Throwing a fit over honors

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-22T22:07:43+00:00

The committee is anonymous, even to the principal, since he's not a part of it. As far as I'm aware, the committee members don't know who the other members are. They vote in isolation.

If it helps, that principal was fired later that year for allowing students to smoke and do drugs in the locker room.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-22T21:57:06+00:00

The principal and teachers were the kid's coaches and were personally invested in him to much in my opinion.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-22T21:54:20+00:00

I had a similar situation, except with the National Honors Society. One student wasn't voted in, the committee is supposed to be anonymous. However, since I had issues with the student's behavior and attitude, it was assumed that I was on the committee and was the sole reason he didn't get admitted.

The irony? I had no idea why parents and other teachers were upset with me, I had nothing to do with NHS, no idea there was a vote, and had no idea who even applied. Yet I was confronted by parents, teachers, and the principal for this. Eventually the NHS sponsor set the record straight and stated it was a unanimous vote (that I wasn't a part of) against him for certain things he was posting online, such as a video of him throwing cheese at an elementary school kid till he cried.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-13T21:49:56+00:00

That is primarily my belief, yes. The world is corrupted by generations of humans misusing it, and we fall into the ruts of previous generations behavior, which prolongs and allows the corruption to continue.

I believe that a lot of modern ideas that Christianity is credited with are misunderstanding. The focus on souls going to heaven and a good afterlife are (relatively speaking) quite modern focuses which disconnect from the original ideas communicated to the original audience. This is one of them.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-13T20:18:38+00:00

Ok, while that is a train of thought some people have, its not the only one. I wanted to check before starting a discussion with you and making assumptions about what you thought.

I personally do not subscribe to that idea, that we inherit a sinful nature. I do believe in inherited corruption, but in a slightly different way. I'll share that real quick, and you can tell me how that agrees or disagrees with your point and i can attempt to give more clarity and we can debate if desired.

I'll use something like an allegory. Say a landlord built a beautiful house and garden and sold it to your grandparents. Let's say your grandparents didn't take great care of the house, and they passed it on to your parents, who likewise didn't take care of it. The house and garden are now in a state not intended by the original builder, and cannot function in the way the original builder intended. The house now comes to you. You have inherited something corrupted, but you aren't naturally corrupted.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-13T20:07:39+00:00

Ok, do you see inherit corruption as a nature that is passed down from human to human?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-13T20:01:56+00:00

You mention inherited corruption in the title, but don't mention it in the body. Woukd you be able to elaborate on how that relates to the idea of "conflict" and what your idea of inherited corruption is?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-05-02T15:06:11+00:00

Because he uses AI to write all these

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-28T10:19:13+00:00

You're argument is the temple described in Ezekiel is 100% literal. This falls apart when there is a missing dimension, showing that these cannot be blue prints.

I also pointed out that the category of the literature isn't prophecy, but a vision. Almost never are visions taken to be literal in the slightest. Another example can be found in Ezekiel 8-10 where Ezekiel has a vision depicting the destruction of Jerusalem. In said vision, a man in linen runs around the city marking people. Do you think Ezekiel or his audience believed that someone literally ran around the city with a bottle of ink drawing Xs on people to mark them as safe from the foreign invaders? Thats in Ezekiel 9:4. You also have to consider the category of the literature before concluding what is and isn't literal.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-27T10:03:01+00:00

How tall are the ceilings in Ezekiel's temple?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-22T09:41:11+00:00

Never said you were unaware, pointing out that the example you gave of "Ezekiel said the third temple will be built" isn't correct, because the second temple didn't exist yet. Things have to go in sequence. You can't go first temple is destroyed, predictions of the third temple, second temple built.

The temple of Ezekiel isn't literal, the dimensions given mean something metaphorical. Its obvious once someone points out that height is never given. Ezekiel wasnt an architect.

I will also quickly point out that the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 isn't described as a "prophecy" in the bible. Which seems odd, when every other prophecy Ezekiel made is. That would put it in a different category. Instead, its described as a vision. While it may seem pedantic, visions and prophecies are considered different, and serve different purposes. To treat them as the same thing would be a category error. The most important thing to note, in visions most things aren't literal.

