The Thing About Fluidity

pouring engine oil from its plastic container

In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Historically, the distinction is made based on qualitative differences in properties. Matter in the solid state maintains a fixed volume (assuming no change in temperature or air pressure) and shape, with component particles (atoms, molecules or ions) close together and fixed into place. Matter in the liquid state maintains a fixed volume (assuming no change in temperature or air pressure), but has a variable shape that adapts to fit its container. Its particles are still close together but move freely. Matter in the gaseous state has both variable volume and shape, adapting both to fit its container. Its particles are neither close together nor fixed in place. Matter in the plasma state has variable volume and shape, and contains neutral atoms as well as a significant number of ions and electrons, both of which can move around freely. (

Why the physics lesson you ask….that is, if you have read down this far…. it is to illustrate a point.

Three of the four states of matter do not have fixed shapes – they adapt to fit the container. It is, as it were, that matter in these states are dependent upon other containers if they are to have a shape or form.

Solid, on the other hand, is not dependent. If you have a solid thing – say a billiard cube – and set it on the table or floor the shape remains the same – it is not dependent upon its environment. If you place the billiard ball inside a bucket of water, the ball displaces the water and the water forms itself around the ball. The water’s (a liquid) shape is dependent upon the solid shapes near of around it.

I saw a video wherein Demi Lavato claimed to be a fluid person . What that should mean is that there is nothing fixed about her and she is completely dependent upon her environment to determine who she is. No matter how she might try to express her “fluidity” in positive terms, the reality…the state of matter… is that she is saying she has no say-so, no control whatsoever over who she is. She is utterly dependent upon her surroundings to determine her shape.

Does this sound laudable? Is this how you want to be? Is this how you want your children to be? Or does is sound better for you NOT to be a slave to the society around you, but rather you be the strong center around which you determine what goes on around you?

Fluid people are not the strong ones in our world. Fluid people are not the ones to emulate and model ourselves after. Now please don’t get me wrong. Flexibility in people is a fine trait – when flexibility is contrasted with rigidity. Strive for flexibility and adaptability… not fluidity.

Look carefully at who and what you are… in your objective natural state and let the world know that… and then shape the world around you.


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Critical Reasoning, Ethics, Values/Ethics | Leave a comment

The New Normal

Many many years ago, I was having a discussion with one of my landscaping clients. As we were discussing and lamenting the changes in society, she made the statement, “all people are crazy these days”. I responded by saying that if all people were crazy, then crazy was, in fact, the normal state of affairs for people. In short, crazy would be normal. And if this were the case, everyone would be normal… not crazy. The definition, you see would stay the same, but the criteria required to fit the definition would have to change.

Do you get the sense that this is happening all around you these days, in every area of life: race, gender, medicine and health, education, national policy? My guess is that you do… and if you do, it concerns you deeply. Most of us do not want crazy to be the new normal. Most of us want sanity to be normal and craziness to be abnormal.

The problem, of course, is that “most of us” are no longer driving the bus. A small minority – a small but overwhelmingly devious and powerful minority are driving the bus and we the majority are sitting in the back of the bus watching (seemingly) helplessly as we see the bus wandering all over the road and now getting dangerously close to a precipice of no return.

But we are not helpless. You are not helpless. You are one person and therefore have little power, but you are not helpless. You, as a individual can stand up to craziness. You can stand up to forces trying to suck you into crazy thinking and drive you to Crazytown. You can stand and refuse to ride along quietly. You can stand up and say “no more”. Standing up alone is scary… but I guarantee you that there are people around you not standing because they are afraid themselves and all they need is to see someone else stand first.

Stand up. Make your normal views be made known. Show them and shout them if necessary. Speak them loudly in your homes, on your streets, and in the public square. Band together with other like-minded normal folks and increase the volume.

If everyone (or even most everyone) on the bus wants to take a turn to a new direction and set a new course to a new destination, you have the power to do so.

More on this later. For a peek into what I consider to be the “old normal” please read my post:

Historical Values

Posted on November 17, 2021byadmin Jim


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

What If?

