Latest activity

stevevw · 2025-11-09T01:06:35-0600

BCP1928 said:
"Transcendent" or "spiritual" knowledge doesn't cut stone. Craftsmen working with tools cut stone. The tool marks are there for you to see.

First and I am not saying this is how the vases were made. But the point of me using religion and especially Christianity is that potentially "Transcendent" or "spiritual" beliefs can be a force in the world that can defy scientific materialism or methological naturalism.

You do recall the miracles and coming back from the dead. Or the other God made events that changed history and reality.

Second It does not have to be that some spirit or supernatural force cut the stone. As I pointed out the spiritual or transcedent realm or the Indigenous realm of knowledge is immersed in a transcedent experience of nature itself. The common idea that natives and nature go hand in hand is because we say they understood nature very well. In ways we have lost and are rediscovering.

Its this conscious and experiential immersion in nature that reveals aspects of nature that could not be seen by the material sciences looking from the outside in.

So it may be they discovered some of natures secrets in utilising the natural forces around them to change nature itself. Such as their experience brought them knowledge of how stone changes in different situations with natural chemicals or energy manipulation.

It was not just observation but an immersion. Become part of nature itself and this was the only way such knowledge could have been gained. As its 1st person, direct and not third part science.

In that sense it was their spiritual, experiencial, transcedental and phenomenal beliefs that brought them to a deeper level that brought this knowledge. Just as the early Hebrews gained knowledge and changed reality due to being immersed and governments by a spiritual reality and not a material one.

CoreyD · 2025-11-09T01:05:25-0600

childeye 2 said:
If you mean to describe the act of stealing from a bank, I will acknowledge the act denotes a person who wants money and is willing to break the law to get it. I would not think they want to break the law, but rather they wanted the money and breaking the law was a means to that end.

That comment contains a contradiction.
If you cannot see it, it is understandable, why.

childeye 2 said:
I can't agree because I don't actually know. There also could be a deficiency of experiential knowledge so that it allowed Adam to be persuaded or misled.

So, the Bible says Adam was not deceived, but you say he was.
That's okay with me. It's your free willed decision.

childeye 2 said:
When we work off the premise that it's wrong to disobey God, it concludes with all certainty that Adam's choice/decision was wrong. So, since we're looking at two male and female images of God, without fault in a state of innocence; then as a matter of grace, it's safer for me to say that Adam didn't know what he was doing, than to say he did.

Adam did not know he was eating the fruit that God said not to eat?
That is absolutely false, and you know that better than any 5 year old... who knows that, don't you.

childeye 2 said:
Not willfully as in an intention to cause harm. There could exist that deviation in your paraphrase.

Scripture denotes Adam was put in a situation where he had to choose who to believe, God or Eve.

That is not scriptural. Where did you read that, may I ask?
Please quote the verse.

childeye 2 said:
Whether he willfully disobeyed would be contingent on his motive at the time. If the woman ate first and she did not die, but rather had her eyes opened, she could have been persuading Adam through questioning his reasoning to trust God, while seeing her alive and possibly telling him her eyes were opened. I don't know. He may have been focused on questioning his self and he ate to see if he was wrong, rather than he ate because he distrusted God.

That is a lot of speculation... which we can discarded, since we have no need of them.
They are not useful in this discussion.

childeye 2 said:
So, I typically express that I think he ate reluctantly as if he were unsure about himself. But I don't know, so I go with grace.

That's out o' here. Gone.

childeye 2 said:
I've said this and gave supporting evidence from scripture many times, that the scriptures do NOT denote that Adam was not deceived. You're referring to 1 Timothy 2:14 where Paul is expressing that Eve was the one deceived, not Adam. Of course, we know this would be true simply because the serpent is not depicted as speaking with Adam. Subsequently, we don't actually know if Adam would have fallen victim to the crafty and subtle beguiling of the serpent as Eve did. We only know he hearkened to the woman who was deceived which he most likely didn't know, which denotes that she talked with him, he listened, and he ended up eating.

