a reason why you used to beleive a certain point then that's fine but I don't want any "it's because christians blank" stuff. You aren't them so you can't vouch for them.
Some of the questions don't require religious affiliation so athiests can respond to those but if it's specific to religion, please don't put your opinion. I'm asking for theirs specifically.
Alright for starters I'm athiestic, born in the Bible belt and raised in church.
I am not currently going to change my athiestic views, I found happiness in it. Does that mean I'll never change my views? No. But it is a pretty big viewpoint that would take me more than one discussion. Right now I want to change my opinions on religion. I am currently dismissive. Others should beleive what they want but often, and this is a bad trait of mine, if you say you believe in gods or spirits or an afterlife I roll my eyes and think "stupid but okay" which is wrong.
I cannot truly be neutral on religion if I view it negatively and get upset when asked to join in a prayer or would groan if asked to go to church with someone on a special occasion. I should be open to it and not force myself not to enjoy something simply because I don't beleive in it.
I will make my world views clear. I am athiestic and a TST Satanist. For those who do not know TST satanism is a denomination that mainly surrounds separation of church and state and pushing forth that all religions and lack of religions should be viewed equally.
This post is to help with me better practicing one of our tenets which is not to force others to be athiestic or TST Satanist and instead accept all view points so long as there is no harm. Despite this I will be asking for viewpoints surround harm to. I won't agree with you but understanding is how we change minds so regardless of that's right now, I will listen.
I personally do not beleive any religious text should be in law, nor is a reliable foundation for law. It's fine if you use it to dictate your own life (once again given the text isn't telling you to harm yourself majorly in order to please a deity, fasting is fine to me but self harm like cutting or other things of the sort i do not agree with) but when you use it to dictate others is when I no longer agree with you
I AM NOT TRYING TO PUSH THIS OPINION. I want to make.it absolutely clear this point is not to convert you to athiesm. It is not push athiest good Christian bad. It is to understand differing viewpoints. That is all. I am biased to think religion is bad. I want to change that.
I may ask questions about lgbtq and women's rights. That's not because I think all christians are anti queer etc. They are not but those who are I want to understand why they have that opinion. The better I understand people the better I can be and understanding a viewpoint even if it's against my own helps me better understand people who think that way.
If you comment why you are anti lgbtq I'm not gonna try and change your mind. I'll ask why and that will be the end of it because for now that is all I want to know. I don't really want other people to respond to responses under this post. This is not a debate. If someone gives an opinion and explains why move on, even if you disagree. I am meant to disagree with some of these points that's the point, I can disagree so long as I understand. If you bring up false factual information I will inform you of that but I won't scream "you're wrong!" That's not the goal here.
If you ask me something to clarify I will and if you ask for sources I will give them. Don't debate me. My opinion is my own. Ask why but once I explain move on. You can criticize sources same as I can yours and you do not need a source to lay your opinion. Just an explanation.
There are a lot of questions but they all pertain to the same general topic. It just specifies the question a bit more.
Here are a range of questions I have along with some opinions. If a questions strikes you please answer it but let me know the question number so I know what you are referencing. It will make things much smoother. Not all questions need to be answered by everyone. You can if you want but I'm expecting you respond to what's important to you. Now let's begin.
  1. Why does religion bring you comfort?
    Why does it bring you comfort, and if you beleive athiesm is sad, why is that? Sure I joke about being a piece of sentient meat flying on a speck of dirt but that doesn't make me feel meaningless. Things will end and I will never feel this again. Is that scary? Sure, all unknowns are scary, but it's also cool. What if you never became a sentient creature? Nothing much would be lost, you wouldn't know, but being here now is really cool.
  2. Why are humans more special than animals or plants? Why are we gods special little creatures.
I don't ... Let me phrase this right. I'm not saying the religious are pretentious or self rightous (understand the main religion I understand is christianity, you may have a religion where the point is you aren't devine or special, I simply may not have learned about it and if you do please inform me below. I love to learn!) But I personally don't understand why being made by a deity would bring me comfort. What's the purpose in that?
I suppose it's neat but I don't see how it brings life purpose. I am not above anything. I eat meat such as cows, but that's not because I feel I'm above them or think they are worth less than me. They satiate my hunger and keep me alive, I respect every animal I eat for providing me with life and I understand the importance of respecting them for this reason. If I was eaten tomorrow by a black bear I'd be fine with it and wouldn't want it hunted down. I am not above or below. We are one. If I take from nature to nurture myself as we all do, I must give back to nature in my death. I wish to rot out in the open, I wish for cows to feast upon grass that contains my nutrients. It only seems fair.
So the sort of idea that a god made us specifically as the top, as his special creations is peculiar to me. Why am I more special than that bear? A lot of people answer with sentience but all animals are sentient. They take actions to survive. Monkeys do things specifically for pleasure that have nothing to do with survival. If you live and breathe you're sentient. Even a worm knows it's alive.
  1. Is hell moral? What do you think hell is like? Who deserves hell? Does a hell even exist to you?
Another question I've always wondered is if your religion has a hell do you think it's moral? I know to most the god makes morality so if he sees it as moral than it is but as I see you also have free will as well. I want your honest opinion on hell. Do you think eternal punishment is fair for anyone? Do beleive in hell but only beleive it's preserved for the worst of the worst? If so who are the worst of the worst and where do those in the middle go? Do they still go heaven or are they stick in between?
Do you beleive a soul in hell can be redeemed? As in hell is like a prison you are punished and then freed, or do you think it's simply game over for the sinner? Do you think it's fair for someone to be eternally punished for mistakes they made within a 100 year time period?
  1. What are your views on heaven? Does/can it exist? Are you truly happy or forced to be? Who gets into heaven?
If you beleive in a heaven how do you think it works? Are you forced into euphoria? If someone you loved was in hell do you think you could truly be happy in heaven? Do you think happiness can exist without misery to contrast and vise versa?
For those who beleive not believing is reason for hell do you think those who never got the chance to learn are included? If so why? If not, why not? If I am just by happenstance someone who doesn't beleive but lives by his rules. Of course do minor sins in my life but as a whole try my best do I still go to heaven or am I to go to hell?
  1. Is your god all loving or is he to be feared? Is he both? If so how?
Is god loving or hateful? It took the sacrifice of jesus for God to offer people redemption. Why couldn't he simply offer it based on character and if a person tried to be good in life or not? Why do you beleive it required sacrifice?
Am I to fear him or love him? If he is indeed all loving why would there be a need to fear? Wouldn't he be understanding and if we failed our earth test teach us in heaven ?
  1. Is your religious text law? Why or why not?
For those who beleive that the bible or any holy book is law why? Some of this is specifically aimed at christianity but if this applies to your religion as well please comment your response. Why should we follow the laws of your text? Which laws do we follow? Is the old testament valid or invalid. If it is valid then is stoning people okay? If not how do you know?
Why are you personally religious? I don't mean "I was raised in church" but rather did you ever ask yourself why you beleive and why you continue to beleive. I don't not want to convert to athiesm I just want to know why YOU chose to beleive something.
  1. Do you truly think God isn't flawed at all? Is he omnipotent and all powerful? If so why doesn't he help those who need him?
If god is omnipotent he knows if you are going to heaven or hell and exactly how you'll respond to every scenerio. In that case what is the point of earth as a trial? I may misunderstand what you mean by omnipotent to please inform me but this has always confused me.
If he is all powerful why does he refuse to help some but help others? Some people live entirely miserable lives of no fault of their own, some of these people are even religious, but he doesn't seem to help them. I see the bible perceived as fact a lot (you may be christian and not beleive this, and that's valid and I would like to know why) but if it is factual and he did split open oceans and cause plauges could he not make sure that homeless man isn't picking the rotten parts off dumpster sandwiches to survive?
I know trials are a thing but but why are these trials so vastly different? Some people don't get into the college they wanted while others are diagnosed with cancer at 5. Those are not equally easy to overcome or even close to as much of a strain on faith as the other and seems kind of unfair. If you give two people a test, one an sat, another a 5th grade biology test and the sat tester fails it kinda seems set up and rigged against them?
I am once again trying to understand. I don't understand, there can be a reason that you have that I did not know and I would like to know so I can understand why people beleive despite horrible tragedies.
  1. What's the buzz about faith? Why is it necessary?
If faith is necessary to your beleifs why? Why would having proof of a god eliminate free will. People could still choose to follow or not follow him. It would give people more free will I think. I just personally find it unfair to require someone to beleive in your existence with no solid proof of said existence.
If you're response to that question is "science is faith based too" why do you beleive that?
9.Should children be brought up into your personal religion? (My personal opinion is no but please let me know if you beleive otherwise and why you think so.)
This one is touchy though I guess this all is but do you think it's morally right to push an impressionable (I use impressionable not to try and make religious who do this sound evil, I don't think they are but was the best word I could use to describe how children beleive just about anything coming from and authority such as parent therefore find it difficult to fo their own opinions) child into any beleifs, athiestic, theist, or religious? My personal stance is no. People should be given an array of religious texts and choose for themselves which brings them most comfort, I wouldn't even want my child to become an atheist because papa is, I would want them to make that choice on their own. But if you think otherwise then why?
  1. Why do you beleive in reincarnation, ghosts, and or souls?
Reincarnation and ghost people, why do you beleive in that? How do you imagine it works? If you are reborn and don't remember the past life why does it matter. How is that different than simply dying/ being born? If not, why?
I'm assuming you beleive in souls if you beleive in ghosts. What is the soul and why do you beleive in it? Why aren't ghosts present everywhere? Odds are somebody at some point has been burried beneath where you are so why aren't we all haunted? (This is a western understanding of the ghost, if you have a different beleif once again share. I really want to learn!) Could there be a happy ghost or do they all have to be miserable?
  1. Why are you pro life? How does your religion tie into it if you are?
Another touchy one, so please no violent arguments. I'm pro choice, that isn't going to change, but you may be able to change my understanding and not assume being pro life means being unsympathetic for having a singular opinion. People are sums of their parts. One part doesn't make them bad even if I strongly disagree. The world isn't black and white. Why do you think abortion is wrong? If a baby is too much for the mother's body and she is dying does the child or mom's life come first? For rape victims why do you think they should follow through with birth? Child rape victims too, I just want to understand.
12.Do you agree with sex ed? Do you think it's a famly matter? Do you think people should practice abstinence? Why? Should people wait til marriage? Is causual sex wrong to you?
Do you think sex ed is good? Why or why not? If you think it's inappropriate then why? If you think it's a family matter then why? Why shouldn't kids learn of their body and about sex from people who have studied sex organs and sex their whole life. Why no condoms or birth control if your're against it? It's lowers std spread and teen pregnancy, and birth control also helps people who have bad periods or crazy hormone levels so if you are, why are you against it?
If you beleive in a abstinence why? I beleive people should choose if they want sex before or after marriage absolutely! But why it wrong for others to want to explore that beforehand. Some people such as myself don't ever wish to get married so why would it be wrong? if you are waiting on marriage why? That's not a bad thing at all I think it's wonderful for people to know what they want for themselves but what's special about waiting for marriage to you?
13.Are you anti lgbtq? If so why? If not , why not? Do you think the bible backs your beleifs? How so? Would you still vote for queer rights even if you personally don't agree. Why or why not?
Once again touchy. No fighting In comments. I want to try and understand please and no discussion goes anywhere by just spewing hate. If you think the bible or any religious text is anti lgbtq why? Do you think gay people are immoral? Why do YOU beleive being gay is wrong, not just the religious text, but do you think being gay causes harm or is a bad thing? If you don't beleive it causes harm but still see it as wrong why do you think God sees it as wrong?
Do you think queer people should be allowed to be queer even if you disagree? Why or why not?
Should trans people be allowed to transition even if you disagree? Why or why not? How do you define gender? If based on gentalia how do you define hermaphrodites? Why do you think God thinks transitioning is wrong?
Do you view us as evil? I know that's far out there but some do see us as really bad and almost demo like. If that's you please explain your beleif and why you beleive it. Do you think I'm a bad person for being queer or misguided? Do you think gay people deserve hell?
  1. Is man above woman or equal? Are men to be the leaders and women servants? Why?
This confused me in church a lot as well. The whole idea that every man was to lead his wife despite some women clearly being smarte stronger than some men. Do you beleive this is true? Should men have the final say, if so why?
I'd that how it was meant to be taken? If so how was it mean to be taken. What does man leads the house mean to you?
  1. What do you think about bible controdictory/mistranslation.
Is mistranslation okay? There are many rewrites of the Bible that contradict eachother, is the text still valid to you? Is it valid but only the original translation? If you use one of the modern translations why do you trust It? If you use a specific modern translation why that specific one?
This isn't to disprove your beleifs just understand the bible more, and why people use the Bible more. I'm not trying to do an "unreliable text" jab. I just want to hear your ideas on which bible is the one people should listen to and why, if you follow the bible at all.
  1. Do you think your religious text is constantly misunderstood and used wrong. If so why?
I've met christians who are pro choice, pro lgbtq, and pro feminism who claim the bible supports their views and that people use the text wrong. How so? Why are their interpretations incorrect? How did you conclude that the bible supports your opinion and not a different one? Do you even beleive in the bible or do you skip it and simple beleive in the Bible's version of god?
  1. Do you beleive in voodoo/ witchcraft. If so why and why is it important to you? Also if it works then why not use it as often?
I've been introduced to voodoo and witch type people and cannot grasp the beleif. I don't understand how certain rocks (this is a simplictic explanation, there's more to it than that but still usually some natural elements are often used because of special "powers") and things cause things to happen. Why do you beleive it and is it more than just positions and revenge. (I'm also not talking about nature witchcraft, you may share that too below but this is aimed more towards magic kind of witchcraft.
  1. Is your religion a cult..why or why not?
To explain I see a lot of religions as cults.it's why I often view them on a bad light so I need to understand why it isn't and how it's different. I don't want to view it that way anymore because it doesn't seem that way but it ticks the boxes.
Things like indoctrination of the young and threat of punishment of hell if you left never sat well with me so what do you think and how do you think it's different? Once again I don't beleive it's a cult but I can't quite figure out why. (Another one aimed at christians. Let me know if your beleif views differently though)
  1. Do you beleive in science? Do you think of science as a religion? Is science faith based to you?
Some religious people don't trust science and I'd like to understand why not. Both science and your beleifs can be valid simotaneously since god is supernatural and science deals with natural things so why is science bad to you?
Do you think science is flawed, if so how and why?
You do not have to answer every single one of these questions. Just If a few pop out to you I want to hear your response. I'm not gonna say I'd never be religious but it's not my aim in this post, nor is the aim to make you lose your beleifs I just want to learn form people and not just the insane angry christians on facebook. That isn't all of you and it's unfair to shape my opinion of you on that so to be less judgmental I must listen to you all.
I am open and wanting to change my honest underlying hatred of the religious due to abuse and upbringing. No I'm not religiously traumatized and that's why I "lost faith" I don't want any of those. I lost faith because I love facts, and I simply didn't like the idea of the religion not being based on anything that I could see to be proven factual. You can argue I stopped going to church because it made me uncomfortable but it wasn't the reason I stopped beleiving.
Even if I disagree strongly with some of you, which I will, it is impossible to live and not disagree strongly. Some of these disagreements may lead me to not really like you but I must respect your personal opinion so long as that opinion isn't forced unto others. Even if you are forcing it I'm not gonna argue about that under this post. I am asking for your opinions regardless if I agree or not so I cannot get mad when you give them.
The abortion and lgbt question I know is going to make a lot of people devicive. I don't like pro lifers or anti lgbtq people but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I shouldn't learn from or try to better understand them. Understanding gives me self peace and even is someone here beleives I shouldn't be trans if they're honest about it and explain it's easier to move on than constantly wondering why. I prefer that to saying you aren't against me being trans but constantly trying to make me doubt being trans or detranstition. You obviously aren't okay with it. Just say it and we can all move on.
Reddit may auto delete some comments unfortunately because of anti lgbtq sayings or opinions. I want to hear them so if it gets deleted dm me and I'll try to respond. Answer here if you can it's easier to keep track of but if you have a lot of questions for me you can DM me as well.
This once again is mainly aimed at christianity but if you are of a different religion and find some of these questions pop out at you let me know about your religion! It makes it easier to respect and understand others if I know all of what's out there :).
Once again please don't try to convert me. Give me facts and your opinion if those facts/ opinions change my mind so be it but please no "you must find god in your heart" or " listen to the word of God" that stuff isn't going to change my mind or forward the discussion. I live in georgia. I hear that all the time and if a church lady at my door can't convert me with those words, you will not be able to convert me with the same words over text.
I am once again not trying to convert you. My beleifs are that differencing beleifs are essential for us to move forward as a society even if some of those beleifs are uncomfortable.
Don't be malitious, I'm not trying to diss your religion and I'll try and word responses so it doesn't come off that way I'm not trying to change your beleif but understand and offer my opinion. If my opinion changes your beleif so be it but I will not be the guy to go "well I didn't see jesus walk on water so it didn't happen" I cannot prove or disprove your god or beleifs if they are supernatural. I can't do that so it just makes the discussion go circular and lead nowhere. The only argument I will make is if information you give me is false in which I will dispute it and offer citation of where I got my information which you are free to criticize!
I'm not gonna tell you your opinion is wrong but if you say "gay guys are rapists" I will dispute that. You can have the opinion that you don't like gay guys, you can't spread false information. That's just manipulative and shapes other people's opinions based on the same false information which means they aren't making choices based on reality but your reality.
Since age is important and sex too for some people regarding these issues I am 17, I am a transgender male, I am gay.
Thank you in advance for sharing and helping me better myself and understand. It really does mean alot no matter how hard the pill may be to swallow.
submitted by Arophax1 to TooAfraidToAsk [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 19:11 The_Milano99 Can someone evaluate my essay?