We all know folks who are hypocrites and others who are extremists… and some who are both.

This might sound hard to swallow, but neither the presence of hypocrites nor extremists make a belief system unreasonable. It means that there is a wide range of followers of the belief system.

We all know Christians who exhibit hypocrisy. Some do it only rarely, some seem to shovel it our way like a homeowner after a blizzard in Minnesota – almost non-stop. I could and would never defend hypocrisy for two reasons: 1) it has been practiced by most, if not all of us at least at some points in life and 2) It has been practiced by me many times and for long seasons. From the perspective of the culprit, what we ideally want is for people to forgive us for our past hypocrisy and pray that we would be free from it in the future.

But this post isn’t about hypocrisy. It is about the core position of those who hold a belief and the reasonableness of that position. Sure, there are climate change hypocrites who fly around in private jets and socialism hypocrites who deeply enjoy and employ the fruits of pure capitalism, but the presence of hypocrites doesn’t make the core position unreasonable.

The first question I would like to ask is about the Christians that you know and have spent some time with enough to get to know. In general, are they happy, content, caring, giving, and forgiving people? If not, I suggest that they are either living in a season of distance from God or not really Christians. God the Father does not let His true adopted children languish long in sin without bringing discipline into their lives – like any good parent would do.

It is easy to focus on those Christians who fall into these categories if you are a non or anti Christian. I get that, but is it reasonable to question the belief system on the basis of some outliers? I suggest not. My experience may be quite different from yours, but the vast majority of people that I have known who identify as Christians are people who are joyful, content, caring, giving, and forgiving.

The real question is, is this a life and lifestyle that seems admirable and admire-able? I suggest to you that if a person rejects Christianity because she/he does not want to be joyful, content, caring, giving, and forgiving has some deep rooted problems. What person in their right mind would not want a life characterized by these qualities?

The second question I would like to ask is what do you think is at the core of this life and lifestyle? Could they all be hypnotized, brainwashed, or drugged? Well, anyone can try to defend anything, but this seems highly unlikely. It seems far more likely that they are on to something…. not on something.

What if what they are onto is metaphysical and spiritual truth and have had their individual lives transformed by the power and presence of a powerful and present Heavenly Father?

What if?


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Christianity, Values & Morals | Leave a comment

See Unto Others as You Would Have Them See Unto You

See Into Others as You Would Have Them See Into You

Let’s see a show of hands. Raise your hand if you are a perfect human being who has made no mistakes and made no poor decisions. Hmmm… the room is silent. No hands whoosh as they fly upwards.

And no one here is surprised. Why? Because we know intuitively and by experience that every single one of us have messed up. Some for a day. Some for a month. Some for several years, compounding wrong choices upon wrong choices.

Yet, having said that, most of us, deep down, think that despite the things that we have done wrong, we are – at heart – a good person. We are a goodhearted person who has done wrong headed things.

Tell me something… and please be honest with yourself… when you mess up is that not exactly how you hope other see you when they become aware of your stupid mistakes and selfish actions? You do not want others to see you as a mistake prone selfish person – as a bad-hearted human being, No you do not. You want others to see your “occasional” wrongs as aberrations, as infrequent variances from your normal and typical good-person life.

We all want this. We want people to like us, to respect us, to think highly of us. This is human nature and there is nothing wrong with wanting such. Some of us want this desperately. We ache for it. We pray for it. We ask – even beg for it. We do this when others don’t take the time and effort to look deeply enough into our souls to find the good in there. Out hearts ache for this to happen. We want to be understood and accepted.

Might I make a small suggestion.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Let it start with you. Maybe it will ripple out to others.


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog:

and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Ethics, Relationships | Leave a comment

Self Identified Pronouns

Just a couple of thoughts to spark your thinking… keep all flammables at a distance please!