Scripture says Adam was not deceived. 1 Timothy 2:14
You did read that. So, for you to say, "scriptures do NOT denote that Adam was not deceived", is to make one wonder what scripture you are reading.

childeye 2 said:
I'm not disagreeing that Adam knew what God told him. I feel the need to say that just in case you may be equating --> Adam knew what he is doing --> with -->Adam knew God said not to eat --> therefore Adam was not deceived.
.

If you pour gasoline around McDonalds, and the set a flame to it. Then say you did not know what you were doing.
They will send you for mental evaluation.
If they find you are in your right mind, well... they will send you to prison.

I already said what I meant by Adam knew what he was doing. I spelled it out word for word.
You read it, so if you are claiming you are not sure what I meant, I'm not sure you are paying attention to what I wrote.

childeye 2 said:
Like I have already said when we speculate that Adam knew what he was doing when disobeying God, it suggests he either wanted to die, or he was second guessing himself, or he may have misunderstood God, or Adam thought God was not truthful or something not yet thought of.

Or he chose to rebel against God, because he wanted to be independent of God, choosing to make his own decisions on hat is right and wrong.

childeye 2 said:
You're relying on a mischaracterization of Paul's intent in 1 Timothy 2:14 to claim Adam knew what he was doing. If that were the case, then Paul would be asserting a contradiction that the woman who had to be deceived into eating, should follow the man who willfully and knowingly rejected God as untrustworthy.

Pardon me!?
I don't understand what you just said.

childeye 2 said:
It's not extreme. There are prominent theologians like Aquinas that have written about the possibility that Adam ate because he didn't want to live without Eve.

So... Does a person's speculation become any less of a speculation because of who they are?
Are you saying you are not speculating, and we should accept that although it's not written, and thee is no way to verify it?
Why?

childeye 2 said:
It isn't that extreme. By the way, WE are speculating precisely because we don't know. The syntax in Genesis 3 denotes God expressing that Adam hearkened to the woman and therefore the implicature limits the speculation to the exchange between Eve and Adam that was followed by Adam eating. We don't know what that exchange was, but God's judgment suggests that Adam would not have eaten if he had not listened to the woman.

If you want to believe that, that's fine by me.
However, in this discussion, I'm interested in facts - what can be known, rather than wild imaginings.
You said...

For all I know, upon finding out she had eaten, Adam was expecting her to immediately show signs of dying. But when he didn't see any, he may have wondered if He had misunderstood God, so he ate to see if the woman was correct about the fruit being good as pertains to knowledge.

That is a wild imagining, which you cannot substantiate.
Paul said,...

"Brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over another."

1 Corinthians 4:6
That is a good rule, we do well to stick to. Would you not agree?

childeye 2 said:
The extreme speculation is actually the one alluding to Adam knowing that God was not being truthful. That claim is that Adam was not misled by believing the woman who was deceived, but that Adam knew exactly what he was doing when he disobeyed God and began to die. And subsequently, it is said that Adam is seen blaming Eve. As I see it, that's all a mischaracterization of the events because God Himself verifies both Adam's and Eve's account that she was beguiled, and in a state of being beguiled, and that she persuaded her husband into eating the fruit.

Paul confirmed that Eve was deceived, and Adam was not. 1 Timothy 2:14
I don't see why you are having a problem accepting that.
Would you like that scripture to say something else... What would you rather it said?

childeye 2 said:
I can agree we are speculating about what exactly happened when Adam was listening to Eve,

We? That would be you. Not we.

childeye 2 said:
and I can agree with the descriptions of the terms willful act and deceived.

You "can agree with the descriptions of the terms willful act and deceived."?
So, you agree Adam's sin was willful, and he was not deceived?

childeye 2 said:
This is not accurate. If they mean Adam knew God is a liar, then I don't believe that. If they mean he knew that God commanded him not to eat, then I would not disagree.