Issue Topic: Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.
Response:
The prompt mentioning that many important discoveries are accidental plays on the fact that the discoveries that are accidental tend to stand out. As humans, we are curious and are naturally attracted towards something we do not expect. The accidental tend to discoveries stand out because it is not something that is anticipated, and as a result, it does not fit with the pattern of discoveries which have required intensive focus and study. In my opinion, I disagree with the statement.
Proponents of this idea might point towards the myriad of discoveries that have been accidental. One such popular example, the discovery of Penicillin, might not have happened if it wasn’t for the carelessness of a certain Alexander Fleming. This general principle of finding solutions in places where we don’t look is found to be common in many cases.
However, conforming to this idea might not just be unproductive, but also dangerous. For every single accidental discovery, there are ten other which required tremendous effort. Certain innovations require intensive planning and require attention for the most intricate details. For example, in order to create a spacecraft, a group of scientists and engineers would spend years preparing it, going over every possibility and correcting every mistake. The life of the astronauts is directly related to the functioning of the spacecraft, and as a result, leaving the solution of the problems to chance may prove catastrophic. Putting man on the moon was thought to be impossible, however, the dedication of the people behind the ‘Apollo 11’ project enabled man to achieve the impossible. Not only was this mission full of risks, it also required a lot of creative thinking. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where such a mission would be successful by accident.
Sometimes, creations are the result of thinking outside the box. For instance, the iPhone was regarded as a revolutionary product. In an era of ever evolving technology, it was quite difficult for the average layman to keep up with the growing number of innovations. The iPhone essentially took all of these separate technologies and bundled them together as one product. Today, smartphones are quite common and may not seem like a big deal. However, in 2008, the iPhone was a daring creation that was was only possible due to creative thinking by Apple and intense study of the market trends and the needs of the consumer.
Humans, by nature, are extremely curious beings. We will always look to improve on what we have and find more efficient ways of solving problems. While we do this, there may be instances where we find solutions while we’re not looking for it. However, this is not an indication that we should rely on accidents to solve our problems, rather, it is an effect of our constant thirst for knowledge and improvisation.

Argument Essay: The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville.
"Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre productions. In spite of increased advertising, we are attracting fewer and fewer people to our shows, causing our profits to decrease significantly. We must take action to attract new audience members. The best way to do so is by instituting a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program this summer. Two years ago the nearby Avon Repertory Company started a 'Free Plays in the Park' program, and its profits have increased 10 percent since then. If we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, we can predict that our profits will increase, too."

Response:
In the e-mail, the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre concludes that the theatre should start a ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program in order to tackle the problem of dwindling audiences and increase profit margins. However, while this conclusion might sound reasonable, it is based on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, will seriously weaken the argument. Therefore, in order to make the argument more credible, the following three questions must be answered.
First, was the quality of the productions analysed? The director argues that an increase in advertising has not translated to an increase in audiences. It may, therefore, be possible that the shows are simply not interesting enough to attract a lot of audiences. In the age of social media and online reviews, people look towards recommendations from their friends, family and acquaintances. It may be possible that due to poor acting and lower quality of story telling, the audience have been left unimpressed, and as a result have a left a negative review of the theatre. They might further discourage the people in their social circle from visiting the theatre. Therefore, it might be wiser to invest in the production quality of the theatre.
Secondly, the director cites an example of the nearby Avon Repertory Company in order to support his suggestion. He claims that the company has been successful with their ‘Free Plays in the Park’ program which has increased their profits. However, there might be other factors which contributed to the increase in profit. For instance, the Avon Repertory Company might have invested in comfortable seating, something they might have been lacking previously. The audience, now more comfortable in their seats, might be ready to attend shows that run for a lengthy period. The Company might have also partnered with fast food franchises to allow them to sell their products on their location. People who usually love to have food to go along with entertainment might then be more inclined to attend the shows knowing they’ll be able to do so with a full stomach and a delicious meal. Therefore, the director’s citation of the successes of the Avon Repertory Company in order to urge the theatre to start a ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program may not have solid ground. He needs to provide further analysis of the conditions of the theatre in order to correctly identify the areas that need to be improvised.
Finally, the marketing director makes a direct correlation between dwindling audiences and the decrease in profits. The director also observes this trend over a period of ten years. In ten years, there might have been significant changes in a lot of factors responsible for the profit margins of the theatre. For instance, the target demographic in the current time might be vastly different to those ten years ago. The theatre might be increasing their advertising, however they might not have made the required changes in order to attract the newer audiences. Therefore, a change in advertising strategy might be an important aspect to consider. Secondly, the theatre might be consistently increasing the ticket prices in order to offset the decreasing number of people attending the shows. Along with this decision making the idea of attending the shows less appealing, it might not even translate to a decrease in profit as the ticket prices will be raised commensurately to the decreasing audience. As a result, the director has to take into account any other expenditures which might result in the theatre making less profits.
In conclusion, while the marketing director may have concluded that the introduction of a ‘Shakespeare in the Park’ program would translate to an increase in profits, he needs to provide further data in order to solidify his argument. Furthermore, he needs to provide an in depth analysis of the theatre in order to properly understand the reasons for the significant losses. If the director satisfyingly answers the above three questions, it would be possible to fully evaluate the validity of the argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have done this after watching u/gregmat 's videos. My test is in 7 days. Any help would be appreciated.
submitted by The_Milano99 to GRE [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 00:22 SniperSR25 Anyone know why reverse thrust was removed from the CJ4?

