New Posts

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-04T23:52:28-0500

ThatRobGuy said:
It's weird how people can be respected academics for 2 decades with no issues, but as soon as they take the "wrong position" on 2 issues, all of the sudden they should be relegated to "performative reactionaries"

I'm sure that's what was going through Bret Weinstein's mind... "I'm going to throw away a $300k (guaranteed for life) tenured professor position after almost two decades, in hopes that I'll be able to be a guest on some podcasts some day"

Let's be honest here... When he was regularly refuting religious claims about creationism, not a single liberal had a problem with him. It was considered "speaking truth to power... if it offends someone, oh well". The moment he objected to a day of absence initiative in which White professors and students were encouraged to not show up for a day, that's when he found himself in progressive crosshairs.

In March 2017, Weinstein wrote a letter to faculty in which he objected to a suggestion pertaining to the college's decades-old tradition of observing a "Day of Absence", during which ethnic minority students and faculty would voluntarily stay away from campus to highlight their contributions to the college. An administrator had suggested that for that year white people stay off campus, and were invited to attend an off-campus program on race issues. Weinstein wrote that the change established a dangerous precedent:

Had that not happened, he'd still have been a golden boy of the progressives...at least until 2020, when he said some other things about vaccine mandates that got them bent out of shape.

If I found the right guy on Scopus (correct name and affiliation? Bret S Weinstein and Evergreen State College), he has a h-index of 2. That makes him an academic nobody, not a respected academic. How do you separate professor (the highest academic rank) with professor as basically a teacher, in the US? Because there must be some subtext I'm missing here.

Bradskii · 2025-10-04T23:50:32-0500

zippy2006 said:
At the depths of this lies the fact that Kirk's positions were in no way beyond the Overton window for American discourse. That's why the violence is so problematic, and why it is in danger of spreading. Nutty liberals like @Bradskii are artificially tinkering with the Overton window in a very devious manner.

No-one has any control over the Overton window. It's just a reflection of societies views. Subjects and matters that reflect the values of society. And there's no doubt that society has become more liberal over the years. Gay marriage would be a good example. Time was when you'd keep the fact that you were gay a secret. Now we have people in political high office married to people of the same gender. It's like...no big deal. Women in the workplace is another. At one point it would be surprising that a woman wasn't at home looking after the kids and cooking dinner. Now it's entirely normal.

Kirk was on the far right. And the way he expressed his views meant that a lot of people that would not normally involve themselves in some matters - like gay marriage for example, found his views distasteful, so the window moved and gay marriages became nothing out of the ordinary for a lot of people. Close to 2/3 of Americans now have no problem with it. And that figure is rising. Except for Republicans, where not much more than one third have no problem.

Point being that to stay valid, Kirk had to move further to the right. It's a bit late in the day to argue what's already within the Overton window. That's where society is at the time. So he started preaching to the choir on the far right. Which I'm fine with, personally speaking. Society will react as they did with gay marriage and we'll move gradually to a more liberal society and Kirk's choir will keep on shrinking.

Guojing · 2025-10-04T23:40:37-0500

Abraham1st said:
Including very much, all things done by ritual and law and not by faith or righteousness.

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Mathew 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

So have you obeyed Luke 12:33?

Aaron112 · 2025-10-04T23:36:12-0500

johansen said:
Depending on how you interpret it, only those who had been baptized by john, were able to hear Jesus..
Luke 7:30

yet the small number (few) gentiles to whom the messenger of God was sent accepted the good news of Jesus before they were immersed in His Name.

Aaron112 · 2025-10-04T23:35:01-0500

tdidymas said:
I'm trying to get a handle on what the scripture actually states about the issue.

for review: infants are unclean if neither of their parents is redeemed.

Postvieww · 2025-10-04T23:32:06-0500

Bradskii said:
You really must make an effort to stop believing all the lies that you are told.