Are you saying you disagree with the following...
A willful act refers to an intentional, conscious, and deliberate action carried out with the purpose of achieving a specific result. It is characterized by a voluntary and knowing decision to perform an act or omission that one is aware is prohibited by law or contrary to duty.
Sources 1 2

Deceived :
To be deceived means to be caused to believe something that is not true, often through deliberate misrepresentation, lies, or misleading actions. It involves being misled or tricked, either by someone else's deceitful behavior or by one's own failure to recognize the truth. This can include being misled about facts, being manipulated into a false belief
Sources 1 2 3 4 5

What's not accurate about these?

childeye 2 said:
It's right here Genesis 3:17 -->And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

That says Adam was forced to choose between who to believe, God or the woman?
It does not say that at all. How do you read? It simply says Adam chose to listen to his wife.
Coupled with 1 Timothy2:14 Adam willfully chose to go along with his wife in disobeying God. Not because he was misled or tricked.
That is scripture.
You are rejecting it. Why?

childeye 2 said:
The syntactic markers of God's judgment in Genesis 3:17 show Adam believing Eve's persuasion over and against God's command. Hence it was a circumstance where Adam had to make a choice of who to believe.

No. That is what you believe.
However, let me get you clear before I proceed.
What do you mean by "Adam believing Eve's persuasion"? Pease elaborate as clearly as possible.

childeye 2 said:
The unwanted circumstance implies an antecedent event he did not volunteer for. The phrase "listened to" in Genesis 3:17 denotes that Adam was persuaded by his wife and he ate.

Persuaded, as in... be convinced by argument, or by reasons offered or suggested from reflection, etc.; to cause to believe?

childeye 2 said:
Adam and Eve are shown to be believing God right up until the serpent enters the picture and the serpent is notably described as crafty and subtle. God Himself acknowledges the account that the serpent initiated the chain of events through introducing a lie presented to two male female images of God, both pure without fault in a state of innocence. The lie was slander against God, and it was delivered through subtlety.

You are saying Adam was deceived by Satan, or his wife?
Also where did you read that Adam and Eve are shown to be believing God right up until the serpent enters the picture, and how does that prevent having a choice to go contrary, and acting on it?

childeye 2 said:
God specifically told Adam Not to eat. Obviously, when I say Adam was forced to choose who to believe, it acknowledges that. None of these scriptures say Adam willfully disobeyed God.

You are saying that Adam's action was not intentional, conscious, and deliberate action carried out with the purpose of achieving a specific result?

childeye 2 said:
Simple, since Adam didn't eat of it before the incident with the serpent and Eve, it infers he was believing that God was protecting them from a fruit that would bring death to him and his wife.

An inference. Okay.

childeye 2 said:
If he deliberately wanted to disobey God and eat, he would have already done so. It's like a judge will use one's record to show a pattern or an isolated incident.

He deliberately disobeyed God and ate. Did he not.
He was not deceived into eating.
So, at some point... when his wife disobeyed, Adam disobeyed... doing so of his own accord.
That is the point. Adam acted of his own free will.

What you are arguing currently does not change the fact that Adam made a decision - a choice that was unforced... a willful and deliberate decision to side with his wife who disobeyed God.
Let's refocus on the topic.

childeye 2 said:
By "one's own accord" implies by "one's own initiative". The actual initiative is God's Love based command to obey. Human initiative is typically considered a responsive disposition, not the origin. I do know that Adam's disposition obeyed God right up until the incident with the serpent and Eve.

I do not understand anything you said here. What you are saying here sound garbled.
Can you please quote a reference that says what you are trying to say.
I would make more sense of that. Thanks.

childeye 2 said:
Then I will say no and the reason why is because there are scriptures that denote God had a plan from the beginning such as “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Such scriptures show God’s plan of salvation was set before Adam’s fall and subsequently they indicate Adam could not have altered the events.

Many people have this view. However, if one misunderstands that expression, it can be understood why they would have such a view.
That is a topic for another thread.
If you want to discuss it, start a new thread, in response to this.
I'm not discussing that here.

Perpetual Student · 2025-11-09T01:03:59-0600

Landon Caeli said:
You really don't get it?

What do I really don't get? Please be clear.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-09T00:52:52-0600

Perpetual Student said:
What is your point exactly?