I love flying that small jet, and I really liked its reverse thrusters for landing and reversing. In the 1.8.3.0 patch notes, it is stated that "Cessna Citation CJ4 : reverse thrust has been removed. "
I'm kind of miffed about that. Did they do that for realism? Does that actual plane not have that ability?
submitted by SniperSR25 to MicrosoftFlightSim [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 19:18 ThreeStarDave [HELP] Responsive and layout-configurable theme

One of my sites (https://wist.info) needs a mobile-friendly / responsive theme. However, I need to be able to go in and extensively tweak the post layout. The nature of my blog (quotations) means I'm purposing some of the post data a little differently from the normal blog -- using the Title for citations, the Category for author (and using Category Description heavily), specially treating the More text, etc.
That means, in turn, changing how the fields display in a decided non-normal fashion/order (text, category description, category photo, title, link from a custom field, more text, etc.). E.g.,

Sample post layout
While it would be lovely if such a theme was configurable through some UI, I don't expect it. I do know enough PHP to go in and do some manual tweaking in the standard theme loop files to make this work (as I've done in my current layout, based on Twenty Ten, as well as in my Atom and RSS feeds). But most of the themes these days, esp. responsive ones, seem to bury the actual layout deep in called functions that exceed my ability to figure out how to modify. I need a theme that will be responsive (or otherwise mobile-friendly) but also let me straightforwardly modify the layout of the fields being displayed.
I was previously using (a tweaked version of) JetPack's mobile theme to handle this, but that's no longer available. Meanwhile, Google keeps poking me that my site is no longer mobile-friendly, something that, even SEO aside, I'd like to resolve.
I'm happy to spend money for this, if need be. Anyone have any ideas?
submitted by ThreeStarDave to Wordpress_Themes [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 19:38 jacksonpsternin YSK that the concept of "introvert" and "extrovert" is unhealthy fiction. Don't pigeonhole yourself. [citations in body text]

Why YSK:
Identifying as an introvert/extrovert has become so commonplace that few people seem to give a second thought as to whether it is an actual psychological profile or a concept we've adopted as a real metric. The answer is the latter.
Unfortunately, doing so really pigeonholes you into a particular way of being. You tell yourself and other's that you're this one thing so much that you will be that one thing, and going all the way in either direction is unhealthy. For the sake of your mental health, forget about whether you fit one concept or the other and just live your life.
My own experience (it may be a little extreme): I identified as an extrovert as a teen. Being with people all the time, getting depressed real damn quick if I spent too much time alone. If I spent too much time alone I'd start thinking about all the things I was missing out on and would be too focused on that to work on my own projects and myself. In my early 20's I started isolating and went "whoops, I guess I'm introverted now" and avoided people because they made me nervous and uncomfortable, exactly because I was isolating. Both initiate this vicious cycle.
Don't pigeonhole yourself. Go out with your friends one night and turn down a party the next. It's okay. You don't need and shouldn't try to be one thing. You need a balance.
Much love. Citations below.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-gen-y-guide/201701/the-introvert-extravert-myth
https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/there-are-no-such-things-as-introversion-or-extroversion.html
https://medium.com/the-ascent/there-is-no-such-thing-as-introverts-and-extroverts-f05229498cb9
submitted by jacksonpsternin to YouShouldKnow [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 19:01 MiniPanda1337 Redditors working at law firms w/ in-house marketing - what does your team look like?

I am the marketing manager at a mid-scale mass tort / PI law firm that does a lot of SEO-centric in-house marketing.
We are very competitive organically in the space that we operate. Despite our competitiveness, I handle almost everything marketing related by myself - I am the only full-time member of my team. I do have a college intern who handles some of the writing for me, but I still have to optimize it and build out the pages around it.
We do outsource a lot of our link-building to another firm, but everything else is in-house: content +multimedia production and/or writing and optimization, SEO, website management, ad production, social media management, other online platform management (Google accounts, online profiles, etc) reputation management, citation building, PR, client relations, law firm networking relations, and more.
The workload is A LOT, to say the least.
I am trying to justify bringing on at least one additional team member, but the partners don't seem to see it as a necessity.
I can't really reach out to our competitors to ask how their marketing teams are structured, although I know that they have multi-employee teams + more outsourced work.
I am really unsure of the general structure of a marketing department at most law firms and would love some insight.
How big is your firm? What are your general practice areas? How many team members do you have? How much work do you outsource?
Any and all insight would be great. Thank you all.
submitted by MiniPanda1337 to Legalmarketing [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 12:18 3lectricboogal00 Old God personality comparisons and variations on corruption [Lore Discussion - LONG POST]

(Originally posted on main wow subreddit but it was getting downvoted so I felt like maybe I posted in the wrong neighborhood)
I've been trying to put together a list of all the differences and similarities between each Old God we've encountered on Azeroth. Their size and visual design are things that people discuss all the time but I'm really more interested in their personalities or just generally how they function. There might have been other posts about this but I haven't been able to find them.
I want to compile a list of differences between each of the Old Gods and determine;
A) Personality
B) Method of influence (i.e. the ways that they might try to deplete a person's sanity)
C) Corruption indicators (i.e. how their corruption is represented in someone or something that they have infected)

Y'SHAARJ

Personality: Indeterminate - Unpredictable?
Apparently Y'shaarj is the largest and most powerful but there are only snippets of detail on how he differs from the others. He seems to represent some variation of the seven deadly sins and I can't really back this up but it appears that he is interested in encouraging the exploration of personal vices or amplifying the negative 'sinful' feelings that are already present in mortals. We see very little of the Old God in his natural form or even an avatar of his 'whole' self - seeing as he was killed and split apart before we could learn anything about him.
On Gamepedia : (Y'shaarj) is said to have inhaled courage and breathed fear. When it died, its last, terrible breath manifested as the seven prime sha Anger, Hatred, Violence, Fear, Doubt, Despair and Pride.
I would be interested to hear any other takes on what he might have been like to interact with. All we really have to go on is our interactions with the sha so I can only assume that he was somewhat volatile - switching frequently between a variety of moods. He might have been the most emotional Old God with each of his heads offering a unique mood.
Method of Influence: Bolstering sins/wide emotional range
I would say that his most prominent feature is the exploitation of existing emotions and the amplification of them to such an extreme that the victim is rendered insane.
While other Old Gods seem more interested in a specific emotion, Y'shaarj invests in a wider range of seven distinct emotional concepts (all probably correlating to his seven heads). I believe it is possible that Y'shaarj's highly diverse emotional manipulation is directly linked to his known status as the most powerful Old God. Obviously, his size would be a factor there but I think being able to interfere with a diverse range of emotion could enhance his overall power (?)
For example, these whispers can be heard emitting from Xal'atoh - a weapon which drops from Garrosh Hellscream after he has been overtaken by Y'shaarj's corruption:
Corruption: Sha contagion
His corruption is quite clearly represented by the 'Sha' contagion that we've seen in many characters throughout the Mists of Pandaria expansion. The most prominent example is probably Garrosh Hellscream in Siege of Orgrimmar (https://i.imgur.com/z619uu5l.jpg)
Sha corruption varies between black and white monochrome or bright and colorful - i.e. how it appears in the above image. It has the potential to cover surfaces in much the same manner as it does with people. Anywhere that you find sha, you will probably find black and white patches bleeding white mist.
I might've missed something but that's about all I can think of.

YOGG-SARON

Personality: Arrogance/Violence
Possibly the loudest and most violent of the four known Old Gods, Yogg-Saron appears to exemplify arrogance and excessive egomania. Most of the other Gods have 2-3 different titles (i.e. God of the Deep for N'zoth and God of Seven Heads for Y'shaarj) but Yogg-Saron has at least 7 that we have heard in-game.
(The Lucid Dream, The Beast with a Thousand Maws, The Prime Evil, The Beast, The Fiend of a Thousand Faces, The God of Death, That Which Must Not Be Named).
The three visions that he shows us during his encounter in the Ulduar raid seem to be a blatant boast regarding his influence in Azeroth's past. Many have speculated that he had a hand in the events that he portrays and I'm not inclined to disagree but the whole thing seems like a performance - just another way for him to show us how powerful and important he is.
He often undertakes similar behind-the-scenes manipulation to the other Old Gods (i.e. muddling the mind of Titan Keeper Loken) but when he is exposed, he seems to abandon all notion of deception and revel in his own power with voice lines like :
Biggest ego in the black empire.
Method of Influence: FeaHate?
His influence would appear somewhat intangible at first glance and a little convoluted to unpack. Most of the whispers that you hear in Saronite mines indicate that Yogg-Saron relies primarily on drilling fear into his victims but also inspiring hatred and a desire for violence. Here are a few examples of things that he will say to you.
In addition, during his boss encounter he says the following through Sara:
Yeah, it's a bit of a flimsy theory but Yogg-Saron doesn't always operate with consistency. Y'shaarj relied on a wide variety of emotional manipulation but there was a pattern to it and one that directly correlated to his 'seven sins, seven heads' motif.
Yogg-Saron's methods don't have much to tie them together aside from the fact that he often initiates huge changes in the world that garner a lot of attention (turning Loken against the Titan Keepers, corrupting Andrassil, seeding the Emerald Nightmare, creating the curse of flesh and possibly interfering with several other significant historical events across Azeroth - all represented in the visions he provides during his boss encounter)
He also has a tendency to create deceptive visions like Sara in Ulduar or an image of Sif to deceive Loken. Overall I'd say his manipulations are the loudest and most extravagant.
Corruption: Not visible/Heightened Aggression?/Saronite?
Visual indicators of Yogg-Saron's corruption seem somewhat non-existent and I don't believe that he had any specific mortal followers aside from those that surround General Vezax in the Descent into Madness (these appear to be the same Twilight's Hammer cultists that we see across Azeroth) and those that have succumbed to Saronite poisoning.
Yogg-Saron's blood was known to induce madness and heightened aggression but not in the undead - particularly the Scourge. I don't believe this was ever fully explained but it is very interesting. Regardless, those that succumb to Saronite poisoning don't exhibit any unique visual manifestations that I could find.
The saronite miners that we discover across Northrend are similarly unaffected in any visual way by his corruption but I believe it is possible that Yogg-Saron's influence only manifests in heightened aggression and paranoia. You can read some of their voice lines here, I'm still not really sure how to draw a conclusion from these.
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Saronite_Mine_Slave
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Deranged_Explorer
I wish I had something more concrete to say about Yogg's corruption but I don't think Blizzard was interested in creating visual effects for Old God corruption until Y'shaarj showed up in Pandaria. I'm trying not to get too meta with it but I can't find an in-lore reason for a big loud boy like Yogg-Saron to not announce his presence in those that he corrupts.

