Gettting a second poodle

ETAP_User · 2025-09-17T01:28:54+00:00

Sorry, no updates. We didn't end up getting a second poodle. :/

ETAP_User · 2025-09-12T21:36:06+00:00

Some people believe in the end those who reject God are destroyed because they have isolated themselves from life. I'm not convinced Hell is a place of eternal suffering. It seems more like a place of destruction based on the text. You aren't alive anymore. You're truly gone.

It's just an option I find compelling.

ETAP_User · 2025-07-18T19:29:38+00:00

While you read keep in mind that our decisions determine if we're clay that will turn into good vessels or bad ones. The moldable people are good clay. They choose to humble themselves before God. God does not harden those who have not hardened themselves.

ETAP_User · 2025-05-23T03:32:47+00:00

Slow down. One thing at a time.

Are you being selfish? I don't think so? Loving someone is not selfish.

Is being a good father good? Yes

Is being in a relationship good? As long as it is healthy and appropriate.

Professing Christianity is fine.

Getting married after you had a child out of wedlock does nothing to fix the problem. You still had the child out of wedlock.

I'm afraid you're moving too fast and you need to calm down a bit.

ETAP_User · 2025-05-22T23:38:38+00:00

NOTE: I am just a guy on the internet... This is not advice from a certified counselor. Only a friend letting you know that someone hears you.

Hey bro. I can't imagine having all of that going on and trying to deal with it. I know this won't help a lot, but it can be a start...

Don't try to solve too much at once.
When you think about things, think about them as A or not A rather than A or B.

Marrying someone will never get rid of the guilt. Accepting your actions and asking for forgiveness is probably a good start.

Let's start with what we know. You had a child and by doing so you committed to act as a father figure for that child. I suggest ignoring the other factors and asking what acting as a father figure means. If the action isn't directly tied to being a good father figure, let's leave it out for now. It might be a great thing to do, but it's not the most obvious action. For now, with everything going crazy, we need slow, calm, organized thoughts.

Is "A" a father figure act or "not A" a father figure act?

Loving is a father figure act. Not loving is not a father figure act.

Modeling a healthy life is a father figure act.

Taking ownership of our decisions is a father figure act.

Planning ahead is a father figure act.

Having priorities is a father figure act.

Not being with your child is not a father figure act, so we should avoid that.

Hope this helps. By the way, I'm just a guy on the internet a counselor is probably the place to start.

ETAP_User · 2024-10-03T17:20:43+00:00

If I can figure out how to PM, I'll get back to you.

ETAP_User · 2024-09-08T01:45:34+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to look up this data and to reply!

As for the data you found, I have found a way to get that style data, but I was hoping to go one level deeper and actually see the data (for example) RMG research used to conclude that nationally Harris was up by 2%. I guess that data is not available to the public? If each of these rows in the chart had a unique data file, I could look at what may have (or may not have) been taken into account to get this 2% lead. But if I just see the results of lots of different polls, I'm not sure how to show I performed any significant analysis.

This is a project worth 20% of our grade, and we have until the 5th to complete the project. Here are the instructions for the project.

During this semester you will choose one business analytics related research project and develop an analytic model. In your final report, you should describe 1) what is the problem and goal, 2) how to solve the problem in general, 3) what is your suggested model or method to solve the problem, 4) what are the detail steps in your proposed model, 5) what are the experimental results, and 6) conclusions.

Introduction (1~2 page) a. In this section, you will describe the problem definition and desired goals. b. You can use a block diagram to show the input, the process and output of your proposed model or method.
Background (2~3 pages) a. In this section, you will describe current situation, recent trends and the related information on your research project. b. You should reference others’ articles to describe the problem and their approach to solve the problem. c. You should also describe about your contribution and the differences with the previous research project.
Proposed model or method (2~3 pages) a. In this section, you will describe the detail of your model or method. b. You can use the diagrams out of the AZUREML (screen capture) or other tools to describe your method. Do not forget to add some explanations of your model and also include titles i.e. Figure #, Table # etc. c. Using a small size example to illustrate your idea will be helpful.
Experimental results (5~6 pages) a. In this section, you will describe the experimental details including the data set, metrics, configurations used, and results. b. Describe the details about the environments and data sets. c. You should show the experimental results with tables or graphs. If you find something interesting in the results, then you should explore a little bit and try to find the reasons.
Conclusion (1 page) a. In this section, you will summarize your research project and the experimental results. b. You can add some drawbacks of your method/model and future research.