Number One: Personal pronouns are used as replacements for proper nouns. Let’s say I have a friend named Bob. When I am in Bob’s presence, I either refer to Bob by his name, or I use the second person pronoun “you”. We use this convention to reduce repetition and boredom. For example, when asking Bob to go get me a beer, I don’t say, “Hey Bob, would Bob do me a favor and go to the fridge and then could Bob bring it to me on the back deck?” No, convention allows – one might say even requires, that we substitute the second person pronoun in the second and third reference to Bob in the sentence. I should have said, “Hey Bob, would you do me a favor and go to the fridge and then could you bring it to me on the back deck?” When someone is spoken to directly, we use their name or the second person pronoun “you” or some other referent (like nicknames or pet names). It is convention.

When we are in someone’s presence the second person pronoun “you” is the grammatically correct thing to do.

When we are speaking about someone rather than to someone, convention requires that we use third person pronouns (he/she – him/her/ (depending of the case [the usage in the sentence] for singular persons or they/them for a plurality of persons. This rule has been around since the language was developed.

The point is, the use of third person pronoun is only required when the person that we are talking about is not in our presence or a part of the conversation. I never call Bob “he” in a conversation. It would be inappropriate and silly. So, third person pronouns should have little or no consequence to the people we are talking about because they are not present or a part of the conversation – therefore they can have no first hand, direct knowledge of which pronouns have been used as replacements. They certainly cannot be directly offended by the pronoun usage because they were not present when uttered. If they have pronoun spies, they can report it, but if they do, they have bigger problems than pronoun sensitivity.

Requiring that others use specific third person pronouns outside of their presence is requiring something that is not only unconventional, it is unnecessary and silly, When we are in their presence, we can just use “you” or their proper name.

This should much ado about nothing… except people and institutions are requiring conformity or else. This, to me, is nothing less than grammatical bullying. If we as a society stoop and succumb to this bullying, we become their grammar slaves and they become our masters.

Number Two: If we allow individuals the power to choose pronoun referents, why don’t we do the same with other parts of speech? What if I have my preferred verbs, adjectives, and adverbs? What if I require you to use adjectives like, charming, witty, intelligent, handsome, ripped, or hygienically pristine? What if I require you use my preferred verbs, adverbs, or gerunds? There would be no end to how far others could push us.

Why stop with pronouns, I ask?

The better question is why start with them?


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please come back and revisit my blog and follow me here. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

yes, SIR

Jim Shaul

Aug 18

Public Announcement:

I am self identifying as a human being who is not obligated to conform to or even acknowledge what other human beings self identify as. Furthermore, I self identify as a human being who chooses to see others through the historical lens of how humans have been presented outwardly in the past.

In short, I refuse to allow other’s self identity to control how and what I think and say. I am a self identity rejector – SIR.

If you are a proponent of self identity bullying, please acknowledge my self identity as a SIR and act and speak accordingly.

If you are not a proponent of self identity bullying, then you are free to ignore me.

Note 1: My preferred pronoun is SIR.

Note 2: This announcement is not intended to either promote or discourage any other human being’s freedom to think as they choose and act as they wish except when doing so interferes with other person’s freedom to think and act.


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please read my other posts and consider following/subscribing.

visit my blog:. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Note 3: At Substack, Jim Shaul is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Nature of Evidence

The Nature of Evidence

Common Definition:

1) A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment (Free Dictionary)

2) That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. (

3) Something, including testimony, documents and tangible objects that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged facts (Black’s Law Dictionary)

4) My Definition: A thing or set of things offered up to another person intended to persuade them to form a new or different conclusion or judgment about a claim or strengthening the position of that claim.

General Types of Evidence

There are two general types of evidence used in both science and law – Physical and Testimonial evidence. Physical evidence is comprised of those forms of data that can be measured or quantified. Examples include fingerprints, accelerants, hair or fibers, etc. These types of evidence can be measured, weighed, and defined by a number of other physical methods. Testimonial evidence is comprised of observations either by the scientist or witnesses. Physical evidence or data is often called “real” evidence or “hard” data. The reason for this distinction is that physical evidence can be measured numerically while testimonial evidence is more subjective in nature. Each individual remembers events in a slightly different way and even observations of things like color depend on the individual’s visual ability to discern different hues. Another way to look at the two types of evidence or data is that physical evidence is objective and testimonial evidence is subjective.