C'THUN

Personality: Quiet & Emotionless
C'thun was obviously smaller than Y'shaarj and a little smaller than Yogg-Saron (his domain looks kinda smaller than N'Zoth's too if you look at the Chronicle map) but again, physical appearance is only really relevant to me in regard to his personality and function. In this case, I think C'thun's size could easily correlate to him being represented as some sort of twist on a 'middle child' - frequently underrepresented and overlooked in comparison to some of the others. C'thun has even less detail than Y'shaarj when it comes to his traits and methods but I think we can actually draw quite a lot from his whispers alone. It should be noted that he speaks very little in comparison to the others - in a quiet, monotone voice and directly to the player themselves rather than in an open broadcast (unless I'm remembering that wrong).
The arrogance of Yogg-Saron exemplifies a massive contrast in their individual hubris. C'thun seems much more emotionless and effortlessly calm at all times, never really speaking about himself or with any sense of self-importance - which all 3 other Old Gods contrast against.
In Ahn Qiraj we can hear the following from C'thun himself:
He also has almost no humanoid/mortal followers - only aqir, faceless and corrupt Anubisath. It seems like he has far less interest in mortal races than any other Old God. It may just be as simple as his isolation in Silithus providing little opportunity to figure out how these other races function and how to get into their heads.
Personally, I like to believe that C'thun is more alien to our perception - he does not pretend to think like we do or have the same emotions that we experience. He is far closer to an unfathomable eldritch monstrosity than his brethren and makes little effort to appear differently.
Method of Influence: Despair & Doubt
I think C'thun relies on a much heavier dose of despair than any of the other Old Gods in order to eradicate the sanity of his victims, speaking softly and almost gently to those that wander his domain - whispering doubts into their ear and stoking their fears. His manipulation is almost passive and disinterested - implying that whomever he targets is of no significance whatsoever.
Corruption: Not visible/Very subtle
This aspect of C'thun is very difficult to pin down. Most of his followers are Qiraji, Silithid and Anubisath enslaved by the Qiraji. As far as I can tell, he has no mortal followers unless you include Twilight's Hammer fanatics in Silithus but they show no obvious visual signs of corruption from the Old God himself.
However, I would speculate that due to C'thun's more soft-spoken nature - his corruption may be more subtle and difficult to perceive on the surface. Perhaps only those under his influence can perceive it in others? Could it be similar to the Gift of N'Zoth?
Or could this be another side-effect of C'thun's disinterest in mortal races?

N'ZOTH

Personality: Cunning & Playful
As the smallest of the Azerothian Old Gods, (despite the fact that his domain seems around the same size as C'thun's in Chronicle - but I might just be blind) N'Zoth is frequently referred to as the most deceptively dangerous of all. He likes 'deals' and I would argue that he is the most fond of mortal races. He employs a large number of Faceless and K'thir but he also spends much more time trying to communicate with people on Azeroth. The player is probably the most prominent example but he also made a very direct and memorable pact with Azshara.
His affinity for communication of this nature is perhaps due to his inadequacies in size and strength, trying to form bonds of loyalty far stronger than any form of mind control or physical dominance. Additionally, knowledge of the future is often teased in the form of riddles which I believe is a combined act to amuse himself and entice us into listening for more.
N'Zoth seems the most 'human' of the Old Gods, often engaging in acts of generosity and even affection toward those that follow him. I would wager that this is all fabricated but it's also possible that he does experience some level of connection to his followers. It may only go as far as a sense of ownership but that's still a great deal more than the complete lack of sentiment offered by his kin.
Method of Influence: Hate, Prophecy & Love
N'Zoth offers a unique mixture of manipulation, seemingly fixated on fostering a direct bond between himself and his followers. Through the numerous whispers that we hear in BfA, it is clear that he frequently encourages his victims to trust and love him - denoting them with the term 'Chosen' and bestowing his 'Gifts' upon them.
Yet in addition to this, he also encourages those under his influence to foster hate for others, primarily those that defy him. He emphasizes the idea that only some are worthy of his gift and that everyone else is worthless - an enemy to be vanquished. This ties very easily into the themes of love and devotion that he infuses into his followers. If you do not love him then you must hate him and therefore, you are the enemy.
8.1.5 N'Zoth quotes:
8.3 N'Zoth quotes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBgKrPmYvYw
Corruption: just a lot of eyeballs and tentacles idk
If you've played through BfA content you've likely seen the manifestations of N'Zoth's corruption. On surfaces, he'll produce tentacles, eyes and big nasty stains as we've seen in the corrupted zones of 8.3
But in his followers he manifests quite a variety of changes. The K'thir appear to be some mixture of n'raqi and mortal fused together - and since they appear so similar to the n'raqi, I would assume that they serve all Old Gods. We never saw these creatures until BfA so I think most people associate them with N'Zoth but my guess is that tentacle-faced K'thir are something that any old god could create at will.
The Gift of N'Zoth is a glowing eye bestowed upon those that he deems worthy - and only others carrying the gift can perceive it. N'Zoth may manifest other forms of corruption similar to this but I don't think that it will necessarily be visible at all times - much like the gift that players can wear.

COMMON TIES

Every Old God shares some miscellaneous traits, functions and aspects of corruption that I will briefly summarize here.
At this stage I've spent too much time on this so I'll bring it to a close.
TL;DR
All of these cuddly boys share a lot of similarities but there are so many subtle differences not only in their visual manifestations but in the way that they operate. I could spend hours going deeper and speculating on how the physical appearance of each Old God might indicate further deatils on their personality differences but this is really starting to drag on.
Pretty much everything that I've written here is speculative so I encourage you to drag it through the mud and expose the flaws. I could talk about this stuff all day so I hope somebody actually manages to make it through all of this.
submitted by 3lectricboogal00 to warcraftlore [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 11:54 Existentialbreadd 25M, A fragmented manifestation of cosmic horror.

Always the misfit, till the puberty set in and I got a decent face in return. Took me a long time to get comfortable with my looks and then 10 more years to get comfortable with my issues. So here I am emotionally stable (citation needed).
Well, my life is a series of radiohead songs,
I appeal to the Karma police of Reddit, I'm no Creep. I'm just a Paranoid Android, my conversations wont leave you High & Dry. You're the Wolf at the Door, let's talk and figure How to disappear completely.
I love reading non-fiction and history. I've read religious books (although they might count as fiction to some)
I'm big on basketball and football. We can play together.
Brown eyes
5'11 (on tinder I'm 6'0)
I value empathy, honesty and big butts heh.
submitted by Existentialbreadd to Needafriend [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 08:09 Briodyr Narcs hate magic - Who Hates Magic? Exploring the Loathing of Legerdemain

https://psyarxiv.com/mzry6/
Almost typically of people who love to make things of ours disappear (Because they themselves literally have no object permanence), This paper makes the case that dark tetrad individuals hate magic.

Abstract

Magic is an ancient, universal, diverse, and wide-ranging domain of artistic performance. Despite its worldwide popularity, however, any working magician will tell you that some people really hate magic. They seem to see every illusion as a challenge to be solved and every performance as an insult to their intelligence. A distinctive feature of magic is that it seeks to create wonder and amazement through deception—practitioners create the illusion of the impossible, which can provoke intense curiosity, but will not explain the method—so we speculate that disliking magic could stem from (1) low propensity for curiosity, awe, and wonder, and (2) high needs for social status and dominance, which make a person averse to being fooled and manipulated. The present research explored people’s attitudes toward magic with our Loathing of Legerdemain (LOL) scale. In a multinational sample of 1295 adults, we found support for these two broad classes of predictors. People who hated magic were marked by (1) lower Openness to Experience, lower awe-proneness, and lower creative self-concepts; and (2) higher socially aversive traits, such as lower Agreeableness, higher psychopathy, and lower faith in humanity. We suggest that magic is an interesting case for researchers interested in audience and visitor studies and that the psychology of art would benefit from a richer understanding of negative attitudes more generally.
See less

Supplemental Materials

osf.io/6cqev/

Preprint DOI

10.31234/osf.io/mzry6

License

No license

Disciplines

Social and Behavioral Sciences Social and Personality Psychology Individual Differences

Tags

aesthetics awe creativity dark tetrad dark triad Loathing of Legerdemain magic magicians openness to experience personality

Citations

APASilvia, P., Greengross, G., Karwowski, M., Rodriguez, R., & Crasson, S. J. (2020, September 14). Who Hates Magic? Exploring the Loathing of Legerdemain. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mzry6**MLA**Silvia, Paul, et al. “Who Hates Magic? Exploring the Loathing of Legerdemain.” PsyArXiv, 14 Sept. 2020. Web.ChicagoSilvia, Paul, Gil Greengross, Maciej Karwowski, Rebekah Rodriguez, and Sara J. Crasson. 2020. “Who Hates Magic? Exploring the Loathing of Legerdemain.” PsyArXiv. September 14. doi:10.31234/osf.io/mzry6.
submitted by Briodyr to raisedbynarcissists [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 02:10 TheKidJess [Trooper] Liars on traffic stops get tickets every single time.

I was on patrol and I see this newer BMW X5 SUV, and my trooper senses start tingling when I look down and see that the vehicle doesn't have a license plate. Instead it has one of those decorative dealership license plates that has a BMW logo on it. (The colors on the decorative plate were pretty faded meaning it had been on this vehicle for a while).
I love pulling these types of vehicles over because usually a stolen vehicle, or a vehicle with expired registration and this is a way for them to hide it, or its just wealthy people that think that they don't have to play by the rules. Either way, you're getting pulled over for it
I pull this guy over and tell him its Officer blank with the Reddit State Police, the reason for the stop today is because you don't have a license plate on your vehicle. He explained to me that he usually has a license plate on the vehicle, but it was in the shop for some repairs recently, and hasn't had the chance to put it back on yet. He also told me that he is getting ready to trade in the vehicle for a newer model, so he just figured he would keep the license plates off. I explained to him that the law in our state requires that you have license plates displayed whenever you are driving a vehicle on a highway.
I ask him for his license registration and proof of insurance. He hands me all of the documents, when he hands me the registration there is still the '2020' registration sticker attached to the paper work, and on this registration it says that the 2020 registration was paid for sometime in late 2019, meaning that this guy paid for his registration but never put the stickers on.
I ask him if he has the license plates to the vehicle in his car, and he says that he does. He opens the hatch of the vehicle and behold there they are. These plates are absolutely spotless, not even a spec of dust on them. These plates have never seen the light of day on this vehicle. The license plates didn't even have 2019 registration stickers on them. This guy has been driving around with that decorative plate for at least a year, probably longer.
I ask the guy if he still wanted to go with his original "story" that his car was recently in the shop and he hasn't gotten around to putting the plates on, he said no. He comes forward and tells me that he's never put the license plate on his car because he doesn't like the way they look.
Alright Sir, have a seat in your car and ill be right back with you. I go back to my patrol car and fill out the citation. I go back to the car and explain to him that he's receiving a citation for not having the license plates, he was pretty understanding. Lastly I tell him, don't lie to the Troopers because if we find out that you are lying, you're pretty much guaranteed a ticket.
submitted by TheKidJess to TalesFromTheSquadCar [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 22:54 JennyTheSheWolf Bruce Gernon's time-bending flight