Are you sure you are getting accurate information way over there? It sure does not appear that you are.

linux.poet · 2025-10-04T23:27:35-0500

Welcome to CF!

I wish you all the best on your authorship journey, and I hope your path is less meandering than mine has been. You're welcome to message me any time you want to talk shop, and The Writer's Guild subforum welcomes you as well. Stay sharp.

Fervent · 2025-10-04T23:26:33-0500

This is something I've put quite a bit of thought into, and I think it takes having been exposed to the hyper-evangelistic protestant churches that objectify non-Christians by calling them things like "mission fields" and similar dehumanizing terms to appreciate. There is definitely a fine line between reaching out and sharing the gospel and reducing people to objects while lionizing oneself as bringing them salvation. In the case you're discussing, it doesn't necessarily seem to be much to indicate that is the case, but its not out of the realm of possibilities.

Servus · 2025-10-04T23:26:07-0500

BPPLEE said:
If reports are true they are abusing their authority, but I also know how people exaggerate and lie about law enforcement actions so I am not so quick to condemn them

It's always been 'nazi gestapo harassing and kidnapping citizens'.

zippy2006 · 2025-10-04T23:22:48-0500

Bradskii said:
So if I add context you don't like the answer? That makes no sense.

If I ask you the question, "Do you think cars should be outlawed," and you answer by saying, "I think Toyota Camrys should be outlawed," then you have not answered my question.

Bradskii said:
There is no act possible without there being some context.

Then your definition of "absolute morality" is entirely otiose. It is not logically possible for anyone to be a moral absolutist, given your definition. That's why it's such a dumb term. It is a bogeyman term, through and through.

Bradskii said:
See post 196. I'm quite happy with that definition.

Post 196 doesn't exist yet.

Bradskii said:
And I had a poke around for 'non absolutism'

Non-X means something that is not X.

Bradskii said:
How that is not relativism is beyond me.

So you've cooked up a definition of "moral absolutism" whereby everyone must be a moral relativist. Again:

zippy2006 said:
It's just a way to declare victory without having to do anything.

The first rule of discourse is that if you've cooked up a concept that is impossible for anyone to hold, then you have cooked up a monster strawman.

linux.poet · 2025-10-04T23:21:40-0500

AMBASSADOR HAT

Welcome to CF!

Please post in English in the future, as per this rule:

Language

You may post quotes or statements in languages other than English, but an accompanying translation in English must be provided.

Thanks!

AMBASSADOR HAT OFF

Richard T · 2025-10-04T23:20:46-0500

Michie said:
While the country keeps a wary eye on the latest spectacle on Capitol Hill, some D.C. establishments are trying to have a little fun with the government shutdown.

On Wednesday, a local restaurant called Butterworth’s tried to lighten the mood by offering a themed drink menu, including a “furlough-rita” and a “continuing rye-solution.” It’s one of the few bright spots in an otherwise tense standoff that shows no signs of ending.

For minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), it’s a tricky spot to be in. Not only is the hypocrisy aspect dogging Democrats (Speaker Mike Johnson’s X feed has Democrat leaders on a loop decrying the stupidity of shutdowns), but no one is quite sure what Democrats expect to gain by grinding the government to a halt. Even the few brownie points Schumer might gain from supposedly “standing up to Donald Trump” are crumbs compared to the buzzsaw of public opinion, which even the liberals at The New York Times polled as bad news for the minority.

There was no sugar-coating it for the Left in the Gray Lady, which found that a full 65% of Americans objected to Democrats moving forward with a government shutdown. In “a further dagger” to the heart of Schumer’s party, even his own base is surprisingly split (47% for, 43% against).

Continued below.

Democrats Box Themselves into a Shutdown America Blames Them for

For Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), it's a tricky spot to be in. Not only is the hypocrisy aspect dogging Democrats (Speaker Mike Johnson's X feed has D

washingtonstand.com

The Federal government debt ceiling has been raised 77 times since 1960. 65 years of increasing the debt limit, yet not a single instance of lowering it or keeping to the same for very long by both Democrats and Republicans. Seems like you are painting the democrats with a "broad brush." when Clinton was the last President with a surplus.