Seen through another lens, there are two other ways to classify evidence: Empirical vs Historical Evidence: Evidence that is not directly observable in its original form, like fossils, archeological artifacts, or crime scene evidence. In order to analyze this type of evidence, a scientist must draw conclusions and make inferences about things they did not directly observe. This lies outside the realm of the scientific method and demonstrates that scientific study does have limits. Take, for example, a crime-scene investigator. When the crime-scene investigator arrives on a scene and collects evidence, they must use observational science to process the evidence (i.e., DNA and fingerprint analysis). They then have to apply the analysis to a criminal act that occurred in the past. This requires the interpretation of past events. Any scientific study that falls outside the boundaries of empirical, operational science falls into a distinct category we call historical science.

Philosophical Definition:

1) Evidence… is the kind of thing which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2) For a short, easy to understand but clear and accurate video presentation on epistemology, argument and evidence, go to:


Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method .

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Science Fallacy: The philosopher Philip Sherrard has summed this up: “There is one particular fallacy from which we must free ourselves, and this is the idea that contemporary scientific theories are somehow neutral, or value-free, and do not presuppose the submission of the human mind to a set of assumptions or dogmas in the way that is said to be demanded by adherence to a religious faith. (The Guardian)

Scientific Evidence for Use in Legal Proceedings:

1) Scientific evidence is evidence culled from a scientific procedure that helps the trier of fact understand evidence or determine facts at issue in a judicial proceeding. (Free Dictionary)

2)“Adducing evidence” is the legal term for presenting or producing evidence in court for the purpose of establishing proof.) This meaning of evidence is reflected in the definitional section of the Indian Evidence Act (Stephen 1872: 149).[3] When lawyers use the term “evidence” in this way, they have in mind what epistemologists would think of as “objects of sensory evidence” (Haack 2004: 48). Evidence, in this sense, is divided conventionally into three main categories:[4] oral evidence (the testimony given in court by witnesses), documentary evidence (documents produced for inspection by the court), and “real evidence”; the first two are self-explanatory and the third captures things other than documents such as a knife allegedly used in committing a crime. (Stanford Encycolpedia of Philosophy)

3) In Escobedo the Court observed: “We have learned the lesson of history, ancient and modern, that a system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the ‘confession’ will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence independently secured through skillful investigation” (Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 488–89 (1964)). (

4) “About one quarter of the citizens who had served on juries which were presented with scientific evidence believed that had such evidence been absent, they would have changed their verdicts—from guilty to not guilty” (Peterson et al., p. 1748).

5) A massive effort to test the validity of 100 psychology experiments finds that more than 50 percent of the studies fail to replicate. This is based on a new study published in the journal “Science.” (Hidden Brain)

6) Chain of Custody Problem – Proof of a chain of custody is required when the evidence that is sought to be introduced at trial is not unique or where the relevance of the evidence depends on its analysis after seizure. A proper chain of custody requires three types of testimony: (1) testimony that a piece of evidence is what it purports to be (for example, a litigant’s blood sample); (2) testimony of continuous possession by each individual who has had possession of the evidence from the time it is seized until the time it is presented in court; and (3) testimony by each person who has had possession that the particular piece of evidence remained in substantially the same condition from the moment one person took possession until the moment that person released the evidence into the custody of another (for example, testimony that the evidence was stored in a secure location where no one but the person in custody had access to it).

