Bartholomew Jones

In which case, God is subject to experimentation. Define it and we can test it God as axiom is equivalent with the ancient Hebrew, el, in singular, and elohim, in plural form. Singularity vs plurality in ancient Hebrew is more discrete than I understand. But our definition here is sufficient. el, is the same term, when used by ancient Hebrews as terms used equivalently for the gods of non-Hebrews, contemporary with them. It was used by Hebrews interchangeably, whether of the Hebrew God, or by non-Hebrews. Hebrews, however, and following with the people called Christian, also by tradition call the God beginning with the name, el, and elohim, by other, more discrete names: YHWH God ("the LORD God") being the first alternate name in the scriptural text (Genesis 2:4); YHWH being the first alternate name in scriptural history (Genesis 4:26). Names of God scripturally convey different persona of the one God. Far eastern notions shouldn't be elusive either. Of India, would equate with elohim. Of China, Bhudda, equates with atheism, as there's no notion of god. I'm not familiar with the other groups. Arabic stems from that language shared with ancient Hebrews, that being Aramaic. The Muslim religion (sic) came six or seven hundred years after Jesus. It contradicts the Biblical Christian God. The name allah, however is related to the Hebrew term, el. Muslim doctrine denies that Jesus died. This last entry is an attempt at defining God by name. I said if I were in an office, I would enforce older economy, not a particular view. God as it, is not common traditionally; rarely the Holy Spirit is referred to by his pronoun, it, usually He. This is my quarrel: I'm going to be censored for questions philosophical because they center metaphysically, particularly favoring the way called Christian. Science, removed from modern science, wouldn't discriminate. It might nonetheless be fractious.

I'm saying there's no such thing as supernatural. Everything God does is of nature. I'm not for cheap cobblers. I'm for shoe stores, custom built, custom repaired. I'm for the primary form of proper exercise: real work while maintaining proper posture. Proper posture may always be enforced and reinforced. Thank you for your ear.

Freedom must be found in one's heart. Democracy is an an ideology I believe in and support. There are various forms. American Democracy, which I do support, is Republican Democracy. Sometimes an officer is granted executive power. Sometimes legislative prerogative. Sometimes judicial care. In any case, the officer exercises a kind of prerogative or authority; it ought not be authoritarian. As executive, I would enforce said measures by vetoing "progressive" economy, if by line item. If I were a legislative officer I might be more proactive with said policy measures. I'm not qualified judicially.

Before the term, "proof," was admitted as a technical term in math, it was a general term: to prove something in general one needs proof. That's the sense I'm using.

Yes, you feel science is supernatural? No. I believe science is included under the umbrella of nature when science discovers a truth. I don't believe the things done by a divine nature are supernatural. My God, who created the world and everything in it, who is a person, three to be more perfect, is of nature. Jesus was born of woman, conceived of the Holy Spirit. I'll be censored probably for that.

Aren’t the discoveries of science included within the umbrella of nature? Are you suggesting science is supernatural? Yes, if and when science discovers a truth, which in my view requires proof, not "mountains of evidence." What I offer is resistance, not imposition. If I had an office affording a prerogative to enforce it, that would be an imposition I would make. At the risk of being persecuted as preaching and violating a rule, I submit human testimony as evidence: Jeremiah 6:16. Never mind I thought you might be sincerely helpful. I have better kefir anyway.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18810658/ So I've ruffled some feathers here saying such things as, "natural discovery is of an order higher than science," notwithstanding that I've also said, "science is one very useful way of looking at nature." I've been working at home with my own ferments, as a way to preserve and enhance foods. My methods are based on Biblical clues, and clues from Katrina Blair's, Wild Wisdom of Weeds. I've accidentally developed skills manufacturing kombucha and kefir, carbonated kefir. So in the abstract above, the paper isolates a bacteria from kombucha rather than studying the kombucha, and the kefir directly. This is why I contend against this modern science. It is optimal, for example to isolate such bacteria; to mass manufacture. I'd rather pay a shoe maker to make me a pair of shoes and repair them if necessary; or draw water daily, than choose between Nike and another, or buy plastic water. My point is that mass manufacturing diminishes the quality of life if you love diligence. Also, were the strains from the kefir also isolated? Are they bacteria?

None. One season I didn't thirst much for water. I added table sugar which did stimulate my thirst.

Try adding table sugar.

Arts and science, like left and right.