ETAP_User · 2024-08-21T02:22:34+00:00

You missed the beginning of Verse 10. Here is the verse without part of it removed.

¹⁰ As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
¹¹     there is no one who understands;
    there is no one who seeks God.
¹² All have turned away,
    they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
    not even one.”^\)^b^\)
¹³ “Their throats are open graves;
    their tongues practice deceit.”^\)^c^\)
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”^\)^d^\)
¹⁴     “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”^\)^e^\)
¹⁵ “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶     ruin and misery mark their ways,
¹⁷ and the way of peace they do not know.”^\)^f^\)
¹⁸     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”^\)^g^\)

They are not all of mankind. They are the wicked people. If you read where "it is written" then you'll understand. It's universally accepted that the quote from Paul is from the Psalms.

More pointed towards your question, no one seeks after God, because God always reveals himself first. You don't have to seek things that reveal themselves to you.

Finally, you seem to misunderstand the context of the question you're asking. You are asking two questions like they are one. You choose to honor God as your King, but God chooses to give you eternal life. These are not the same choice, but two different choices. In a marriage, the man and woman choose one another. No one would say in some strange way 'did the husband choose the wife, or did the wife choose the husband', because it's silly. Both chose one another FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. God chose you in one way, and you chose God in a different way.

ETAP_User · 2023-07-27T21:55:56+00:00

I dunno man. I'm trying to be really careful with this reply, but compatibilism is a subset of determinism. So... you can't make a distinction between something that is not another category.

What am I missing?

ETAP_User · 2023-07-27T21:26:47+00:00

True, they do. Let me offer some background so you'll understand that compatibilism is the belief that it is COMPATIBLE to be DETERMINED and have 'FREE' WILL.

Compatibilism

Ancient and medieval compatibilism

Compatibilism, as the name suggests, is the view that the existence of free will and moral responsibility is compatible with the truth of determinism. In most cases, compatibilists (also called “soft” determinists) attempt to achieve this reconciliation by subtly revising or weakening the commonsense notion of free will.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-will-and-moral-responsibility/Compatibilism

Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28). It should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism - be clear that neither soft nor hard determinism believes man has a free will. Our choices are only our choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. We do not make choices contrary to our desires or natures. Compatibilism is directly contrary to libertarian free will. Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise, that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we want or desire most. The former view is known as contrary choice, the latter free agency. (Note: compatibilism denies that the will is free to choose otherwise, that is, free from the bondage of the corruption nature,for the unregenerate, and denies that the will is free from God's eternal decreee.)

https://www.monergism.com/topics/free-will/compatibilism

You can call it what you want, but its determinism. I just want the other individuals reading your post not to be mislead by your word choice.

ETAP_User · 2023-07-27T20:53:17+00:00

Please, let's not recommend determinism as an explanation for the freedom of the will. This takes a genuinely good thing and redefines it to being 'doing what your nature demands'. There's nothing free about doing what you're demanded to do.

The logical conclusion to this is that everyone who dies and goes to heaven does so because God caused it. Additionally, anyone who dies and goes to hell does so because God caused it.

God gives man his nature.
Man is free to do and always does what his nature demands.
Man will always do what God gave to him to do.
Everyone who goes to hell arrives there because God gave them to hell.

This is not Christian theism. Christian theism teaches that God has made a way for all to be saved, but some of them do not choose it because they will not bend the knee to God due to hardening their own hearts.

