I received an invitation to join here

[EarlyActs]

If you meant the celestial structures, wouldn’t that be celestial mechanics?

If you meant individual planet structure, wouldn’t that be physics?

 

[EarlyActs]

what do you think about those last two questions?

 

[John Bauer]

what do you think about those last two questions?

I do not think anything about them. They are asked devoid of any context, so I have no idea what they are asking.

 

[Carbon]

Don't hang around me too much, then, because I'll just end up making it easier for you to go all the way.

Ok, let's see what ya got.

 

[makesends]

Welcome

My problem with the theory is that it is without purpose or meaning, God is almighty and could create the universe and man in any state why a process of eons, maybe you could help me understand? Thanks

I don't mean any disrespect, because it is a pervasive mindset with all humans, but the notion that it would be 'extra' for God to do both rather than just the one, is not (in my opinion) accurate. Also, while I do agree that God's way is the most efficient way to accomplish what he had in mind from the outset, I believe it is the ONLY way, as 'other possibilities' are only in our minds. What God does is all that happens, no matter what means he uses to do it.

But this notion is very human —one often wonders 'why God went to the trouble to do x...'. "Why did God put Job through all that; why should he prove anything to Satan?", to which I answer, "among other reasons, so we would have this discussion!"

God is the 'inventor' of time. He can form it and manipulate it any way he chooses, without deceit or paradox, from his perspective. But in fact, there have been for some time now, indications from the scientific community (cosmologist, physicists) that indeed both are possible. He may do both in order to deceive the blind and to make those upon whom he chose to show mercy amazed at his wisdom and power.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't mean any disrespect, because it is a pervasive mindset with all humans, but the notion that it would be 'extra' for God to do both rather than just the one, is not (in my opinion) accurate. Also, while I do agree that God's way is the most efficient way to accomplish what he had in mind from the outset, I believe it is the ONLY way, as 'other possibilities' are only in our minds. What God does is all that happens, no matter what means he uses to do it.

But this notion is very human —one often wonders 'why God went to the trouble to do x...'. "Why did God put Job through all that; why should he prove anything to Satan?", to which I answer, "among other reasons, so we would have this discussion!"

God is the 'inventor' of time. He can form it and manipulate it any way he chooses, without deceit or paradox, from his perspective. But in fact, there have been for some time now, indications from the scientific community (cosmologist, physicists) that indeed both are possible. He may do both in order to deceive the blind and to make those upon whom he chose to show mercy amazed at his wisdom and power.

For me, it is akin to wondering, "God is almighty and could create a human in any state, so why a process of nine months? Maybe you could help me understand."

 

[makesends]

For me, it is akin to wondering, "God is almighty and could create a human in any state, so why a process of nine months? Maybe you could help me understand."

I see what God spoke into being—the Bride of Christ—as a completed fact as soon as he spoke. Furthermore, I expect that from his POV (which the only truth) it is not a complicated thing, though she is perfect for Christ, and from our POV made of many members, each precisely as he intended from the outset. The members are not just individuals that somehow turn out to be pretty special. They are exactly what he spoke into being. While we may speculate that he could have done things differently, I believe that even if one detail had been different, she would not be the same as what he had in mind. THIS is the only way exactly THAT could have happened. The 9 months' gestation, the way of the birth, the personality that develops in part as a result, has everything to do with what/who she is.

Another thing that I believe also applies (if I am right). I think that every created thing in some way represents a larger reality in God's Heaven. Nothing was created in vain, nothing goes to waste, in that way. The 9 months may have some spot on @Arial's "tapestry" that is admired in Heaven.

What I try to describe in that first paragraph, I can see no way it is not true. What I try to describe in the second, is admittedly speculation, but I have plenty of reason to think it is so, though, granted, very truncated as to particularities.

While I understand why I do it, to try to understand the deeper things of God, as though I am worthy to go there, I think it is full of hubris to suppose that "could have" is something God considers, beyond "should have".

 

[EarlyActs]

I do not think anything about them. They are asked devoid of any context, so I have no idea what they are asking.

Of course there is a context. What a ridiculous thing to say! There was a flow of conversation going of many posts. That's the context. I think the problem is you are operating on a faulty ontology or way of deriving it, when the text, not me, has actual material things to say, if we would accept that. And it has an actual testable custody.