I remember seeing this story on a TV show in the 90s (likely Unsolved Mysteries) about a man who passed through a vortex in the Bermuda Triangle that supposedly pushed him ahead in time and space. I generally think anything involving the Bermuda Triangle should be taken with a grain of salt but this story in particular always stuck with me because it's quite unique among BT stories due to the fact that the witnesses lived to tell the tale.
According to Gernon, he departed from Andros Island in the Bahamas at 3:00 PM on December 4, 1970 on his Bonanza A36 along with his father and and his father's business associate on a flight that took them through the Bermuda Triangle on their way to Bimini. Along the way, the plane was engulfed by a strange cloud that appeared to be following the plane's movements forward and upward in altitude. They eventually broke free from the cloud only to come to another similar cloud a short distance ahead of them.
The exterior of the cloud appeared white, fluffy, and harmless so Gernon continued ahead but, once inside, the interior was revealed to be dark with flashes of light indicating that they had entered a dangerous electrical storm. At 3:27 PM Gernon turned the plane 135 degrees, heading South, in an attempt to break free from the cloud. At this point, Gernon radioed in to Miami to notify them of their change in course.
As Gernon attempted to flee the second cloud, he discovered to his dismay that the first cloud he escaped now appeared to be connected with this second cloud, forming a tunnel around the plane that appeared to be between 10 and 15 miles long. Gernon could see clear blue sky at the other end of this tunnel and decided the safest course of action would be to carry on forward through the tunnel until he got to the other end.
While inside the tunnel, Gernon noted that there were spiraling lines swirling in counterclockwise motion along the interior. As the plane progressed toward the opening, the tunnel seemed to be continually shrinking in both length and diameter. What seemed like a 10 mile tunnel at first that should have taken roughly 3 minutes to pass through became a 1 mile long tunnel that they passed through in 20 seconds.
As the plane crossed the edge of the tunnel, its passengers experienced the sensation of weightlessness that lasted about 10 seconds. Instead of the clear blue skies that Gernon first saw at the end of the tunnel, they were met with blank gray haze all around them. No sky, no ocean, no horizon, absolutely nothing but grayness. Gernon described it as resembling a thick fog except for the fact that visibility appeared to extend roughly 2 miles.
When they attempted to read their location via their magnetic and electronic navigational systems, they discovered that the instruments were malfunctioning. Gernon contacted Miami air-traffic control again to seek their assistance in identifying their location via radar. However, Miami claimed that there were absolutely no planes visible on the radar anywhere between Miami, Bimini, and Andros.
Gernon did his best to steer the plane toward his destination with nothing to go on but his own mental compass. After a few minutes, the Miami radio controller announced that he had just spotted a plane directly over Miami Beach heading West. Gernon did not believe that the plane the controller saw was theirs because they had only been flying for 34 minutes and there was no way he could have reached Miami in that amount of time.
It was then that the gray fog around them began to dissipate in a strange way that Gernon described as horizontal ribbons across the sky that gradually expanded until the fog was gone. With the fog gone, Gernon could see that he was, in fact, right over Miami Beach. With their visibility and navigational instruments restored, Gernon landed the plane at Palm Beach International Airport. The entire flight lasted a total of 48 minutes.
Gernon was baffled by the experience, not only due to the weather and instrumental anomalies but also because of the apparent loss of time. Even on direct flights in the past, the trip from Andros to Palm Beach took a minimum of 75 minutes in Gernon's Bonanza A36. And this flight was anything but direct.
The most detailed account of this story comes from chapter 1 of Gernon's own book that also covers other stories connected to the Bermuda Triangle.
I tend to be skeptical of fantastical stories like this one but something in my gut has always told me that Gernon's story is legit. I'd like to know if there is documented proof from the airports involved that can corroborate his story. From what I can remember about the episode I saw as a kid I thought that the airports did back up the story but I can't be sure. So far, I haven't found anything online concerning that which would prove or disprove the timings.
It is interesting and adds a bit of skepticism that Gernon has been featured on numerous TV shows to give his story and he also has published books concerning the Bermuda Triangle and his theory on what happened, calling the phenomena "electronic fog." He also has a website where he sells tacky merch.
Perhaps Gernon is merely trying to capitalize off the Bermuda Triangle sensation or maybe he's just capitalizing on his own real experiences. Though, rumors of the Bermuda Triangle had only just begun a few years prior to Gernon's experience and he claims that he hadn't heard of it at the time.
Has anybody else ever heard of this story? I'd love to know if someone could point me in the direction of finding the airport data.
And assuming the story is legit, what happened? Did their plane pass through a wormhole? Was it some kind of phenomenal weather as Gernon theorizes? Or something else entirely?
Update: I found this website that goes into a great deal of mathematical analysis on Gernon's flight. They believe that he experienced a time warp field that involves bending space-time which enables a craft to reach higher speeds than they would normally be capable of. Article here: http://paresspacewarpresearch.org/Bruce_Gernon/The_Flight.htm
NASA has even done some research into applying such a warp field for space travel (like a warp-drive you would see in Sci Fi stories) and they believe it is possible. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110015936
The question is, if this is what happened to Gernon, how was the time warp he experienced created?
submitted by JennyTheSheWolf to UnresolvedMysteries [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 18:17 Cryptolexicon The Mechanism of Female Supremacist Censorship - Academic Veils placed on Domestic Violence Research

The Mechanism of Female Supremacist Censorship - Academic Veils placed on Domestic Violence Research

Joanna Williams: \"Censorious Feminism ultimately backfires. Feminism today appears to be more concerned with images than reality. \"
" Today, a censorious strand of feminism is on the ascendancy as feminism increasingly becomes blurred with identity politics."
“Whatever the author will write in the future, we won't accept and probably not even read. The effort is pointless. Whether the books and arguments are important, of a new kind, good, doesn't matter - if it's critique of feminism, it gets no chance.”
“Probably all editors responsible for women's affairs eliminate contributions and facts critical of feminism, regardless of origin.”
"To be a feminist today is, it seems, to support censorship rather than free expression."
..........
Paging /NameTheProblem 👀👀
The Mechanism of Female Supremacist Censorship - Modus Operandi:
  1. Suppress Evidence
  2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent With the Patriarchal Dominance Theory.
  3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
  4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
  5. Create “Evidence” By Citation
  6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research that Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance is the Cause of Personal Violence
  7. Harrass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs
...........
There are millions of compassionate and loving people in the United States who have been given erroneous information about domestic violence.
Over the years the media and academia have offered a steady stream of information that indicates that women are the only victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators.
We have all been deceived.
What most don’t know is that a part of that deception has been intentional and has come from the scientific community. As hard as it is to believe it is indisputable. Most of us had no idea of this deception until recently. More and more is now coming out about the symmetry of victimization in domestic violence between men and women.
One of the breakthroughs that have helped us identify this deception was the journal response of Murray Straus Ph.D.
Murray Strauss, Ph.D.
Straus has been an acclaimed researcher of family and interpersonal violence for many years. In his article he unveils the ways that this misinformation has been intentionally spread via “research.”
He shows the seven ways that the truth has been distorted. It is a fascinating yet sobering article that shows how, without actually lying, the researchers were able to distort things and make it appear that it was something that is was not. We all know that once a research study is published the media will latch on and print the results as gospel truth so the media became the megaphone to spread the misinformation once it was inked in the scientific journal. I would highly recommend your reading the full report by Straus which can be found here:http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70-Gender-symmetry-PV-Chap-11-09.pdf

1. Suppress evidence.

The first type of deceit that Straus describes is suppressing evidence. The researchers would ask questions about both men and women but only report on the answers from women. The half-story would leave readers with the impression that it was only women who were victims even though the researcher had the surveys of male victims on hand they simply didn’t report it. The data on male victims was simply buried while the data on female victims was reported. Straus discusses the Status on Women report from Kentucky in the late 1970’s that was the first to use this strategy. They collected data on both male and female victims but only the female victims were discussed in the publications. Scientific method is dependent upon creating a hypothesis and testing it. If you get data from your test that is contrary to your original hypothesis this is just as important as getting data that affirms the hypothesis and can be used to adjust your original hypothesis. To ignore ones own data that contradicts the hypothesis is the epitome of disregard to the foundations of scientific inquiry. It leaves the realms of research and enters the realms of propaganda and shaping the outcome to mislead.

2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent With the Patriarchal Dominance Theory.

The second method described by Straus was that of simply not asking the questions when you didn’t want to hear the answers. The surveys would ask the women about their victimhood and ask men about their perpetration but failed to inquire about women’s violence or men’s victimhood. If you ask questions that address only half the problem you are certain to conclude with only half the answers. Straus highlights a talk he gave in Canada where he evaluated 12 studies on domestic violence. Ten out of the twelve only asked questions about female victims and male perpetrators. If you don’t ask the questions you will never get the answers. Publishing half the truth is intentionally misleading.

3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration

Straus reveals a number of situations where studies or official documents would cite only other studies that showed female victims and male perpetrators. He uses the Department of Justice press release as just one example where they only cite the “lifetime prevalence” data because it showed primarily male perpetration. They omitted referencing the “past-year” data even though it was more accurate since it showed females perpetrated 40% of the partner assaults. Straus shows journal articles and names organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, the US Department of Justice and others who used this tactic to make it appear that women were the primary victims of domestic violence and men the primary perpetrators.

4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not

Straus showed an example of a study by Kernsmith (2005) where the author claimed that women’s violence was more likely to be in self defense but data to support the claim didn’t exist. Apparently he had made the claim even without any supporting evidence. Straus shows that the self defense category was primarily about anger andcoercion and not about self-defense at all but this didn’t stop the researcher from claiming the erroneous results which of course could be quoted by later studies as proof that such data does indeed exist.

5. Create “Evidence” By Citation

The “woozle” effect is described by Straus as when “frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence mislead us into thinking there is evidence.” He lists the Kernsmaith study and a report from the World Health Organization as examples. Both made claims (without evidence to back it up) that women’s violence was largely in self-defense. The claims were quoted repeatedly and people eventually started to believe that the claims were correct.

6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research that Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance is the Cause of Personal Violence

Straus mentions two incidents that illustrate this claim. One was a call for papers on the topic of partner violence in December of 2005 from the National Institute of Justice where it was stated that “proposals to investigate male victimization would not be eligible.” Another was an objection raised by a reviewer of one of his proposals due to its having said that “violence in relationships was a human problem.” He also stated that the “more frequent pattern is self-censorship by authors fearing that it will happen or that publication of such a study will undermine their reputation, and, in the case of graduate students, the ability to obtain a job.”

7. Harrass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

Straus provides details of a number of incidents where researchers who found evidence of gender symmetry in domestic violence were harassed or threatened. He described a number of instances such as bomb scares at personal events, being denied tenure and promotions, or “shouts and stomping” meant to drown out an oral presentation. He relates being called a “wife-beater” as a means to denigrate both himself and his previous research findings.
Straus concludes that a “climate of fear has inhibited research and publication on gender symmetry in personal violence.” His words help us to understand the reasons that our public is so convinced that women are the sole victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. It has been years and years of researchers telling only half the story and when we get only half the story and consider it the whole truth we are likely to defend our limited version of the truth and ostracize those who may offer differing explanations. The matter is further complicated due to the media having acted as a megaphone for the half story that has emerged so the “common knowledge” that has emerged from the media for many years has been half the story and due to its not telling both sides of the story, it is basically misinformation.What this tells us is that we need to stay on our toes when it comes to social science research. Straus’s paper has helped us immensely in seeing how research can be set up to appear to tell the truth but fail miserably in doing so. While the researchers are not technically lying, the end product is similar since it produces only a partial image of the reality of domestic violence and leaves people without the details to fill in the reality of the situation. It is likely a good idea to have a look at the way each study gets its data, the exact nature of the people being used as subjects, and the conclusion drawn and if they are congruous with the data that was gathered. Next we will look at a study that uses Straus’s first example, ignoring ones own data.
submitted by Cryptolexicon to ReportMaleHateSubs [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 00:28 a_ricketson Analyzing modes of information gathering (discussion)

The information ecology of my country (USA) is dysfunctional. A large portion of the population has no ability to obtain reliable information -- with the consequences that wackjob conspiracy theorists are being sent to Congress and foreign powers are sowing division by impersonating Americans.
I'm trying to understand this problem, and I figure that a first step is to list out all of the ways that people (Americans) gather information -- right now I'm thinking in broad approaches to information gathering, which I'll call modes. I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether I've missed any modes, as well as ruminations on the dysfunction in each mode, and possible solutions.
  1. Direct, active information gathering: I seek out information that is relevant to a particular problem or question that I have. I do this by either observing the world with my own senses and tools, or by questioning others about their own activities (e.g. surveys, or journalist style interviewing).
  2. Direct, passive information gathering: I gather information without a particular purpose -- I look around, I explore, I have conversations with others.
  3. Agent -- I recruit another person to collect information, and bring me the most valuable information (e.g. an employer may send an employee to gather information and summarize it in a report).
  4. Active publication-based information gathering: I search through published information to find what I want (e.g. using a search engine, or following citation trails in academic literature).
  5. Passive publication-based information gathering: I monitor publications generated by some trusted source -- whether a blogger, a social media feed, a magazine, etc.
I'll put that list out here for comment. Some other thoughts are below.
The publication-based modes are especially dependent on trust. A the basic level, there's the trust that you are communicating with a specific person, sometimes formalized as a "Web of Trust". There's also the issue of trusting that a person has direct information about something -- and this does not necessarily require establishing their individual identity (or does it, to some extent?). When thinking in these terms, do social media algorithms amount to a massive "man in the middle" attack -- even if they don't explicitly modify the content produced by a person, they may implicitly omit some of that person's content according to cryptic rules.
submitted by a_ricketson to Rad_Decentralization [link] [comments]