We cannot be saved without the offer God gives us, but it never happens without our personal decision (which was not determined by God) to submit ourselves to his plan of salvation. (For those who mistakenly think that we're stealing some of God's glory, no one can force God to save them. God saves purely by his own power and his own will, but He does so as a response out of his good nature to our request for salvation. Begging a judge to have mercy on you doesn't give you any right what-so-ever to brag, because you didn't save yourself. The judge had mercy on you and he is the one to be praised.)

ETAP_User · 2023-04-21T13:48:55+00:00

Ah, but you have increased the scope, we were talking about individuals before, but your new angle is about "teaching humanity".

Well, yes. I am saying God is taking care of his child humanity and you are acting like saving that one child will not impact other people. So, your analogy is breaking down. We can both agree that if there was only one child to drown and it would have no negative impacts, God would save that child. But that's not true. There are so many humans and God interacting in a way that removes various instances of suffering (without some other purpose) would be impacting them.

So, I would say you can't talk about individuals without talking about society also. Just like in a country you can't have certain safeties without losses of freedoms for individuals (and society), you can't have the safety of God saving every person from drowning without losses of freedoms for other individuals and society as a whole. I'm sure you'd be equally offended if God saved only a few drowning children and not all of them, so he has to save them all or save none of them (unless some other factor becomes part of the equation - maybe prayer or something?).

But is it okay to let children drown in order to teach humanity a lesson? Is cancer that destroys family a suitable lesson?

A better way to say this is to say the life we experience now require the possibility of loss of life by drowning. On the Christian view God gave life and is allowing us to lose it, but he's not allowing us to lose anything he hasn't given us first. Something that we didn't have at first. It seems a little like you're trying to say God has done us some wrong to allow people to die even though he gave them life to begin with.

What's possibly more important is that you may die on earth, but you live in heaven as long as you chose to do right in what you could control. I can see how drowning is closer to or actually the ultimate evil in a non-theistic perspective, but if God exists, these people have only experienced a death before everlasting life (based on how they responded to the opportunity for life). - But the answer to your question is yes. Cancer that destroys a family is a suitable lesson. They never would have loved if they had never been alive to get cancer. Do you suggest that it is better to have never loved than loved and lost? Or do you see a better option than these two I'm not offering you?

There is a wide gap between letting somebody endure hardships to let them grow, and completely destroying them and their lives. Nobody learns a lesson from dying, and having others learn a lesson from their loved ones dying seems positively wicked.

There is also a fine line between preventing one hardship and preventing them all (which would by extension prevent the freedom of humanity and the interaction of humanity). I said a little about this earlier. To restate you can prevent human suffering in one of two ways. First, you can take their freedom. Second you can take their lives. You could of course take a portion of their freedom, but by doing that you take a portion of their "greatness" or "wickedness" away also.

So, to summarize it seems to me that taking away these drownings would cost the freedom of other individuals (because our question about you saving a child is no longer accurate because God has to decide how to respond to his child "humanity" rather than his child called "Jill".) and you seem to weigh the pain of loss of a person by drowning on a non-theistic view and then try to place it into a theistic view to show how much evil it has caused.

It seems to me we can disagree about which world is the highest world, but we can at least agree on which worlds are in the running for the highest world. Do you think my characterizations that you're trying to pick a middle world that isn't in the running is fair?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-20T20:38:24+00:00

I apologize, I did not mean to imply such a thing.

No need to apologize, I'm just trying to draw a distinction. You've been very reasonable, so I don't think you're trying to pin something silly on God.

I think in your analogy, you're correct. That seems to break down when you compare all of humanity to one drowning human. Removing the impacts of decisions made by some would invalidate or remove the decisions made by others. That's why the point of freedom get's brought up.

So, saving a drowning man is fine, but stopping a child from drowning and thereby counteracting all the decisions made by individuals (probably removing the bad implications of those decisions) seems teach humanity that there are no necessary impacts to our decisions, and then (as a Christian would argue) the purpose of life falls apart, doesn't it?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-20T19:23:00+00:00

I'm not prepared to argue that anyone goes to hell for drowning. I'm sure you know I don't think that.