For lying to the public? Yes.

Yes, and what is the problem with that, except that it is still too little?

You really don't get it?

stevevw · 2025-11-09T00:50:07-0600

sjastro said:
Why should @Warden_of_the_Storm apologise for stating the obvious, this is a bona fide pseudoscience thread.

I was not saying he can't call out pseudoscience but that his claim was false that absolutely everything is pseudoscience. The simple fact I posted peer review science articles disproves this obvious misrepresentation.

Plus I have not made any crazy claims lol. I have basically tried to support things with reasoning and facts. When I says a signature looks like machining or med tech I am not saying it was caused by aliens or magic and am trying to argue a reasonable hypothesis based on the signatures.

In fact you are doing the same. Everyone is doing the same when they claimn the traditional methods.

sjastro said:
The only debatable aspect now in this thread which has outlived its relevance by a considerable margin is whether you are that stupid, disingenuous or somewhere in between.

Yet you show no evidence for the stupid or disingenous. How is it when I actually provide a rational. Is that rational stupid. If so then argue its stupid instead of just objecting.

sjastro said:
Your MO is to ignore inconvenient facts which contradict your nonsense and double down as if the facts never existed.

Thats calling the kettlle black lol.

sjastro said:
Other contributors have also effectively repudiated your nonsense only to be subjected to the same MO.

Here we go again with name calling.

sjastro said:
I will use my posts to summarize why this thread should have ended long ago and its ongoing existence is based on beating a dead horse.

If it should have ended long ago then why are you still here. Is it to save the stupid people. Leave if you don't like it. I think I said this a couple of times before and your still here lol. You must like it lol.

sjastro said:
The vase sub thread should have ended when you and your so called experts failed to take into consideration the actual capabilities of modern technology into producing granite vases.

Failure to consider what modern tech. The whole vase thing was relegated to whacko from the very first posts. The whole thread was already in the dust bin by skeptcs from the first few pages before I even began lol. We see the bias from the start as though even before anyone said anything it was already decided.

I mean some were resisting that even a lathe was used and insisted on unguided hand made. But then even they admitted a lathe must have been used. So I did convince some lol. How do we know other signatures are not the same.

I think even you admitted that a circular saw cut looked like a modern cut and must have been a fake that was done in modern times. Did you not. Which means you also seen the same modern looking signatuires as me. How am I wrong for doing this and yet everyone else is doing it.

Why do so many people agree with me that the signatures look machined or that they don't match the claimed traditional methods. From Petrie to todays engineers, archeologists and stone masons all agreeing. Are we all whacko.

sjastro said:
When this was taken into account the odd scans using recognized metrology software shows the vases are nowhere near levels obtained by modern lathes.

This is a strawman. I never said they were caused or made by modern lathes. I said the signatures looked like modern lathing and machining.

I even said several times it would be rediculous to say that there was some modern machines and computers lying around in ancient sites. They could never be lost as they would be so big and have lots of parts.

sjastro said:
Then there is the issue of the provenance of the vases….

Here we go again lol.

sjastro said:
Despite this you continue to blow your trumpet about the amazing circularity and symmetry of vases based on amateur metrology software which tells you nothing about cylindricity or surface deviations which are the key parameters to determine if vases were made on modern lathes. Recognized metrology software having this capability revealed vases were not made on modern lathes yet your argument is to simply ignore this inconvenient fact.

Hum yet one group used the standard industry software in the Dunn and Sierra testing.

But tell me I have two opinions here. You claim that the tests were not proper and could not determine whether it was lathed somehow by circularity and concentricity. Then why do all these independent groups of testers all say the same thing. That at least in some of the vases the high levels of circularity for example was the result of turning, rotating and lathing the vase.

Why should I believe a sole person on a social media sight over several independent groups who actually did the testing. Why is it that even people on this thread admit that lathing was involved.

sjastro said:
The other sub-thread on the cutting of granite should have ended when you failed to answer why Khufu’s unfinished sarcophagus ended up the way it did if circular saws were used resulting in a machine finished surface with indications of a circular striations. The plaster cast on the unfinished surface revealing straight striations and a variable kerf is a clear signature of straight saw abrasion cutting and was one piece of evidence in formulating the theory of this cutting method.
As usual your response was to ignore the evidence and carry on as usual.