7) Problems with Scientific Evidence in Court:

a) In 2011, Adam Scott’s DNA matched with a sperm sample taken from a rape victim in Manchester—a city Scott, who lived more than 200 miles away, had never visited. Non-DNA evidence subsequently cleared Scott. The mixup was due to a careless mistake in the lab, in which a plate used to analyze Scott’s DNA from a minor incident was accidentally reused in the rape case.

b) Unfortunately, most forms of forensic evidence other than DNA have lacked similar scientific foundations. Instead, they have been characterized by much subjectivity, human observer bias, error and variability in processing and interpreting the evidence, lack of standardized procedures and accreditation programs in crime laboratories, inconsistent validation and unknown error rates, and, most worrisome, little incentive for conducting research into better, more reliable methods.

Scientific Evidence Not for Legal Purposes

1) Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. (

2) Strength of Scientific Claims:

a) Predictive power, the power of a scientific theory to generate testable predictions

b) Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to explain the subject matter effectively to which it pertains. Its opposite is explanatory impotence.

3) Inference to the best explanation

In the past, various criteria or measures for explanatory power have been proposed. In particular, one hypothesis, theory, or explanation can be said to have more explanatory power than another about the same subject matter

  • if more facts or observations are accounted for;
  • if it changes more “surprising facts” into “a matter of course” (following Peirce);
  • if more details of causal relations are provided, leading to a high accuracy and precision of the description;
  • if it offers greater predictive power (if it offers more details about what should be expected to be seen and not seen);
  • if it depends less on authorities and more on observations;
  • if it makes fewer assumptions;
  • if it is more falsifiable (more testable by observation or experiment, according to Popper).

4)The types of evidence are listed from weakest to strongest.

Anecdotal & Expert Opinions

Anecdotal evidence is a person’s own personal experience or view, not necessarily representative of typical experiences. An expert’s standalone opinion, or that given in a written news article, are both considered weak forms of evidence without scientific studies to back them up.

Animal & Cell Studies (experimental)

Animal research can be useful, and can predict effects also seen in humans.
However, observed effects can also differ, so subsequent human trials are required
before a particular effect can be said to be seen in humans. Tests on isolated cells
can also produce different results to those in the body.

Case Reports & Case Series (observational)

A case report is a written record on a particular subject. Though low on the hierarchy of evidence, they can aid detection of new diseases, or side effects of treatments. A case series is similar, but tracks multiple subjects. Both types of study cannot prove causation, only correlation.

Case-Control Studies (observational)

Case-control studies are retrospective, involving two groups of subjects, one with a particular condition or symptom, and one without. They then track back to determine an attribute or exposure that could have caused this. Again, these studies show correlation, but it is hard to prove causation.

Cohort Studies (observational)

A cohort study is similar to a case-control study. It involves selection of a group of people sharing a certain characteristic or treatment (e.g. exposure to a chemical), and compares them over time to a group of people who do not have this characteristic or treatment, noting any difference in outcome.

Randomised Controlled Trials (experimental)

Subjects are randomly assigned to a test group, which receives the treatment, or a control group, which commonly receives a placebo. In ‘blind’ trials, participants do not know which group they are in; in ‘double blind’ trials, the experimenters do not know either. Blinding trials helps remove bias.

Systematic Review

Systematic reviews draw on multiple randomised controlled trials to draw their conclusions, and also take into consideration the quality of the studies included. Reviews can help mitigate bias in individual studies and give us a more complete picture, making them the best form of evidence.

