Should we try to eliminate religion?

[curiousgirl]

compromising ones mission will result in withdraw of holodeck  permission ...

Not if I'm the Admiral!  

In all seriousness though, are you going to respond properly to those Biblical contradictions that I pointed out earlier?

[caveat_imperator]

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment.

I see.  So you use every bit of strength and will and time and power you have doing the first thing.....so can you explain what you have left over for the second thing?  If you are truly focussing ALL your efforts on one goal, how can you then manage any other goals?

ever heard of multitasking ?
...
your saying that only God is important?

Nope.  YOU did....see your original comment which I've put back in the exchange.  YOU are the one who said that you must use ALL your heart and soul and mind and strength to love god.  So my question is simply that if you are using ALL your blah-de-blah to do one thing, where is the spare blah-de-blah to do something else?

I can either expend ALL my effort on being A, or I can expend less-than-all-effort on A and thus leave some over for B.  What is physically impossible is to use ALL your strength on A but yet have some strength left over for B.

It's you making the logically impossible claims, not me.  All I'm asking you to do is explain them.

But how can tomt equivocate if you put everything back in context? D:

[tomt]

Nope.  YOU did....see your original comment which I've put back in the exchange.  YOU are the one who said that you must use ALL your heart and soul and mind and strength to love god.  So my question is simply that if you are using ALL your blah-de-blah to do one thing, where is the spare blah-de-blah to do something else?

your blah-de-blah is all yours.

whether you can find it or have not enuff ...

its all yours.

I can either expend ALL my effort on being A, or I can expend less-than-all-effort on A and thus leave some over for B.  What is physically impossible is to use ALL your strength on A but yet have some strength left over for B.

looks like the concept of infinity is beyond your grasp.

It's you making the logically impossible claims, not me.  All I'm asking you to do is explain them.

you get it or you don't.

which for you?

[tomt]

Not if I'm the Admiral!

and the responsibilities?

In all seriousness though,
 are you going to respond properly to those Biblical contradictions that I pointed out earlier?

how serious does one need to be in responding to a child's game of one up?

[curiousgirl]

Well, excuse me Tom, but I was under the impression that you wanted to have a serious discussion in addition to the jokes.

Guess I was wrong. Carry on with your childish games.

[Anfauglir]

I can either expend ALL my effort on being A, or I can expend less-than-all-effort on A and thus leave some over for B.  What is physically impossible is to use ALL your strength on A but yet have some strength left over for B.

looks like the concept of infinity is beyond your grasp.

Quite likely - I don't expect any human can really grasp it.  What YOU seem unable to grasp is the simple fact that if one expends ALL of a resource on one area, there is nothing left for any other area.

It's you making the logically impossible claims, not me.  All I'm asking you to do is explain them.

you get it or you don't.

which for you?

I don't.  Which is why I asked you to explain further.  I would suggest that if you are unable to - and, it seems, unwilling even to try - then YOU are the one who doesn't fully understand the claims you are making.

YOU SAID.....use ALL your strength to do this....and your REMAINING strength to do that.

Please explain how if you have used ALL of something, you can have some left over?

[Azdgari]

Perhaps I can help, Anf.

Joe has 100 units of strength.

"All" of Joe's strength = 100 units.

Joe directs "all" of his strength to task X.  Therefore he directs 100 units of strength to task X.

100 original units - 100 directed units = 0 units.

Joe now has 0 units of strength available to direct.

Joe wants to direct strength to task Y.  He has 0 units of strength to direct to task Y, because all 100 units of strength were directed to task X.

Do you understand and agree with this, tomt?

[Truth OT]

Perhaps I can help, Anf.

Joe has 100 units of strength.

"All" of Joe's strength = 100 units.

Joe directs "all" of his strength to task X.  Therefore he directs 100 units of strength to task X.

100 original units - 100 directed units = 0 units.

Joe now has 0 units of strength available to direct.

Joe wants to direct strength to task Y.  He has 0 units of strength to direct to task Y, because all 100 units of strength were directed to task X.

Do you understand and agree with this, tomt?

Makes sense if were are talking about numeric things of other quantifiable things, but how so with love? If one has multiple kids can one not love each of them with all one's heart, mind, and soul?
The issues of the heart, mind, and soul are so abstact that from certain perspectives they are rendered meaningless.

[Azdgari]

If something is not quantifiable, then the word "all" is meaningless and should not be used in the first place.

[Truth OT]

If something is not quantifiable, then the word "all" is meaningless and should not be used in the first place.

True, but that doesn't stop such from being used in the vernacular of not only own own language, but also of the ancient languages the Biblical texts were written in as well.

[One Above All]

If something is not quantifiable, then the word "all" is meaningless and should not be used in the first place.

I disagree. Something might not be quantifiable, but it can still be limited, meaning that the term "all" still applies.

Devotion is one of these things. You can't devote yourself fully (devote "all" your self) to A and also do the same for B at the same time.

[Azdgari]

True, but that doesn't stop such from being used in the vernacular of not only own own language, but also of the ancient languages the Biblical texts were written in as well.

Agreed.  But if the translated wording has rendered the sentence incoherent and/or meaningless, then the translation has failed.

I disagree. Something might not be quantifiable, but it can still be limited, meaning that the term "all" still applies.

Devotion is one of these things. You can't devote yourself fully (devote "all" your self) to A and also do the same for B at the same time.

Are you saying that there are things about one's self that are non-physical?

Because in order to make sense, your post absolutely requires that there are things about one's self that are non-physical.

[One Above All]

Are you saying that there are things about one's self that are non-physical?

Because in order to make sense, your post absolutely requires that there are things about one's self that are non-physical.

By non-physical do you mean not bound by physics or non-physical like gravity?

[Azdgari]

I mean supernatural.

[One Above All]

I mean supernatural.

Why would that be?

Can you measure devotion? I don't think you can. You can measure what you devote, but devotion in itself is impossible to measure, because you can't measure what you devote in comparison to what you can devote.

[Azdgari]

Devotion (the feeling, or whatever) is a function of brain activity.  That can be measured.  Unless, of course, you believe that the mind has some supernatural component.

Devotion (the effort applied) is definitely quantifiable, as any physical activity is quantifiable.

If it is not a quantity, then "all of it" is an incoherent concept.  "All" is a measure of quantity.

[One Above All]

Devotion (the feeling, or whatever) is a function of brain activity.  That can be measured.  Unless, of course, you believe that the mind has some supernatural component.

I was referring to the effort, as I agree on this.

Devotion (the effort applied) is definitely quantifiable, as any physical activity is quantifiable.

From my understanding, we can only measure something in relation to the whole. I don't think we measure the full potential effort of a person, so I also don't think we can measure how much effort one puts into something.

If it is not a quantity, then "all of it" is an incoherent concept.  "All" is a measure of quantity.

After re-analyzing my perspective, I see now that this is correct.

[Anfauglir]

Makes sense if were are talking about numeric things of other quantifiable things, but how so with love? If one has multiple kids can one not love each of them with all one's heart, mind, and soul?

Maybe.  BUT, Tomt specifically said "with all your strength", and that IS quantifiable.  If I wear myself out to the point of exhaustion running a marathon, I cannot then run another one immediately after.

Additionally, if I am directing ALL my love at Yahweh, I cannot simultaneously be directing "a bit more" love at someone else.  If I am loving someone else, I am not at that point loving god with all my whatever...and so the first command has failed.

[One Above All]

If I may, I think that arguing over whether it's possible or not to measure something is irrelevant to the issue which is: You cannot give 100% to X and also give 100% to Y at the same time, unless there were two of you (100%+100%=200%=2).