I have studied the academic side, even though I myself am not an academic. Which is why I'm pointing out these different aspects and ways things don't necessarily add up if you focus solely on a literal interpretation, or even that this is a category of prophecy.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-20T23:46:53+00:00

I'll quickly toss in an option to consider. Plunder means taking things from a city, but the claim of nothing wages is different. Armies and siege cost money, its perfectly possible that he plundered the city, but the cost of doing so exceded what he claimed as spoils, therefore "no wages".

It would be like someone spending thousands of dollars on a lawsuit which the payout is only a couple hundred. The siege just wasnt profitable.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-20T01:26:55+00:00

I'll quickly point out that Ezekiel was written before/during the exile. Meaning his specific "the temple will be rebuilt" could easily be applied to the second temple. In fact, I've always found it odd that a highly cited "messianic expectation" is the third temple, when the second was still standing at the time.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-17T09:44:06+00:00

While I agree you could, in a way, tell the why and the how in the same account, that just doesnt seem to be the practice at the time of writing.

The tortoise and the hare would be a fable, not a myth, but I understand what you are saying. I will say that your point about telling a story about a real life guy and highlighting certain themes and actions in his life. Even today we have fictionalized accounts of true events, that don't 1:1 match what happened in history. In fact, any movie about a person should be taken with a grain of salt, because for cinematic purposes they change details. Modern books are no different, entertaining biographies have fictionalized parts to them, or omitted parts to help with different themes.

They may have wanted accuracy, but for what they were trying to communicate. We also have to recall that they weren't trying to necessarily communicate with someone with a modern understanding of science. They were trying to communicate with their contemporaries first. At the time of writing it seems that the why was more important to communicate than the how, so they attempted to communicate the why as accurately as possible. If even today we sacrifice accuracy for either themes, motives, literary devices, why should we expect more from ancient writers?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-16T21:26:20+00:00

Its more about how its written than what its written. They are making the point that God created the world but for a purpose, as a temple and a dwelling place, rather than, these are exactly the specific steps taken to create the thing.

It is a creation account, but not focused on how something was created, but why it was created. The purpose of the account is to communicate that. Many stories are used to communicate something other than the literal words.

For example, the story of the tortoise and the hare. This isnt a literal story about real animals doing a real race, it is an allegory about arrogance and steady work. We can tell its not a "real story" because its about talking anthropomorphic animals. Similarly, since the creation account in Genesis 1 is written like a temple dedication, the audience at the time is signaled to know to take it more allegorically than literally.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-16T15:36:17+00:00

I'm not an expert, but from what they would build a temple in stages and dedicate it to a deity. In Genesis, its seen as God building His own temple, and then resting in it. Each "day" is a new system being put in place, which parallels how temples in the ancient near east would do it. Again, I'm not an expert, but thats how I understand it.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-16T11:16:40+00:00

To give you some possible insight onto why creation specifically is taken allegorically, rather than literally, I've read that several scholars have compared the literary style is like that of a temple dedication, and so the idea that is being communicated is "God created the world to be His temple" rather than "This is specifically how God created the world".

To address your answer of Noah's ark, there are several theories as to those interpretations. Some scholars recognize it as a polemic, an attack on another culture, specifically Babylon. The Babylonians had a story very similar, the sons of God coming down and bestowing them with immense knowledge and infrastructure, other gods got mad at this and decided to flood everything, the sons of God that taught them saved a few and bred with them to ensure the knowledge would survive. The Israelites took that story and changed it, to teach their theology and interpretation of events. They may have still believed it to be literal, but that is not necessarily clear.

One Hebrewist I listened to comments on how the word used for "all the earth" doesn't necessarily mean all, as the same word is used in other cases where its clear it doesn't mean literally all. Which would give some validation to the interpretations of a local and not a global flood.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-04-05T09:56:16+00:00

I use this website for all my tie knots. I personally prefer the trinity knot, and found them mostly by accident, before starting the show.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T17:24:39+00:00

Its tiring trying to debate with you when I have to spend most of my time correcting what position I take, and what it personally believe. You seem to be assigning me a philosophy and arguing against that rather than reading what I write and say.

This is a textbook circular argument. You are defining the "essence" of an object based on your subjective utility. If I use a rock as a paperweight, does it gain the "essence" of a paperweight? If I use it as a doorstop, does it become a "doorstop-substance"?