Actually if you recall my response was that if you are using such logic (that signatures such as strirations that look or point to a giant copper saw).

Then the same logic will apply to the many other signatures I showed you that 'don't look like or point to a copper saw but machining'. You conviently ignore all this and select out one you think proves your case and then make it everything. Make it negate all the contradictory signatures that point to machining and not a giant copper saw.

sjastro said:
On those rare occasions when you put your foot in your mouth where even by your standards ignoring the facts is unsatisfactory, a spin story based on lies becomes a necessity.

How exactly have I dont this. Tell me. I have done exactly what you are doing. Looking at the signatures and making determinations on that.

sjastro said:
When you inadvertently dropped the line of obelisks being produced in the 18th dynasty with simple tools it contradicted your conspiracy theory of 18th dynasty obelisks being forgeries as they were constructed with superior Old Kingdom technology.

I actually said that at least some of the obelisks in later dynasties like the 18th dynasty are from earlier dynasties. I linked evidence for this in how Ramses II stamped his name on earlier works. Or by the different sigantures that match old kingdom obelisks.

I then said in response to your objection that this does not discount that later dynasties had advanced knowledge and tech. WE see it all through history. How does this negate that the earliest works show advanced knowledge and tech. How does this even negate the ancients having advanced tech and knowledge at any period before the tech and knowledge was available. Your creating a red herring.

sjastro said:
A spin story based on lies that Old Kingdom obelisks which were made out of granite and were larger and more intricately detailed than 18th dynasty obelisks when the archaeological evidence shows the exact opposite.

But thats based on the assumption that these obelisks were made in the later dynasties. I provided evidence that early obelisks were inherited by later dynasties.

But so what. All this does is show that the Egyptians had the advanced knowledge and tech from the earliest dynasties and it was still going in later dynasties. The point is its the earliest dynasties had the tech and knowledge to produce better works 1,000 years before this.

sjastro said:
Your spin story turned out to having more holes than the original conspiracy theory.

Having some holes does not make it a conspiracy. It just means some things need correcting. Your throwing the baby out with the bath water by coming up with specific examples that don't match the timeline and then claiming the whole things conspiracy.

You still have no address many obvious signatures that show advanced knowledge and tech. So its nowhere near any big claims about conspiracy.

sjastro said:
Then there is the spin story of lathe produced granite vases predating the Naqada period to address the discrepancy of the use of knapped tools in this period.
When one of your so called experts puts out a document of high precision granite vases from the Naqada period which you have cited on numerous occasions is not only contradictory but raises the question at the start of my post whether this is an example of incompetence or disingenuous behaviour.

As I said your making a logical fallacy that because the knapped flint tools and the precision vases existed in the same culture that 1) the same culture made them 2) they could have been inherited like Djoser inherited them later 3) that both methods were happening at the same time. We see this today where we have both CNC and hand made vases being made still.

I also pointed out that its strange these vases exist in such a Neolithic culture where everything about them is primitive. They made pottery by the coil method. They did not even have the potters wheel. Yet according to archeologists these high circular vases came from the same people. A contradiction in the records.

I also pointed this fact out when you produced the primitive made knapped knife and tools. If a culture is capable of making such high precision vases in the hardest stones, Then why are their tools so primitive. Primitive tools make primitive vases.

Which then throws a big spanner in the orthodox narrative. But its not me who is admitting this. Its the mainstream archeologists. We see the signatures from later tech in the wheel and borestick on the walls and reliefs. The vases are not as precise.

How can a more precise vase come from a time when they made primitive flint tools by knapping. Yet produce better vases than those that came 1,000s of years later with supposed better tech and knowledge. Its a definite out of place artifact.

sjastro said:
This pseudoscience thread should be allowed to die a natural death.

Your welcome to leave anytime. But your still hear loving every minute of it lol.