2020.09.13 21:40 Kreator333 Cessna Citation Longitude Landing issues

Hi all
I am hoping some of the old pro's can give me some tips here.
I've been playing and thoroughly enjoying Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 since official launch, accruing 101 hours of flight time so far. I love it, great game.
As part of it I've been using OnAir Company addon to give the platform a real purpose.
Anyway, I've worked my way up through aircraft from the 172, TBM 930, King Air and now finally the Citation Longitude.
The props and turbo props I was able to master landing and didn't have much trouble, but it seems transitioning from props to a jet is a much larger jump in skill (for me anyway as a new player).
I really want to master it, but its proving a bit of a challenge, things I am trying to avoid:
  1. Tail strike, the rear of the aircraft is very low and doesn't take much of angle of attack to strike the tail, what exactly this angle is I am trying to find out somewhere!
  2. I always come in either too fast, or (more commonly) too slow and have to add power when on full flaps, so I believe I am getting my descent distance wrong and having to compensate
  3. Sometimes I "bounce land" which I really hate, I don't want to do this.
I pride myself on a cushion like landing but this jet seems to be a challenge for me.
Can anyone give me any tips on what process they go through to get this bird down nice and softly, so that my landing doesn't wake up sleeping ants, crickets and mosquito's for miles around?
I'd really appreciate some step by step tips, that I can take into the game and work on.
Thanks
submitted by Kreator333 to flightsim [link] [comments]


2020.09.13 15:03 portlane Leland Lawry (November 20, 1922 - September 2, 2020)

LELAND LOWELL LAWRY
November 20, 1922 - September 2, 2020
Leland Lowell Lawry, age 97, passed into heaven on Sept. 2, 2020.
He was born to George and Gladys Lawry in Bronson, KS on Nov. 20, 1922. He was the fourth of six brothers.
Lowell proudly served in the U.S. Army as a Paratrooper with the 11th Airborne Division during World War II. Trained as both a parachutist and a glider man, he served nearly three years, much of the time in the South Pacific and Japan. He earned multiple military awards including the Bronze Star, Paratrooper Wings, and the Presidential Unit Citation from President Truman.
During his life, he was active in his church and served as treasurer for Northwest Independent Church Extension. He had a lifelong love of gardening and enjoyed reading, especially God’s Word.
Lowell is survived by his wife of over 78 years, Eleanor; daughter, Kathy Summers (John); and daughter-in-law, Louise Lawry; grandchildren, Don, Chad, Jenny, Wendy, and Patty; great-grandchildren, James, Chelsea, Keldon, Brevan, Noah and Jonah; and great-great-grandchildren, Coraline and Logan.
He was preceded in death by his son, Don.
He was laid to rest at Evergreen Memorial Gardens in Vancouver, WA, in a family service with military honors.
Please share a memory @ www.columbian.com/obits
source: http://obits.columbian.com/obituaries/columbian/obituary.aspx?n=leland-lowell-lawry&pid=196792050
submitted by portlane to deadpeoplepdx [link] [comments]


2020.09.12 22:46 jumping-ship My experience as a budtender the past 2 years

When I finally got that call from a shop that was willing to hire me, I felt like I was on top of the world. An absolute dream come true. The shop I got hired at was unlicensed, but I was still extremely grateful nonetheless to be apart of the cannabis industry. My plan was to use experience from that company to eventually get myself into a licensed shop. My life changed tremendously from the moment I became a budtender. I was finally at a job that I genuinely enjoyed, and on top of that, I was being payed significantly more than my previous job. Approximately 6 weeks into me being with that company, I unfortunately was apart of my first ever raid. Extremely scary stuff, and also the cops were unnecessarily aggressive with not only the workers, but with the patients as well (at the time of the raid there was nothing but elderly patients in the facility). Thankfully everybody got let go without receiving any type of citation or anything. The company I was with was quite successful, and had the power to open up a new shop in a new location the very next day, so I’m situations like these, I was at the very least not going to be out of a job. We always had a good amount of business because this was the era where weedmaps allowed unlicensed distributors to be advertised on there page. 4 weeks later I volunteered to help out at a sister shop in a completely different county. Boom I’m in another raid, except this time I actually got sent to jail and was given a misdemeanor (no I didn’t talk/rat on myself or anybody). It is what it is, I went back to work at my original spot a few days later because just like everybody else I need money. Aside from needing money, being apart of the cannabis industry is my absolute pride and joy. The difference was that from this point on I was absolutely traumatized. I feared going to work for the fact that at any given moment I can be caught up with the police. At this point, I was eager as fuck to get myself into the legal industry so I can keep myself out of harms way. I went on a massive job hunt for months and months. I had legal shops say that they were going to hire me, and then never followed through with a start date. It was heartbreaking and frustrating. I just wanted to be able to love my job without being thrown in jail dude. Eventually I had gotten an interview at my absolute dream dispensary. One I had been going to for years. Long story short on that, I got the job there. My confidence for the first time in my life felt like it was on the rise, and I felt like I was on top of the damn world. Not only was it legal, but I started out by making $6 more per hour, had every name brand you can think of, on top of so many more perks. Because of this achievement, I was the happiest I was in my entire life, regardless of all the other bullshit I was going through. The state ended up going extremely strict on open jar cannabis jars at the beginning of this year, and my company wasn’t 100% compliant with those rules, so cannabis regulators came and seized every bit of product that was in the shop, and revoked our license. We’ve been shut down for 6 months now and I have to say I’m straight up depressed without my job. Apparently were going to re open but I’m not entirely sure on when that’s exactly going to be. I miss the privilege of going to that job everyday. I miss my life making sense. I hope to be back on my feet soon.
submitted by jumping-ship to budtenders [link] [comments]


2020.09.12 21:46 itisjafar 26 [M4F] Midwest/Anywhere - Missed Connection

We've never met. Maybe we live close, maybe far; whatever the reason, our paths have never grazed each other. But I've written this and you're reading this. Reach out, and we'll connect. Maybe for an hour, maybe a day, maybe a month, maybe a lifetime. Or we can keep going just as we are, running parallel into the sunset.
I'm a teacher from the middle of the US. I'm into science, literature, history, art, and philosophy, and I try to keep up with all of them. I love to write, garden, cook, bake, dance, sing, act, and play music. I like to learn languages: I'll tell you good morning in Latin, tell you how I feel about you in Greek, read you poetry in Italian, and kiss you goodnight in French. I bake my own bread and smoke my own meat when I can. I take more of a catch-and-release approach to insects in my home rather than killing them - unless it's an awful spider. Most are awful. I have not-quite-dead-yet dreams of being a Broadway star. My favorite shows are The Office, Arrested Development, Big Brother, Survivor, and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. I love exploring the worlds of craft beer and ham radio. Chicago is the greatest style of citation but the worst style of pizza. Oxford commas are the only way to go.
Message me with a bit about who you are and what you're looking for. I hope we can chat soon.
submitted by itisjafar to r4r [link] [comments]


2020.09.12 21:24 Apples_Are_Red263 A Brief Defence of Traditional Authorship

Addressing Common Counterarguments

There are a number of arguments against traditional authorship of the gospels. Internal evidence against traditional authorship include official anonymity, their fluent Greek, the title convention (The Gospel According to ‘X’), times where the author refers to themselves in the third person, Markan priority challenges Matthean authorship, the claim that Matthew, a publican, would not be familiar with the jewish scriptures and perceived discrepancies between Paul’s own testimony and his depiction in Acts.
The citation of official anonymity needs no further consideration, as it is nothing more than an argument from silence. If the author’s did identify themselves, this would indeed provide evidence in favour of traditional authorship, but they’re failure to do so is not evidence against it. As to their fluent use of Greek, Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic, John Mark was an interpreter, and Greek a major trade language. Especially given his clunky, direct Greek translation containing many Aramaicisms, it isn’t improbable that he composed this gospel. Luke was a gentile physician, and so would have likely spoken Greek as well. The only case where this might apply is John, which we will come back to. The title convention could easily be explained by a theological commitment to there being only one gospel, and this gospel was told according to four separate individuals, namely those whom the gospel bears the name of. It is interesting that many ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person. One such example is Caesar in the Gallic wars, “When it was reported to Caesar that they were attempting to make their route through our Province he hastens to set out from the city, and, by as great marches as he can, proceeds to Further Gaul, and arrives at Geneva.” (Gallic Wars, 1.7), but this is far from the only example. Other include Gallic War 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.11 and Civil War 1.1, so this claim is entirely baseless. Matthean priority neatly addresses the next concern. A publican would have been Familiar with the jewish law, so the next claim is baseless too, and no such tension exists between how Paul is depicted in Acts and how he depicts himself.
With regards to external evidence, the main argument against the church fathers is not that they were uneducated or lying, but that they were attesting to authorship far too late to be of any use, as legendary development had already set in. It is noteworthy that the fathers - especially Papias - record traditions that are earlier than themselves. We have no trace of any competing tradition, unanimity amongst highly educated scholars of the time and attribution to figures who were not considered authoritative in the slightest, strongly counting against the fathers making it up for reasons of authority.
The question then shifts to the reliability of the oral tradition itself. Late tradition, (and it is asserted the authorship traditions fall into this category) is likely to be legendary and therefore false, while early tradition is likely to be true. Irenaeus heard Polycarp who heard John, and is unlikely to make up authorship for purposes of authority. Thus, it appears he provides us with a direct line of oral tradition leading back to the apostles themselves. Clement of Alexandria and Origen likewise show a similar progression, with Origen being a student of Clement and furthering this tradition. Therefore, it is not implausible that Irenaeus is furthering the tradition of Polycarp who is himself furthering a tradition dating to the apostle’s own lifetime. This would qualify as an early tradition, as, at most, only fifty years has passed between the writing of the gospels and their traditional attribution. We must also consider the content of this tradition. If it is fantastic, then it more likely to represent falsehood, but if it is mundane, it more likely to represent truth. Here, a fantastic tradition would have the gospels written by prominent figures, but as we’ve already established this was surely not the case, and thus where to we find a tradition that is rather mundane, and entirely consistent with the decisive internal evidence.
It is true certain works such as the didache seem to quote Matthew without explicitly stating it, this could be plausibly attributed to the fact that Matthew spent a period of time as the only Gospel in publication. Similarly, it is at times argued that the gospels were published formerly anonymously because Polycarp himself and Ignatius quote regularly from the gospels without citing them. This is another argument from silence. Many Christians even today quote memorized passages and teachings from the gospels without providing a direct citation, and so their failure to do so is not an argument against traditional authorship. Likewise, Justin Martyr quotes from the gospels without naming their authors, but this is a red herring, as we already established that this tradition is likely to be earlier than the early second century anyways. Likewise, Justin Martyr could also have been simply quoting memorized verses without taking care to explicitly cite them. In summary, it appears we are dealing with an earlier oral tradition that arose at the latest around the late first or early second century and most likely much earlier. If the gospels were originally formally anonymous, it makes very little sense for the church fathers to attribute them to the figures they did when these figures were not very prominent in the early church. For example, Mark was an interpreter of Peter, and so it makes very little sense for the fathers to attribute it to Mark when they could attribute it just as easily to Peter himself. Likewise, Matthew was a very unknown disciple mentioned only a few times, and Luke was a disciple of Paul, who wasn’t an eyewitness himself. If these attributions were part of a legendary development which formed in order to cement the gospels in apostolic authority, it makes very little sense that these would the names that would rise to the top of the list in terms of attributions.