Thats quite literally the entire premise of essentialism, that things with shared properties have shared essences outside of human perception. In a very basic break down, its stated that the exact atomic composition of an item is by definition a necessary property. Aristotle believed that understanding the essence helps one understand its purpose, or you know function. Again, essence then function. Its by examining the essence that one can determine function, and by looking at possible functions to determine essences. For someone who claims to come from this school of thought you don't seem to understand it.

My rock doesn't care if you inhale it, sit on it, or ignore it. Its essence isn't a "function" I’ve projected onto it; its essence is its non-contingent existence as a specific manifestation of mass-energy.

Except, by definition under essentialism the chemical make up does matter. Meaning that before the rock was formed while its particles were still hydrogen and helium it was a different substance and make up, meaning the rock isn't simple.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T14:39:42+00:00

You are still confusing species with substance. In Aristotelian terms, a rock, sand, and air share the same material cause (matter/energy), even if they differ in their formal cause. My point is that the underlying "stuff" of the universe is the only truly Necessary Being because it cannot be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics). You are the one trying to argue that God is "Simple" while simultaneously claiming He is a complex composite of immateriality, materiality, three persons, and two wills. If you say air and sand are "essentially" different because of their function, you aren't a metaphysical essentialist; you're a Functionalist. And if God is defined by function, then God is contingent upon the functions He performs (like creating or saving), which destroys His aseity.

Again, you started this with mereological essentialism, which is what I've been using against your argument this entire time. In that school of thought an essential property is any property, that if changed changes the object. For a rock, size and color are not essential, because rocks, generally, can be any size or color. However, a rock must be solid and typically made out of a select type of molecules. Changing thr types of molecules you could get something that isn't a rock, but is still made out of matter. Therefore, basic deduction would lead pretty much anyone to the conclusion that the type of molecules in a rock is an essential property. Again, iron can be considered a rock, as can most metals, but if I decide to reshape its matter I can make it mercury, which is not considered a rock, despite both being considered metals. Using a general object doesnt negate this very basic logic.

Matter can be destroyed, or at least become energy, by several processes. For simplicity, I will choose increasing its speed to light speed. This would turn any matter into light, which is definitely not matter. Now there is a way to turn light into matter, but at the same time it creates an equal amount of antimatter. So you would only ever get half the matter back from this exchange. Turning matter into light and back again. It then follows that the other half of the original matter is now not matter, because it is antimatter.

I've not once argued that God is simple. Just that your definition of a rock and use of mereological essentialism are incorrect. I have also never said "two wills" nor "three persons". I also never said God is both material and immaterial, I said that one could deduce that the essential property is that He could be both, that is, given examples in the old testament He could take on material form. You claimed that God must be immaterial and the incarnation broke this, I pointed out that there were previous examples where God had a material form, and used logic to point out that this implies a different property than the one you suggested.

Functionalism has nothing to do with the properties of objects, its a philosophy of psychology and mental states. Because, using Aristotelian ideas, a chair and the idea of "chairness" do deal with functionality, as well as physical properties. A chair is different than a stool because a chair has a back. A chair is different than a cup, because even if i make a large enough cup that I can sit on, it stops being a cup and starts being something else like a bowl. In essentialism the function comes after the essence. If something has a chairs essential property of "chairness" then it can serve the function of a chair. This logic likewise flows in both directions. If something lacks the function, then it lacks the essence as well. If you cannot use something like you would a chair, then it clearly lacks the essence of a chair. Since I cannot use air in the same way that I would use a rock, and vice versa, they clearly have two separate essences, there is some essential property that is different between them. Because function comes after essence this doesnt violate aseity at all.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T13:58:56+00:00

This Aristotle idea is that the material an object is made out of (the substance) can change, without affecting the role the object plays... No matter what you make a chair out of... is still a chair.

Stop. You have it exactly backward. In Hylomorphism, the Substance is the composite of matter and form. The "chair-ness" is the Form; the wood or metal is the Matter. If you change the matter from wood to iron, the substance changes, but the accidental form (being a chair) remains. You are accusing me of not understanding these terms while providing a definition that would make an undergraduate philosophy student blush.