RandyPNW · 2025-11-09T00:44:09-0600

johansen said:
had an interesting thought come to mind when i read that.

"I spoke only to my own"

Certainly during the OT era, in which Jesus ministered, he was speaking only to the Jewish People. But he certainly knew that this earthly ministry would be transfered over to the Roman nation and to the nations that would issue from it. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God would be taken from Israel and given to a nation that would be worthy of it--certainly more worthy of it than Israel had become.

7thKeeper · 2025-11-09T00:42:59-0600

Sportsballfan said:
View attachment 372929

RandyPNW · 2025-11-09T00:40:57-0600

Truth7t7 said:
The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD, Matthew 24:21 the great tribulation, these are future events unfulfilled

Yes, lots of Christians hold to this "futurist" interpretation. I do not because of the direct relationship I see between Dan 9.26-27 and Luke 21.20.

The very thing described in Matthew and Mark as the AoD Luke identifies as the Roman Army of Jesus' time. That would begin a period of "Great Tribulation" for the Jewish People, lasting from the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD up until the end of the NT age.

For most Jews this "tribulation" began as judgment for their rejection of Christ's teaching. They would lose their land, their homes, and their temple worship.

For believing Jews it was similarly a tribulation in which they would lose their homes and land, but not due to their rejection of Christ. Rather, Jesus addressed his disciples to encourage them to brave the trouble brought upon them by their Jewish unbelieving brethren.

They were encouraged to maintain the testimony of God's grace to all, Jew and Gentile, even in the face of their persecution and rejection. And this has been the lot of Jewish believers from that time to this. It was made to be a model for believers from all nations who would have to endure similar things in their own nations.

FaithT · 2025-11-09T00:38:06-0600

Michie said:
In an age where comfort is idolized and suffering is to be avoided at all costs, the Catholic crucifix remains a bold proclamation: We preach Christ crucified(1 Cor. 1:23). For many Catholics, the choice to display and venerate a crucifix—rather than a plain cross or a resurrected Christ figure—is not merely a matter of preference. It is a theological statement rooted in the heart of the Church’s liturgical and devotional life.

While the Church emphasizes the crucifix in her liturgy, it’s important to acknowledge that some people are drawn to crosses that depict the Risen Lord in glory. This image can serve as a beautiful reminder that the story does not end at Calvary. Even so, I believe there is a compelling case to be made for crucifixes that portray Christ crucified.

DO NOT EMPTY THE CROSS OF ITS POWER.

St. Paul powerfully exhorts the early Church in Corinth, “We preach Christ crucified…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23–24). Earlier in the same chapter, he warns, “Do not allow the cross to be emptied of its power” (v. 17). These words stand in stark contrast to more sanitized or sentimentalized versions of Christian imagery. The crucifix, with the suffering body of Christ nailed to the wood, refuses to let us forget the cost of our redemption.

Continued below.

Crucifixes Should Display Christ Crucified, Not Resurrected - Catholic Exchange

Discover why the Church insists on displaying Christ on the crucifix—not a plain cross—as a sign of the true power of redemption.

catholicexchange.com

I always wear a necklace with either a crucifix or a plain cross. Sometimes I just like wearing a plain cross for its simplicity. Is that wrong?

HARK! · 2025-11-09T00:36:09-0600

Soyeong said:
Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, which is one of the Ten Commandments, so your claim is demonstrably false.

That is one of my favorite examples of where we see Yah's eternal Torah being observed before Moses.

There are many such examples.

In the beginning was the word.

Perpetual Student · 2025-11-09T00:22:50-0600

Landon Caeli said:
How many biologist and green jobs have been created out of thin air?

What is your point exactly?

And you want to point fingers at climate change deniers and the fossil fuel industry?

For lying to the public? Yes.

Trillions of dollars worth of federal tax money has been distributed all across the country for green energy.

Yes, and what is the problem with that, except that it is still too little?