Matthean Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew

External Evidence
Papius writes, “Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best he could.” (Papius, 60-130 AD)
While Papius is not regarded as a reliable source, his attribution to Matthean authorship is widely corroborated in Later sources, such as Irenaeus who writes, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). Irenaeus is also likely knew Polycarp, who knew John, and so he it is plausible he was passing on earlier oral tradition attributing authorship to Matthew. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria writes, “Of all those who had been with the Lord, only Matthew and John left us their recollections, and tradition says they took to writing perforce. Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Thus, we have attestation by Papias whose account is corroborated by Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, both of whom are educated men. It is also noteworthy that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, and this increases plausibility that he was preserving an oral tradition earlier than his own attestation.
Internal Evidence
Matthew identifies himself at the tax booth (Matt. 9:9) under his apostolic name Matthew as opposed to his other name, Levi, which is what Luke and Mark have him named as (Mk. 2:14, Lk: 5:27). This is functionally equivalent to Paul’s use of the name Paul in referring to himself in his letters, but Acts referring to him under the name Saul. Matthew contains numerous financial references, including a number of financial transactions (17:24-27; 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 26:15, 27:3-10, 28:11-15), the Lord’s Prayer saying ‘Debts’ rather than ‘sins’. In Matthew 22:19, he uses the more precise term νόμισμα (state coin), as opposed to Mark and Luke which use only the term δηνάριον (dēnarion). In Mark 2:15 and Luke 5:29 we are told that Matthew made a great feast at his house, but in the equivalent of this parable in Matthew, it says τη οικια (the house) (Matthew 9:10), which is more consistent with a third person version of ‘my house’. Matthew alone records the paying of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27) where we find out that a stater is worth four drachma. Matthew’s gospel is also the only gospel to record the parable of the vineyard workers (Matt. 20:1-16), which would strike a cord with a tax collector, but may have been more forgettable to the other apostles. Moreover, a denarius a day was considered a fair wage (Annals 1.17), and so the wage found in the parable is considered a fair one. It is the sole gospel to record the exact payment to Judas (Matt. 26:15) and finally the saying of the Pharisees swearing by the gold in the temple (Matt: 23:16-17). All of these financial references are consistent with the view that a publican composed this gospel as opposed to just anyone, and it is consistent with the view that the apostles Matthew wrote it.

Markan Authorship of the Gospel of Mark

External Evidence
Papias writes, “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” (Papias, 60-130 AD).
This is further corroborated by Irenaeus, who writes “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”(Irenaeus, 180 AD). And Tertullian writing in Carthage northern Africa affirms “that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was.” (Tertullian, AD 160-220). Clement of Alexandria agrees, “The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Origin writes “The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'” (Origin, 185-254). Likewise with Matthew, with Mark it appears the church fathers are preserving an earlier tradition from the early second century at the latest, and it is implausible that this oral tradition would have attributed the gospels to the apostles it did as they were minor apostles compared to pillars of the church such as Peter or James, and even less plausible that the church fathers would have made them up entirely.
Internal Evidence
Philemon 1:24 places Mark in tome where Peter resides as bishop. The church fathers are unanimous that Mark was Peter’s interpreter as we have already established, and his clunky Greek with several Aramaicisms, albeit less than Matthew’s gospel, reflect Mark’s direct Greek translation. As we previously established, many of the apostles such as Paul had both an apostolic name and a common name. For Peter, his common name was Simon. More often than not, Peter is referred to by this common name throughout the other Synoptics, but in Mark he is often referred to as Peter. Simon is mentioned first among the apostles in Mark’s gospel, and his brother Andrew is called ‘the brother of Simon’, which seems odd, but it perfectly explained by Peter saying ‘my brother’ and Mark recording ‘the brother of Simon’. Mark 16:7 states ‘the disciples and Peter’, which provides more emphasis on Peter than the other apostles. Bauckham argues that Mark is attempting to hint at his source via an inclusio by having Peter as the first and last named disciple in his gospel. Matthew and Luke do not use the word ‘orgistheis’ meaning ‘being angry’, which does not suit a man with a skin disease coming to be healed. The original aramaic word would have read ‘regaz’, which often meant be angry, but could mean a wider array of things than just this.

Lukan Authorship of Luke/Acts

External Evidence
Irenaeus writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.” and also regarding Acts he writes, “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself… As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing…” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). Tertullian writes, “… the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel... therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards… Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.” (Tertullian, AD 220). Finally, Origen affirms, “And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts… Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” (Origen, AD 185-254).
Internal Evidence
Luke is traditionally considered to have been authored by Luke the physician. Luke appears to display medical interest, such as identifying Peter’s moth in law with a high fever (μέγας πυρετός) as opposed to just a fever (πυρέσσω). Luke also appears to specify an advanced stage of leprosy by describing the healed leper as full of leprosy (πληρης λεπρας) rather than just merely a leper. Furthermore, Luke displays use of medical terminology (Lk. 4,38; 5,12; 8,44; Acts 5,5 10; 9,40) and describes illnesses and cures with acute medical terminology that the average person would not be familiar with (Lk. 4,35; 3,11; Acts 3,7; 9,18). In Luke 14:1-4, Luke employs the precise medical term ‘hudropikos’, which is not a term the average person would know, and is recorded in contemporary medical sources, namely the work of renowned Greek physician Hippocrates. To cite another specific example in Acts, Luke accurately describes the man’s exact medical condition, ‘puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon’ or literally ‘suffering from fever and dysentery’.

Johannine Authorship of the Gospel of John

External Evidence
Irenaeus writes, “… John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia… those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan… Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). It is noteworthy than Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, would have considered him as the link between Christ and himself. The significance, of course, being that Polycarp was a disciple of John. Tertullian Likewise affirms, “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew…” (Tertullian, 220 AD). Clement of Alexandria agrees, writing “John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Origen writes succinctly, “Last of all that by John.” (Origen, 185-254 AD).
Internal Evidence
John 21:20-24 has the author identity himself as one of the followers of Jesus, and more specifically as ‘the disciple whom Jesus Loved’. This is odd given that nowhere in the gospel of John does is John the son of Zebedee named explicitly, and this is even when less known disciples such as Philip are named, and inspite of the fact the Synoptics frequently name John as well. It seems most plausible that ‘the beloved disciple’ was John’s title he used to describe himself, rather than that of an anonymous author. In addition, the identification of John the Baptist as simply ‘John’ seems to imply that the readers of the gospel of John would identify authorship of the fourth gospel with another name (ie the beloved disciple). Moreover, the gospel contains many small, incidental details that are characteristic of eyewitness testimony, such as The number of water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6), how long the man at the Pool of Bethesda had been crippled (John 5:5), the name of the servant whose ear was chopped off by Peter (John 18:10) and the number of fish the disciples caught at Galilee (John 21:11). The gospel contains many pieces of internal evidence which suggest a jewish, not gentile origin, such as the author identifying the purpose of the water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6), He notes that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Passover (John 2:23), he mentions that Jesus fed the 5,000 near the Passover (John 6:4), He talks about the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:2, 37), He specifies that it was the Festival of Dedication, where another writer might simply say “it was winter” (John 10:22) and finally John records that Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14, 31). The gospel also uses many aramaic words such as Rabbi, Rabboni, Messias, and Kēphas, and additionally the themes and imagery of light versus darkness and the children of God versus the children of Satan have also been noted in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting a jewish context rather than a Greek one. It is argued John wouldn’t have know greek, but this is not much of an argument since the use of scribes is recorded elsewhere in the New Testament, such as Romans 16:22, “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22) and 1 Peter 5:12, “By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.” (I Peter 5:12). This, therefore, seems to cement the plausibility of the use of scribes, and so an argument from language and Greek prose alone does not undermine Johannine authorship. Moreover, the aramaic words, jewish themes and knowledge of Jewish practice suggests a jewish origin.
submitted by Apples_Are_Red263 to ConservativeBible [link] [comments]


2020.09.12 20:16 Apples_Are_Red263 A Brief Defence of Traditional Authorship

Addressing Common Counterarguments

There are a number of arguments against traditional authorship of the gospels. Internal evidence against traditional authorship include official anonymity, their fluent Greek, the title convention (The Gospel According to ‘X’), times where the author refers to themselves in the third person, Markan priority challenges Matthean authorship, the claim that Matthew, a publican, would not be familiar with the jewish scriptures and perceived discrepancies between Paul’s own testimony and his depiction in Acts.
The citation of official anonymity needs no further consideration, as it is nothing more than an argument from silence. If the author’s did identify themselves, this would indeed provide evidence in favour of traditional authorship, but they’re failure to do so is not evidence against it. As to their fluent use of Greek, Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic, John Mark was an interpreter, and Greek a major trade language. Especially given his clunky, direct Greek translation containing many Aramaicisms, it isn’t improbable that he composed this gospel. Luke was a gentile physician, and so would have likely spoken Greek as well. The only case where this might apply is John, which we will come back to. The title convention could easily be explained by a theological commitment to there being only one gospel, and this gospel was told according to four separate individuals, namely those whom the gospel bears the name of. It is interesting that many ancient authors referred to themselves in the third person. One such example is Caesar in the Gallic wars, “When it was reported to Caesar that they were attempting to make their route through our Province he hastens to set out from the city, and, by as great marches as he can, proceeds to Further Gaul, and arrives at Geneva.” (Gallic Wars, 1.7), but this is far from the only example. Other include Gallic War 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.11 and Civil War 1.1, so this claim is entirely baseless. Matthean priority neatly addresses the next concern. A publican would have been Familiar with the jewish law, so the next claim is baseless too, and no such tension exists between how Paul is depicted in Acts and how he depicts himself.
With regards to external evidence, the main argument against the church fathers is not that they were uneducated or lying, but that they were attesting to authorship far too late to be of any use, as legendary development had already set in. It is noteworthy that the fathers - especially Papias - record traditions that are earlier than themselves. We have no trace of any competing tradition, unanimity amongst highly educated scholars of the time and attribution to figures who were not considered authoritative in the slightest, strongly counting against the fathers making it up for reasons of authority.
The question then shifts to the reliability of the oral tradition itself. Late tradition, (and it is asserted the authorship traditions fall into this category) is likely to be legendary and therefore false, while early tradition is likely to be true. Irenaeus heard Polycarp who heard John, and is unlikely to make up authorship for purposes of authority. Thus, it appears he provides us with a direct line of oral tradition leading back to the apostles themselves. Clement of Alexandria and Origen likewise show a similar progression, with Origen being a student of Clement and furthering this tradition. Therefore, it is not implausible that Irenaeus is furthering the tradition of Polycarp who is himself furthering a tradition dating to the apostle’s own lifetime. This would qualify as an early tradition, as, at most, only fifty years has passed between the writing of the gospels and their traditional attribution. We must also consider the content of this tradition. If it is fantastic, then it more likely to represent falsehood, but if it is mundane, it more likely to represent truth. Here, a fantastic tradition would have the gospels written by prominent figures, but as we’ve already established this was surely not the case, and thus where to we find a tradition that is rather mundane, and entirely consistent with the decisive internal evidence.
It is true certain works such as the didache seem to quote Matthew without explicitly stating it, this could be plausibly attributed to the fact that Matthew spent a period of time as the only Gospel in publication. Similarly, it is at times argued that the gospels were published formerly anonymously because Polycarp himself and Ignatius quote regularly from the gospels without citing them. This is another argument from silence. Many Christians even today quote memorized passages and teachings from the gospels without providing a direct citation, and so their failure to do so is not an argument against traditional authorship. Likewise, Justin Martyr quotes from the gospels without naming their authors, but this is a red herring, as we already established that this tradition is likely to be earlier than the early second century anyways. Likewise, Justin Martyr could also have been simply quoting memorized verses without taking care to explicitly cite them. In summary, it appears we are dealing with an earlier oral tradition that arose at the latest around the late first or early second century and most likely much earlier. If the gospels were originally formally anonymous, it makes very little sense for the church fathers to attribute them to the figures they did when these figures were not very prominent in the early church. For example, Mark was an interpreter of Peter, and so it makes very little sense for the fathers to attribute it to Mark when they could attribute it just as easily to Peter himself. Likewise, Matthew was a very unknown disciple mentioned only a few times, and Luke was a disciple of Paul, who wasn’t an eyewitness himself. If these attributions were part of a legendary development which formed in order to cement the gospels in apostolic authority, it makes very little sense that these would the names that would rise to the top of the list in terms of attributions.