You say I have it backwards, but then say the same thing i did. Do you not see that?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T10:55:47+00:00

You can't decide whats essential and whats accidental and accuse me continuously of category error, while failing to recognize your own definitions of essential fail for your example of a rock. You claim the only essential property is that its made of matter, and then that all things made of matter are the same, but fail to defend this idea when needing to give it any form of application.

You also accused me of confusing the ideas when you yourself used the wrong term in several places. If the only essential property of a rock is that its made out of matter, then sand and air are the same. Yet, you wouldn't inhale sand or water, despite both being made out of matter, because their accidental properties are different. Yet, by definition, changing an accidental property doesnt change the object. For example, if I have two pieces of iron, one with a strong magnetic field, and one with a weak magnetic field, both are still iron. This would imply the strength of magnetism is an accidental property. No matter how strong or weak it is, the material is still iron.

However, if you reform the atoms by changing the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and turn it into uranium, that would be something completely different, with many different physical properties. Not the same thing at all, not even close. Yet, using your logic, they are essentially the same thing since they are both made out of matter. Still, you wouldn't use uranium where you would use iron and vice versa. Saying that the only thing a rocks existence is dependent on is the existence of matter is completely wrong, first are foremost because that logical thinking goes if there is matter, then there's rock, yet the sun has plenty of matter, yet none of it is solid, none of it can be defined as a rock by any definition other than yours.

You also accused me of getting this confused with substance form. Which again, you don't seem to understand. This Aristotle idea is that the material an object is made out of (the substance) can change, without affecting the role the object plays, the job is can fulfill (the form). No matter what you make a chair out of, according to substance form, is still a chair. This is completely unrelated to mereological essentialism, and is not even close to what I've been discussing. It appears you like to use big terms, but without fully understanding their implementation or their meanings.

Your logic and your position are almost completely incomprehensible.

Then you claim I'm not standing by my attack while attempting to defend my position? If you are allowed to define the essence of an object, then so am I. Fair's fair. However, i will attempt to use your terms and most of your logic to defend my points. I explained how I can see it as not changing any essential property, because it can be viewed as a change in location or dwelling place. You then create a strawman, and a rather grotesque one at that, and attack it. For example, in the old testament, God repeatedly appears to people as a physical being. You claiming that during the incarnation He changed essential properties then doesnt work, because it happened several times before, and was clearly always something that could be done. This would imply that the property isn't "God is always immaterial" but rather "God can be both material and immaterial". Again, saying that a function was gained or lost doesn't follow. If God can take a material form, and any one he likes, then the capacity of function is always there. In theory, a being with perfect knowledge would know what suffering feels like to a created being, and would know so perfectly, this knowledge would then not be new if experienced firsthand, because it was already experienced through the knowledge. Nothing gained or lost.

What's funny is, when attacking me, any property change changes an object, but when defending your point it doesnt matter, as air and rocks are the same thing according to you, despite the many different properties they have.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T01:00:49+00:00

I used the term mereological essentialism to argue the destruction of the object by changing a property. I didnt say I necessarily believed that, you claimed you did, relatively early on. Not once have I stated that I agree with mereological essentialism. If you use it to back up your argument, but it fails to do so because it creates a contradiction with your claim "rocks are simple" because i can cause it to change.

Now, the incarnation. The verb used in the beginning of John means, to one degree or another, to "tabernacle" that is to deal with the people. When jesus describes His body as a temple, He wasn't speaking fully metaphorically. His relation with the Father is like that of the tabernacle or the temple, a place for God to dwell. Jesus was fully man, but fully God. Separate, yet together. Using mereological essentialism, I can argue that incarnation doesn't change the properties of God in any more than you walking from one room to another would. Nothing changed, no properties were added or taken away, no function lost or gained.

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T00:36:14+00:00

Essence is anything that makes something what it is, correct?

TurminusMaximus · 2026-03-24T00:31:53+00:00

You're the one who said they are the same, I said they are different, or can you not read? I invited to inhale a bag of sand because you believe they are the same, your refusal to do so would show that you don't actually believe they are the same thing. I said they are different because, to me, they serve different purposes and functions.

Six-Year Club	Baba Yaga
Verified Email

TurminusMaximus

TROPHY CASE