Otherwise it just becomes a text of competing supplied imaginative meanings, which does no one any good. The 'shekinah' view is just as valid as actual starlight and celestial mechanical knowledge.

 

[John Bauer]

So, I have developed a new interest, adding to the three that I’ve been exploring for decades (soteriology, origins, and theological anthropology), and that new interest is … {drum roll} … genealogy.

I have briefly mentioned elsewhere that I am working on a memoir for my kids, each chapter exploring common questions children have about their family history and parents—“Where did we live when I was born?” “How did you guys meet?”—plus chapters that share my unique perspective and insights on those aforementioned three subject areas. A lot of that is being pulled from my memory, which is freakishly deep and accurate. (More on that later.)

But I quickly realized that a family history should include a family tree. Okay, there was my wife and I and our two kids. Of course. But there are grandparents, too. On both sides. And aunts and uncles. And cousins. Again, on both sides. Oh my. That is expanding beyond my ability to keep track mentally. We need a family tree drawn up. And since I am on the autism spectrum, that falls within my wheelhouse.

Two months later and not a small financial investment in genealogical software and information, I have fleshed out a fairly large chunk of my family history. On my dad’s side I have managed to push back as far as the early 1800s, but I have hit a roadblock there and need more sophisticated digging. Canada did not exist back then, obviously; it was a few separate British colonies collectively called British North America. My relatives were fur traders in the frontier west, known as Rupert’s Land, and getting cozy with the indigenous populations, if you know what I mean—and Indians were not known for impeccable record-keeping. So, that may be as far as I can go with that.

However, on my mother’s side I have pushed back as far as … {drum roll} … AD 1675! Can you believe it? We are talking about the time of Francis Turretin, Paul Bunyan, and Herman Witsius. Probably not related to anyone like that, though. Given the surnames dominating that part of my family tree, they were probably Anabaptist heretics, Mennonites migrating from Western Prussia (1600s–1700s) to Ukraine (1700s–1800s) and ultimately to western Canada (1800s–1900s). These surnames in my family strongly cluster in one very specific ethno-historical population: the Russian Mennonite ancestry of Dutch–Prussian origin.

 

[John Bauer]

As for the freakishly deep and accurate memory …

In this memoir I was working on some material that related to an experience I had in the first grade, and I wanted to set the table narratively with the names of my friends and teacher back then. Yes, I remember nearly every single one of them. First and last name. Including the girl who gave me the first kiss I ever received. And her dad’s name, who was a dentist, and what he looked like, her little sister’s name, even their family vehicle (a white-and-light-green 1978 Volkswagen van). I also remember my teacher’s name, although I didn’t trust my memory of how it was spelled: “Zonicle.” I tried searching for the surname but the results were not exactly reliable. Maybe I remembered it wrong?

So I asked ChatGPT. I was told it was probably not a real surname, that I was perhaps recalling an approximate sound. “The most plausible reconstructions, based on English phonetics and attested surnames,” it said, “would be Zunickle, or maybe Zanickle, or perhaps Zonick”—and a number of other suggestions. Then it gave me a bunch of places I could try looking it up.

I asked for the history of the name Zunickle, to see if it corresponded with an ethnic population or geographic region that would be consistent with the image of her that lived in my memory. Likely German, I was told, maybe Slavic.

Definitely not her, then. “She was a black woman,” I said, so I doubt it was a German name.

Not so fast, ChatGPT countered, and proceeded to tell me that many black families in North America bore European surnames and blah, blah, blah. Give me a break. It seems I triggered its woke protocols.

I shook my head. “No,” I insisted, “I clearly remember it was Zonicle. I could be wrong, but it would be weird that I can remember practically everyone’s name from the first grade, first and last, including the spelling—but wrong about this one name? Possible, I guess, but would be really odd.”

It persisted in trying to gaslight me toward surnames like Zonickel or Zinckel, but none of those rang true for me. So I gave up on ChatGPT and tried Gemini instead. Among other things, it said the surname Zonicle was “a rare but legitimate surname, most prominent in the Bahamas.” That rang a massive bell for me: She was Bahamian. That memory crystalized instantly. We were on the right track now.

I went back to ChatGPT and updated it with what Gemini said. It is probably hallucinating, ChatGPT replied, because “the specific surname ‘Zonicle’ is not widely attested in standard onomastic or genealogical corpora” (whatever that means). It also told me that my recognition response (“that rings true”) is meaningful but not decisive. We shall see, I thought.