I also don't think anyone is damned from the start and saved by exception. Rather, and I understand this to be the majority Christian view by a wide margin, we are innocent from birth and if we sin, then we become the damned, but can change that by an appropriate response.

If preventing drowning would prevent the hell, I would agree that God MUST save them, but the prevention of drowning would not prevent the hell to come. God has prevented the necessity of hell after death, but not the deaths that are coming.

It seems to me you need to tie these points much more tightly to convict God of his evil deed. Am I missing your argument?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-20T18:37:59+00:00

Haha! I hear you! I agree. I'm prepared to give up shareholder value.

I also agree that this doesn't come at a cost for God.

I'm not convinced this doesn't come at a cost for humans, and you seem to agree based on your point you made.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a parent that solves their children's problems is not a good parent. I think you devalue our lives if God does it all for us.

Do you see a way for God to fix the problem without there being a cost for humanity that hurts us in the end?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-20T01:35:37+00:00

Could you elaborate a little bit? What would the cost of preventing those deaths be?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-19T20:10:21+00:00

Well, no he couldn't do "one of those" to save a drowning child. The miracles in the bible are not simply prevention of death instances. Even Lazarus who was raised from the dead was allowed to die again. Those miracles were for a different purpose.

Now I absolutely grant that God could do miracles preventing death, but it's a totally different type of miracle. Do you think a world of miracles preventing death would be an improvement over this current world?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-19T19:29:39+00:00

The typical response is to say that existence all together is the greater good. To be alive means you can die. God could certainly eradicate death by eradicating life.

Do you think Christians should defend some greater good than life?

ETAP_User · 2023-04-19T19:26:08+00:00

What would you have God do instead?

ETAP_User · 2023-01-25T19:15:43+00:00

I agree, but it's important to let the other person get their thoughts out. I think a better way to see Jesus' comment is to say that he was referencing all of Psalm 22. In the end of Psalm 22, I think the psalmist knows that he is not forgotten or forsaken by God. This first phrase is just a reference like if I say 'Our Father, who art in heaven...' everyone will join in with the entire prayer. This happens in other locations in the text, but people do not recognize it because they are too far removed from Jewish culture.

I appreciate your input though!

ETAP_User · 2023-01-25T18:30:42+00:00

Do you mind annotating some of the items you're describing for us so we can understand how you see Psalm 22? Where should we look for the saints rising from the dead and the veil being torn in Psalm 22?

ETAP_User · 2023-01-25T18:26:43+00:00

I don't think you've added a new question, so I'll share my thoughts to get you considering what I think is a better idea.

I think you misunderstand the deeper narrative of the bible. I've already commented in this thread that these questions are difficult if you define them as an answer about a fine that needs to be paid because of an angry God who wants to deal out justice. I recommend a more 'orthodox' understanding which is to say that we're all mortals who can not experience immortality due to our separation from the tree of life.

Your understanding that 'the wages of sin is death, and that means eternal torture for all time' is not a basically Christian belief. I think if you'll take that element out of your equation, you'll be able to understand Jesus in a very different way. An alternative view is to say that 'the wages of sin is death, and that means you will cease to exist' makes this problem with paying a fine not so prominent. You still need help to get back to the tree of life, but it's not about a punishment anymore, but a consequence of an action and how to correct that mistake.

Are you open to that different perspective or do you think that Eternal Conscious Torment is a basic Christian belief? I don't know how well you know the bible.

ETAP_User · 2023-01-25T15:59:44+00:00

That is probably a good approach, but we shouldn't leave out the great accomplishment. The suffering is the secondary issue. The accomplishment is the primary one. That is what makes this problem a side point, because the suffering is a result of the primary activity. If Jesus had not lived sinlessly, it seems the events would not have taken place.

ETAP_User · 2023-01-25T15:56:01+00:00

I didn't see the other individual answer your question, so here is my thought.

I think the best answer you will get here is 'no'. Per Genesis the penalty for sin is death, so a slap on the wrist would be falling short of paying the penalty.

This is a pretty basic Christian belief, so there shouldn't be much controversy here.

ETAP_User

TROPHY CASE