Scientific Laws

Abel’s theoremAbel’s theorem allows us to evaluate many series in closed form. For example, when , we obtain for , by integrating the uniformly convergent geometric power series term by term on ; thus the series converges to by Abel’s theorem.Niels Henrik Abel
Ampère’s circuital law Ampère’s circuital law relates the integrated magnetic field around a closed loop to the electric current passing through the loop.André-Marie Ampère
Archimedes’s principleArchimedes’ principle states that the upward buoyant force that is exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces and acts in the upward direction at the center of mass of the displaced fluidArchimedes
Bernoulli’s principleBernoulli’s principle states that an increase in the speed of a fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a decrease in the fluid’s potential energy.Daniel Bernoulli
Biot–Savart lawBiot–Savart law is an equation describing the magnetic field generated by a stationary electric current. It relates the magnetic field to the magnitude, direction, length, and proximity of the electric current. Jean Baptiste Biot and Félix Savart
Cayley–Hamilton theoremCayley–Hamilton theorem states that every square matrix over a commutative ring (such as the real or complex field) satisfies its own characteristic equation.Augustin Louis Cauchy
Coulomb’s lawCoulomb’s law, or Coulomb’s inverse-square law, is a law of physics for quantifying the amount of force with which stationary electrically charged particles repel or attract each other. Charles Augustin de Coulomb
Fermat’s principleFermat’s principle or the principle of least time, named after French mathematician Pierre de Fermat, is the principle that the path taken between two points by a ray of light is the path that can be traversed in the least time. This principle is sometimes taken as the definition of a ray of light.Pierre de Fermat
Gauss’s lawGauss’s law, also known as Gauss’s flux theorem, is a law relating the distribution of electric charge to the resulting electric field. The surface under consideration may be a closed one enclosing a volume such as a spherical surface.Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss
Graham’s lawGraham’s law of effusion (also called Graham’s law of diffusion) was formulated by Scottish physical chemist Thomas Graham in 1848. Graham found experimentally that the rate of effusion of a gas is inversely proportional to the square root of the mass of its particlesThomas Graham
Hilbert’s basis theoremHilbert’s basis theorem says that a polynomial ring over a Noetherian ring is Noetherian.David Hilbert
Lagrange’s theoremLagrange’s theorem, in the mathematics of group theory, states that for any finite group G, the order (number of elements) of every subgroup H of G divides the order of G.
Le Chatelier’s principleLe Chatelier′s Principle is the principle when a stress is applied to a chemical system at equilibrium, the equilibrium will shift to relieve the stress. In other words, it can be used to predict the direction of a chemical reaction in response to a change in conditions of temperature, concentration, volume, or pressure.Henri Louis le Chatelier
Maxwell’s equationsMaxwell’s equations are a set of partial differential equations that, together with the Lorentz force law, form the foundation of classical electromagnetism, classical optics, and electric circuits.James Clerk Maxwell
Newton’s law of universal gravitationthe law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Newton’s laws of motionFirst law: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.
Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma.
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Ohm’s lawOhm’s law states that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points.Georg Ohm
Pascal’s lawPascal’s law or the principle of transmission of fluid-pressure is a principle in fluid mechanics that states that a pressure change occurring anywhere in a confined incompressible fluid is transmitted throughout the fluid such that the same change occurs everywhere.Blaise Pascal
Pythagorean theoremIn mathematics, the Pythagorean theorem, also known as Pythagoras’ theorem, is a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle. It states that the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.Pythagoras
Rolle’s theoremRolle’s theorem states that for any continuous, differentiable function that has two equal values at two distinct points, the function must have a point on the function where the first derivative is zero.Michel Rolle
Stokes’s lawStokes’s law, for the frictional force – also called drag force – exerted on spherical objects with very small Reynolds numbers in a viscous fluid. Stokes’s law is derived by solving the Stokes flow limit for
Posted in Christianity, Critical Reasoning | Leave a comment


I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet… but as many have pointed out to me over the years, many things I predicted – based on trends I observed in society – came to pass.

I have a new prediction. Before I divulge, let me tell you on what is it based. When I was in primary school, not many dared publicly to speak against religion. Then in 1963 and the coming to national attention of one Madelyn Murray O’Hair, she brought her lawsuit to the Supreme Court and she became a loud voice for atheism. If you were alive then, you probably remember the scorn and hatred heaped upon this woman. She was so vilified that 1964 Life magazine referred to her as “the most hated woman in America. Most of America, back then, was either religious or at least saw a value in religion.