A few days later I found and closely examined some old school records from that era, mainly a staff directory, and guess what I found? My first grade teacher—whose surname really was “Zonicle.” I remembered it exactly right, despite the cajoling and gaslighting pressure from these AI models, trying to convince me I remembered it wrong. Even after so many decades, my memory is still crystal clear. That girl, my first kiss? I found a picture of her mom and dad from a year earlier and the image of him in my memory matched it exactly. It did not morph over time. My memory is freakishly deep and accurate.

Which helps me retain all this other stuff I have learned over time.

My wife is always amazed at the amount of stuff I have crammed into my brain. She wonders where it all fits. As for me, I genuinely hope that this level of mental exercise staves off dementia in my later years.

 

[makesends]

As for the freakishly deep and accurate memory …

In this memoir I was working on some material that related to an experience I had in the first grade, and I wanted to set the table narratively with the names of my friends and teacher back then. Yes, I remember nearly every single one of them. First and last name. Including the girl who gave me the first kiss I ever received. And her dad’s name, who was a dentist, and what he looked like, her little sister’s name, even their family vehicle (a white-and-light-green 1978 Volkswagen van). I also remember my teacher’s name, although I didn’t trust my memory of how it was spelled: “Zonicle.” I tried searching for the surname but the results were not exactly reliable. Maybe I remembered it wrong?

So I asked ChatGPT. I was told it was probably not a real surname, that I was perhaps recalling an approximate sound. “The most plausible reconstructions, based on English phonetics and attested surnames,” it said, “would be Zunickle, or maybe Zanickle, or perhaps Zonick”—and a number of other suggestions. Then it gave me a bunch of places I could try looking it up.

I asked for the history of the name Zunickle, to see if it corresponded with an ethnic population or geographic region that would be consistent with the image of her that lived in my memory. Likely German, I was told, maybe Slavic.

Definitely not her, then. “She was a black woman,” I said, so I doubt it was a German name.

Not so fast, ChatGPT countered, and proceeded to tell me how many black families in North America bore European surnames and blah, blah, blah. Give me a break. It seems I triggered its woke protocols.

I shook my head. “No,” I insisted, “I clearly remember it was Zonicle. I could be wrong, but it would be weird that I can remember practically everyone’s name from the first grade, first and last, including the spelling—but wrong about this one name? Possible, I guess, but would be really odd.”

It persisted in trying to gaslight me toward surnames like Zonickel or Zinckel, but none of those rang true for me. So I gave up on ChatGPT and tried Gemini instead. Among other things, it said the surname Zonicle was “a rare but legitimate surname, most prominent in the Bahamas.” That rang a massive bell for me: She was Bahamian. That memory crystalized instantly. We were on the right track now.

I went back to ChatGPT and updated it with what Gemini said. It is probably hallucinating, ChatGPT replied, because “the specific surname ‘Zonicle’ is not widely attested in standard onomastic or genealogical corpora” (whatever that means). It also told me that my recognition response (“that rings true”) is meaningful but not decisive. We shall see, I thought.

A few days later I found and closely examined some old school records from that era, mainly a staff directory, and guess what I found? My first grade teacher—whose surname really was “Zonicle.” I remembered it exactly right, despite the cajoling and gaslighting pressure from these AI models, trying to convince me I remembered it wrong. Even after so many decades, my memory is still crystal clear. That girl, my first kiss? I found a picture of her mom and dad from a year earlier and the image of him in my memory matched it exactly. It did not morph over time. My memory is freakishly deep and accurate.

Which helps me retain all this other stuff I have learned over time.

My wife is always amazed at the amount of stuff I have crammed into my brain. She wonders where it all fits. As for me, I genuinely hope that this level of mental exercise staves off dementia in my later years.

Well, you got nothing on my dear departed wife. She could remember exhaustively accurately every disagreement we ever had in every detail, including several arguments we hadn't even had yet!

 

[fastfredy0]

Well, you got nothing on my dear departed wife. She could remember exhaustively accurately every disagreement we ever had in every detail, including several arguments we hadn't even had yet!

Yeah, but she recall any time that you were in the "right"? (The question assumes there was such an instance(s))