9Rock9 · 2025-11-09T00:17:41-0600

Fervent said:
It's funny how different paths come to similar conclusions. For me, I've never concerned myself with being orthodox though I didn't want to invent beliefs whole cloth. In the end, I found myself in agreement with a lot of EO doctrine regarding soteriology, the role of tradition and Scripture, and other key issues...but find the mytho-history position compelling(and fits nicely with an iconic/canonical view of Scripture) largely from drawing on a variety of unnamed sources. So to be in agreement with someone who is staunchly reformed is interesting to me.

I've always admired Orthodox Christianity. I find the mystery and mysticism appealing. However, I am still a staunch Protestant in some of my convictions like sola scriptura and justification by faith alone.

I find the Orthodox view of the afterlife intriguing, but idk enough about it to actually have an opinion on it either way.

I always figured I'd make a good monk, but that's not really a thing in evangelical Protestantism.

I guess I'd describe myself as Evangelical in beliefs, but prefer Eastern styles and aesthetics.

FaithT · 2025-11-09T00:16:06-0600

Michie said:
No need to be sorry LB. I get it. There just comes a point in time where we have to just go with the honor system. Be assured that the Lord knows. I’m one of those people that won’t take communion because I do not want to heap anymore condemnation on my head. I know there are a lot of Catholics that may not even be aware of that.

My friends’ husband never goes up to Communion because for some reason he won’t go to Confession.

NxNW · 2025-11-09T00:01:02-0600

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Do you believe that if the United States reduces its military spending, US adversary such as China, Russia, or Iran will also decrease their military capabilities?

Irrelevant.

.Mikha'el. · 2025-11-08T23:57:46-0600

I am watching a History channel series called Truthseekers. This episode is about Noah's Ark.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-08T23:51:32-0600

rachelrising said:
Well for me in my life I go by (Galatians 3:28) that we are all equal before God, there is no Jew or Greek. God appears passionate about though about trying to call the Israelites which I will support him with, some may wonder why given history how they left him but that is what it looks like in the Bible. I love the lion of Judah really as that represents Jesus and David line roots as well. I find geography interesting, especially how the world was shaped and where my parents descend from. I cannot claim to be an expert on all the other tribes. My parents come from a country with tribes and I am not into them.
I have read that some say that Jesus will not return until more take up the Cross which I find interesting to.

I like Romans 11 and the image of the Olive tree. I have changed it to God's Olive as someone wrote. Some people may want to claim it for themselves though and their own portion.

We're one in Christ and equal before God (heart-to-God), but that doesn't mean there are not still different roles/responsibilities in this life. In Christ master and slave are one, but Paul still exhorts slaves to obey their earthly master, and masters to treat their slaves well and remember they also have a heavenly master. Man/woman are one in Christ but Paul and Peter still emphasise their asymmetric roles towards one another in marriage and in the Church. Being one in Christ does not mean we all have the same station or identical (earthly) obligations in life.

Israel is not an abandoned project by God.

Be blessed!

johansen · 2025-11-08T23:50:27-0600

RandyPNW said:
The account of Jesus in his Olivet Discourse was largely for Israel.

had an interesting thought come to mind when i read that.

"I spoke only to my own"

Truth7t7 · 2025-11-08T23:49:30-0600

Tuur said:
Trump gets something that many miss: Those who voted for him enjoy the discomfort of the Left when he tweaks them and they jump on cue. Those who voted against the other candidate instead of for Trump enjoy it as well. I know an elderly couple who, on election night 2016, stayed up not for the returns but to watch the unhappiness of news anchors reporting the results. That was what they enjoyed seeing. They aren't alone. And that's how various mems about schadenfreude got to be a thing. The Left's not going to like what anyone on the Right does, anyway, whether they troll them or not.

Donald J. Trump could oversee and help find the cure for all cancer and the left would complain about that

I enjoyed watching the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner (Maria Machado From Venezuela), she dedicated the prize to President Trump knowing well he deserved it, showing herself receiving it was a big political disgrace to the deserving recipient Donald J. Trump

Truth7t7 · 2025-11-08T23:38:13-0600

RandyPNW said:
The account of Jesus in his Olivet Discourse was largely for Israel. The judgment was for unbelieving Israelis. The warning of persecution by unbelievers in Israel and abroad was for believing Israelis. But the model of Israel's experience of "tribulation" was an example for the many nations in NT history who would go through similar things.