Matthean Authorship of the Gospel of Matthew

External Evidence
Papius writes, “Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language and each interpreted them as best he could.” (Papius, 60-130 AD)
While Papius is not regarded as a reliable source, his attribution to Matthean authorship is widely corroborated in Later sources, such as Irenaeus who writes, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). Irenaeus is also likely knew Polycarp, who knew John, and so he it is plausible he was passing on earlier oral tradition attributing authorship to Matthew. Likewise, Clement of Alexandria writes, “Of all those who had been with the Lord, only Matthew and John left us their recollections, and tradition says they took to writing perforce. Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Thus, we have attestation by Papias whose account is corroborated by Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, both of whom are educated men. It is also noteworthy that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, and this increases plausibility that he was preserving an oral tradition earlier than his own attestation.
Internal Evidence
Matthew identifies himself at the tax booth (Matt. 9:9) under his apostolic name Matthew as opposed to his other name, Levi, which is what Luke and Mark have him named as (Mk. 2:14, Lk: 5:27). This is functionally equivalent to Paul’s use of the name Paul in referring to himself in his letters, but Acts referring to him under the name Saul. Matthew contains numerous financial references, including a number of financial transactions (17:24-27; 18:23-35, 20:1-16, 26:15, 27:3-10, 28:11-15), the Lord’s Prayer saying ‘Debts’ rather than ‘sins’. In Matthew 22:19, he uses the more precise term νόμισμα (state coin), as opposed to Mark and Luke which use only the term δηνάριον (dēnarion). In Mark 2:15 and Luke 5:29 we are told that Matthew made a great feast at his house, but in the equivalent of this parable in Matthew, it says τη οικια (the house) (Matthew 9:10), which is more consistent with a third person version of ‘my house’. Matthew alone records the paying of the temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27) where we find out that a stater is worth four drachma. Matthew’s gospel is also the only gospel to record the parable of the vineyard workers (Matt. 20:1-16), which would strike a cord with a tax collector, but may have been more forgettable to the other apostles. Moreover, a denarius a day was considered a fair wage (Annals 1.17), and so the wage found in the parable is considered a fair one. It is the sole gospel to record the exact payment to Judas (Matt. 26:15) and finally the saying of the Pharisees swearing by the gold in the temple (Matt: 23:16-17). All of these financial references are consistent with the view that a publican composed this gospel as opposed to just anyone, and it is consistent with the view that the apostles Matthew wrote it.

Markan Authorship of the Gospel of Mark

External Evidence
Papias writes, “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” (Papias, 60-130 AD).
This is further corroborated by Irenaeus, who writes “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”(Irenaeus, 180 AD). And Tertullian writing in Carthage northern Africa affirms “that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was.” (Tertullian, AD 160-220). Clement of Alexandria agrees, “The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Origin writes “The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'” (Origin, 185-254). Likewise with Matthew, with Mark it appears the church fathers are preserving an earlier tradition from the early second century at the latest, and it is implausible that this oral tradition would have attributed the gospels to the apostles it did as they were minor apostles compared to pillars of the church such as Peter or James, and even less plausible that the church fathers would have made them up entirely.
Internal Evidence
Philemon 1:24 places Mark in tome where Peter resides as bishop. The church fathers are unanimous that Mark was Peter’s interpreter as we have already established, and his clunky Greek with several Aramaicisms, albeit less than Matthew’s gospel, reflect Mark’s direct Greek translation. As we previously established, many of the apostles such as Paul had both an apostolic name and a common name. For Peter, his common name was Simon. More often than not, Peter is referred to by this common name throughout the other Synoptics, but in Mark he is often referred to as Peter. Simon is mentioned first among the apostles in Mark’s gospel, and his brother Andrew is called ‘the brother of Simon’, which seems odd, but it perfectly explained by Peter saying ‘my brother’ and Mark recording ‘the brother of Simon’. Mark 16:7 states ‘the disciples and Peter’, which provides more emphasis on Peter than the other apostles. Bauckham argues that Mark is attempting to hint at his source via an inclusio by having Peter as the first and last named disciple in his gospel. Matthew and Luke do not use the word ‘orgistheis’ meaning ‘being angry’, which does not suit a man with a skin disease coming to be healed. The original aramaic word would have read ‘regaz’, which often meant be angry, but could mean a wider array of things than just this.

Lukan Authorship of Luke/Acts

External Evidence
Irenaeus writes, “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.” and also regarding Acts he writes, “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself… As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing…” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). Tertullian writes, “… the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel... therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards… Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.” (Tertullian, AD 220). Finally, Origen affirms, “And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts… Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” (Origen, AD 185-254).
Internal Evidence
Luke is traditionally considered to have been authored by Luke the physician. Luke appears to display medical interest, such as identifying Peter’s moth in law with a high fever (μέγας πυρετός) as opposed to just a fever (πυρέσσω). Luke also appears to specify an advanced stage of leprosy by describing the healed leper as full of leprosy (πληρης λεπρας) rather than just merely a leper. Furthermore, Luke displays use of medical terminology (Lk. 4,38; 5,12; 8,44; Acts 5,5 10; 9,40) and describes illnesses and cures with acute medical terminology that the average person would not be familiar with (Lk. 4,35; 3,11; Acts 3,7; 9,18). In Luke 14:1-4, Luke employs the precise medical term ‘hudropikos’, which is not a term the average person would know, and is recorded in contemporary medical sources, namely the work of renowned Greek physician Hippocrates. To cite another specific example in Acts, Luke accurately describes the man’s exact medical condition, ‘puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon’ or literally ‘suffering from fever and dysentery’.

Johannine Authorship of the Gospel of John

External Evidence
Irenaeus writes, “… John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia… those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan… Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.” (Irenaeus, 180 AD). It is noteworthy than Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, would have considered him as the link between Christ and himself. The significance, of course, being that Polycarp was a disciple of John. Tertullian Likewise affirms, “The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew…” (Tertullian, 220 AD). Clement of Alexandria agrees, writing “John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (Clement of Alexandria, 150-215 AD). Origen writes succinctly, “Last of all that by John.” (Origen, 185-254 AD).
Internal Evidence
John 21:20-24 has the author identity himself as one of the followers of Jesus, and more specifically as ‘the disciple whom Jesus Loved’. This is odd given that nowhere in the gospel of John does is John the son of Zebedee named explicitly, and this is even when less known disciples such as Philip are named, and inspite of the fact the Synoptics frequently name John as well. It seems most plausible that ‘the beloved disciple’ was John’s title he used to describe himself, rather than that of an anonymous author. In addition, the identification of John the Baptist as simply ‘John’ seems to imply that the readers of the gospel of John would identify authorship of the fourth gospel with another name (ie the beloved disciple). Moreover, the gospel contains many small, incidental details that are characteristic of eyewitness testimony, such as The number of water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6), how long the man at the Pool of Bethesda had been crippled (John 5:5), the name of the servant whose ear was chopped off by Peter (John 18:10) and the number of fish the disciples caught at Galilee (John 21:11). The gospel contains many pieces of internal evidence which suggest a jewish, not gentile origin, such as the author identifying the purpose of the water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6), He notes that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Passover (John 2:23), he mentions that Jesus fed the 5,000 near the Passover (John 6:4), He talks about the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:2, 37), He specifies that it was the Festival of Dedication, where another writer might simply say “it was winter” (John 10:22) and finally John records that Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14, 31). The gospel also uses many aramaic words such as Rabbi, Rabboni, Messias, and Kēphas, and additionally the themes and imagery of light versus darkness and the children of God versus the children of Satan have also been noted in the Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting a jewish context rather than a Greek one. It is argued John wouldn’t have know greek, but this is not much of an argument since the use of scribes is recorded elsewhere in the New Testament, such as Romans 16:22, “I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22) and 1 Peter 5:12, “By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand.” (I Peter 5:12). This, therefore, seems to cement the plausibility of the use of scribes, and so an argument from language and Greek prose alone does not undermine Johannine authorship. Moreover, the aramaic words, jewish themes and knowledge of Jewish practice suggests a jewish origin.
submitted by Apples_Are_Red263 to ChristianApologetics [link] [comments]


láska - citáty o láske love CELE MAI FRUMOASE CITATE DESPRE VIATA !! Mudre Misli i Izreke - Motivacioni Citati [Movies Love Quotes] DIRTY DANCING - 'I'm scared of ... 11 Reasons We Love Jennifer Lawrence - YouTube Citáty Pete the cat  I love my white shoes - with subtitles ... New York, I Love You - YouTube 'Danske film citater'

Love, Rosie Quotes by Cecelia Ahern

  1. láska - citáty o láske love
  2. CELE MAI FRUMOASE CITATE DESPRE VIATA !!
  3. Mudre Misli i Izreke - Motivacioni Citati
  4. [Movies Love Quotes] DIRTY DANCING - 'I'm scared of ...
  5. 11 Reasons We Love Jennifer Lawrence - YouTube
  6. Citáty
  7. Pete the cat I love my white shoes - with subtitles ...
  8. New York, I Love You - YouTube
  9. 'Danske film citater'

In the city that never sleeps, love is always on the mind. Those passions come to life in NEW YORK, I LOVE YOU a collaboration of storytelling from some of t... En samling af forskellige danske film citater! JLaw Throwback https://youtu.be/wvLVcuJgRYQ More Celebrity News http://bit.ly/SubClevverNews Jennifer Lawrence is one of the most loveable celebrities ... Love Quotes and Romantic Love Lines from Hollywood Movies. For those who want to say the unsaid feelings... Join our Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/ptdo6e... I subtitled it using https::/www.kapwing.com/subtitles Class 2 task Mudre misli poznatih često govore o zivotnim situacijama u kojim se trenutno nalazimo. 'U svakom zivotu postoje dani koje treba izdrzati.' - je jedna od izreka Dostojevskog. Upravo tada dovoljna ... Yanni - 'Love Is All'-Truth Is Forever!… The “Tribute” Concerts!...1080p Remastered & Restored - Duration: 10:21. Yanni Recommended for you Love The Lord Recommended for you. 1:44:31. His Voice Is So Emotional That Even Simon Started To Cry! - Duration: 8:15. Viral Feed Recommended for you. 8:15. Jak na psaní citátů - Duration: 17:22. láska citáty o láske pesnička leona lewis better in time love love.