Fast forward 60 years. Although I believe that there are still many in our country who are religious and/or value religion, the percentage of those folks has dropped significantly. According to an author of an article in the Atlantic, “… in the early 1990s, the historical tether between American identity and faith snapped. Religious non-affiliation in the U.S. started to rise—and rise, and rise. By the early 2000s, the share of Americans who said they didn’t associate with any established religion (also known as “nones”) had doubled. By the 2010s, this grab bag of atheists, agnostics, and spiritual dabblers had tripled in size.” The author, Derek Thompson goes on to say, “Religion has lost its halo effect in the past three decades, not because science drove God from the public square, but rather because politics did. In the 21st century, “not religious” has become a specific American identity—one that distinguishes secular, liberal whites from the conservative, evangelical right.” (

This is not news to you. We all have seen this happen, much to the lament of many. What I am predicting herein, is not just that this trend will continue, but that it is taking a serious dark turn. After the recent series of Supreme Court decisions that indicated a return to basing decisions on constitutional authority and not current social whims, was quite a virulent response from the left. A quick web search will show a loud outcry against the Christian Right takeover of the Court. The response was not primarily directed at conservative judges and constitutional originalism, it was crying out against Christians. Since then – tell me that you haven’t seen this – there has been an explosion of rhetoric against Christian Fascists and Christian Nationalists.

And quite recently, there is an attempt by many to fuse Christianity and Republicanism/conservatism. They are not just saying that many Republicans/conservatives are also Christians; they are lumping the two together as a single unified whole. They are attacking the entire group as a whole. even though everyone knows that these are three separate and distinct ideologies. Sure, there are people who are all three, but there are many who are only in two of these groups and many that are only in one. Everyone knows this… but the left is lumping all of us together.

Why? to what end is this being done? It is simple… demonization is a powerful tool. It energizes people to act. It effectively stirs people up against a specific group even though logic and reason would argue against doing such. Let’s face it, most of us recognize that there are extremist Republicans, extremist conservatives, and extremist Christians. Let’s face it, many of us despise what many of these extremists stand for, even if we are part of the larger non-extremist group. Take that yucky feeling you have for those extremists and put in in the hearts of leftists and magnify it many times and you have what they feel. Do that same thing with how they feel about extremists in all three groups – and what do you have? Disgust and hatred for them…but not only for the extremists…. they no longer distinguish the very small minority of extremists between the vast majority of regular reasonable folks in the group. Believe it or not (I think most of you will believe it because you have seen it and have felt it yourselves) if you are at all identifying with any of these three groups (by let’s say a simple single act of voting for Trump- e.g. a post on FB today: “Trump supporters are worthless pieces of human garbage”), you are not automatically lumped into a Christo/Conservato/Rebulico extremist group – and are hated and reviled for it.

Again, this is likely not news. What is new is that is is actually fairly easy to get folks on the left to do this… but they are working on getting people in the center as well as even people on the right to focus their vitriol on Christians. All three groups are in the target, but Christians are in the center of the target. Here we are 60 years after Madelyn Murray O’Hair and now the tables have completely turned. In 2022, now Christians specifically, and people of the Christian faith generally are the most deadly and destructive force in our society and they must be silenced…or worse.

I could make comparisons with countries and regimes of the past, but I don’t think I have to. You are smart enough to do this on your own. The unreasonable and unfounded demonization of a small religious minority group has historically proven to be a powerful catalyst for not only totalitarianism, but for genocide. All they have to do is to find a fence – a defining line to put around a group of people that can be vilified and the destruction begins… and you know where it ends.

Please be aware that I am not writing this to make you afraid. I am writing this to make you aware so you can 1) resist it as long as you can and 2) prepare for it if it becomes necessary. As Solzhenitsyn said, we live not by lies. The best and most powerful tool we have at our hand is truth… Truth spoken in Love. Please, for the sake of your freedom, for the sake of the freedom of your children and grandchildren, speak the truth. Don’t be fazed by their sleight of hand defense of questioning “whose truth”. Truth belongs to no one. Truth simply needs to be declared and defended. Shout it from the housetops and from the mountainsides.

To those of you who know personally and experientially that the “Truth will set you Free,” are likely to be in the center sights of people right now who want to take your freedoms from you. I encourage you to make a loud and joyful noise to the Lord and remember the words of Peter in his second letter: ” Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?  But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.  For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.” II Peter 3:13-18

Be of good cheer. He who is in you is greater than he who is in he world.