In passing the Kingdom of God from rebellious Israel to newly-converted Christian nations the same process began in which there was an initial commitment to God's covenant by the people of a nation. Then, over time, there was a cooling off, compromise, and ultimate apostasy, leading to Divine judgment.

Christians are simply given to know that this world is not our home--we are just "passing through." Our reward will be determined by how faithful to God's word we remain in this present life. It will test our resolve, but fidelity to God will be rewarded in eternity.

The Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD, Matthew 24:21 the great tribulation, these are future events unfulfilled

HARK! · 2025-11-08T23:36:04-0600

Hentenza said:
Yep and Israel rejected the messiah so the branches were cut off.

Israel did not, nor does not, reject Messiah. For example Ya`aqov Ha-Tsaddiq, was the earthly leader of Israel after Yahshua had ascended.

johansen · 2025-11-08T23:34:25-0600

i would reply, but i'm not catholic, so, i highly suspect you do not want my opinion.

HARK! · 2025-11-08T23:25:55-0600

Hentenza said:
Are you now into pagan gods?

Of course not! Please refrain from such inflammatory questions.

I study syncretism so that I can better obey the Torah.

Yah tells us not to worship him in the ways of the heathen, such as celebrating Ishtar the fertility goddess, in the spring, instead of Pesach.

Ishtar, Asteroth, and Venus, are all later manifestations of Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod (the sun god), and the mother of Tammuz. She claimed to have come from the moon in and egg (a symbol of fertility); and her son Tammuz (the great hunter, and reincarnation of Nimrod) had an affinity for bunnies (another symbol of fertility.)

Constantine was a sun worshiper until his dying day. His main objective for pushing Christianity was to unite Rome.

I learn to recognize the way of the heathen; so that I can reject it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-11-08T23:25:40-0600

stevevw said:
Ok I don't think I put words in your mouth. I don't think you realise you do it in using extreme and absolute words with your claims. Or other qualifying words like "horrendous" when pointing out something.

We can all add little qualifiers to what we say. Its just a way of trying to make your words sound truer when they are not. Your better off adding reasoning to support your claim. Strong words don't give a false claim any truth.

OK thats good. Rather than all the fallacies. I think this thread has more complaints and fallacies than addressing the content.

This is a silly claim and overused. You don't even accept any evidence remember. You said "nothing in the slightest is true or fact or evidence in what I said". Why even bother with you Warden when notrhing I say means anything.

Your don't listen do you. Why even bother explaining things to you anymore. You never listen and ignore everything and make out is all rubbish. Why bother.

Why is finding the tech going to prove the case. We are going back to something I already explained. If we don't find the gun will that mean no gun was used.

What if the tech is stone softening or weakening. What sort of machine do you think we would find for stone softening or weakening. Is there a massive stone softening machine.

Why do we not see any depiction at all of building the pyramids, making the hard stone vases, or cutting blocks. This is a silly line of arguement.

Why would they find anything. Did the Romans find big ramps or pullies or aqua lifts to build the pyramids. Wheres all the tech for building the pyramids. You would think such a massive project would at least be recorded. But nothing, absolutely nothing is said or shown.

Whats the rudimentary stuff.

This is a fallacious line of arguing. I have already shown that it does not follow that not finding the devices or method means we cann tell what method was used.

You seem to just ignore stuff and repeat the same fallacious arguements that have already been explained.

You cannot be as dense as this to say that, on a thread where people are skeptical of all of what you suppose to be evidence and dispute what you claim, that asking for the actual tools you claim were used, is a "fallacious line of arguing", nor even asking for evidence from other groups who met the Egyptians.

You talk like you are that dense but I refuse to accept that you could be. Because if so... then what?

Latest activity

Latest activity

DO NOT EMPTY THE CROSS OF ITS POWER.​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

DO NOT EMPTY THE CROSS OF ITS POWER.