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Christianity, Critical Reasoning, Family, Politics | Leave a comment

It’s Just Not Fair!

Kids say that all the time… well not all the time. They typically point out unfairness when someone gets something desirable that they don’t get and they are upset. They rarely point out unfairness when they are getting something desirable that others don’t get. Adults aren’t much different.

What is the exact number that is fair when it comes to how much more a CEO makes than an entry level worker? Is a 10% gap fair? How about 100% gap? How about a 1000% gap? Pick a number that is fair…. then justify that number. Give us, say three good reasons that the number you picked is better than one slightly higher or slightly lower. I will wait.

You see, most people arguing for a smaller gap have no real good reasons for a number so typically don’t give one. It is much safer for them to argue if they don’t. Without a number, you are left with arguing something else… like the necessity of providing a living wage. How much does someone need to live on?

That seems like an easier number to find. We did that one semester in Business Ethics class one fall at Creighton. The students in that class had to research the basic needs of a person (food, clothing, shelter [in a fairly safe neighborhood], transportation, utilities, toiletries, medicine, dishes and silverware, end etc. Basic needs. Then, I had them find out what budget one would need to support those items. After coming up with the budgetary needs, they then figured out how much money a person would have to make to buy all that – that is, how much take home pay they would need.

Every person in the class was shocked. They discovered that a single person could live on minimum wage in Omaha. If they took the bus and didn’t spend money on non-necessities, they could make a living. So then some chimed in – what if the person is married or has a kid, so they have higher expenses. Well, of course they would need more money. Duh. After discussing this, it became clear that if it were two adults, both would have to make money. If it were an adult and a child, they would have to seek assistance. I suggested that people seriously consider doing everything in their power not to have kids until they advanced beyond minimum wage. You see, entry level wages are designed for younger single people just coming into the work force. If one wants more money, they will have to work hard and demonstrate to their superiors that they can be trusted with a higher level job.

The thing is, the person in HR hiring for entry level positions don’t ask applicants what their budget is and how many mouths do they have to feed. They don’t ask how much their monthly phone bill is and how much they spend on entertainment. They don’t care about that. They just want to know if the person can do the job. A young single girl living with her parents still with very few expenses gets paid the same as the single dad with three kids.

This is fair.

They are paid for the work they do, right?

Yes and no. They are paid for the work they do, but their pay scale also reflects their overall comparative value to the company. If the entry level employee messes up, what are the consequences? Some but not much. If the CEO messes up, what are the consequences? Maybe small, but also maybe huge. A big mistake could cause the company to shut down and result in everyone losing their jobs. It is only just and right that the CEO make more money because the CEO shoulders much more responsibility.

This is also fair.

I have encouraged many business owners to be generous to their employees. I have encouraged them to graciously share in the wealth accrued by the company with every person in the company. I have owned and operated many businesses over the years. I never paid minimum wage. I often had profit sharing plans with people who worked for me. I did all this however not out of guilt or pressure from others. I didn’t do it because it was fair. I did it because we are supposed to love and care for one another.

This is what is the most fair.


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Ethics | Leave a comment

God’s Kids

In the Book of Acts, Luke records the Apostle Paul speaking to the Athenias, saying, “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:29-31)

Paul tells the Athenians that we humans are all offspring of God – we all get our life from him.

This does not mean, however, that every human is a child of God. We see this clearly in the Gospel of John where he declares, “He [Jesus] was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.  Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—  children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Jesus made the world (did you know that? See earlier in John, chapter 1, verses 1-4) and He came into the world but most of the world did not recognize or receive Him. Those who do receive Him, however, by believing in Him, become the children of God – not born by human act, but by God’s grace.

Who’s your daddy?


If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.

If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: and follow me there. You can also find me on Substack at MrJimShaul.

If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.

For His Glory,


Posted in Christianity, Family | Leave a comment