Isaac the Recluse · 2025-10-04T23:15:29-0500

Let's uplift new Christians here.

PLIFT

bbbbbbb · 2025-10-04T23:13:28-0500

doctrine debate

GodDoesListen55 · 2025-10-04T23:00:07-0500

Quince Cake.

Shane R · 2025-10-04T22:57:34-0500

My worst day after surgery.

It took 4 attempts to totally remove the marker lines that were drawn on me. I was wearing a Reds jersey that day since they were trying to qualify for the baseball playoffs.

Philip_B · 2025-10-04T22:43:19-0500

In fairness, Left and Right doesn't mean very much these days. It is better to stay on issues. It is a shame because I loose one of my favourite sayings - Oh they are so far right you have wait for sunset to see them!

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-04T22:42:15-0500

stevevw said:
I don't think I ever said that or meant that in the first place. So to me you are arguing a strawman.

I'm sorry but to me it's madness to try to argue for some new manufacturing technique based on measurements on vases with bad provenance.

stevevw said:
To the mainstream consensus the vases are made by the orthodox method which is the 'Boring bar', pounding, chiseling and rubbing. Its not the provedence thats the issue but the method claimed. Thats why the experiments are done to show that these hard stone vases can be made by the traditional method which is still in use today.

View attachment 371083

The provedence issue is itself an issue used to refute the ancient advanced tech and knowledge by saying that these are fake. That any claim or evidence of modern signatures in vases must be a modern forgery because such tech could not have been available back then.

It's an obvious objection!

stevevw said:
But thats a seperate issue to double standards. It is in a way a double standard in that the whole 'Fakery' narrative is exaggerated and used to refute even vases with good provedence.

Or to assume that they are fakes when its actually 'unknown' and any fair assessment would be neutral. In fact would probably lean towards authentic for arguements already given. Which is the fact that no one was worrying about such micro precision back then and therefore it would not have been necessary.

The fair way is to exclude them from the analysis.

stevevw said:
But the double standards are generally applied. As mentioned skeptics allow sub standards for support and its ok. But those proposing past advanced knowledge must jump through hoops.

I don't know what you mean by 'pretty good'. It sort of is implying that handmade or tradition is as good as the precision vases. A bit vague. Olga used a potters wheel and thats the point. She used modern tech to help achieve a better result in the vase. Which reallly proves the point that these precision vases needed even more modern tech to achieve there even higher precision lol.

The article you provided below argue for the use of turning devices, and that's all that is needed when doing what Olga did (marking the parts that stick out).

stevevw said:
It states in the Maximus article that the 'Scientists against Myths' for which Olga was part of aim was to show how the traditional methos could achieve the precision hard stone vases. Its in the name of their group lol. They believe they are scientists who are refuting the idea of advanced ancient tech by making Egyptian artifacts in the traditional way.

Slipping in a rotating wheel stablised with ball bearings is introducing modern tech. The very tech (lathing) that the Naqada people nor the Egyptians as per wall paintings (bore-stick method) have.

I get what you mean but Peer Review does not guarentee good science is being done.

Perhaps not but in general it increases the quality of the science. And without peer review it's just someone's best guesses.

stevevw said:
Science as in the metrology done on vases is lab testing with equipment. Numbers don't lie. You can watch the live tests of them measuring the vase right before your eyes lol. You don't need peer review to tell you about the data. You do need it replicated though and thats whats happening. Thats good science.

Taking measurements is not science in and of itself. Not to be confused with the science of measuring.

stevevw said:
Yes but if your going to make this criteria then it has to be applied even handedly. The skeptics use their own words and analysis without Peer review and just say it off their own authority as thopugh fact to refute anything linked as evidence from third parties. At least I am linking independent sources as support.

Only because there are no scientific articles to argue against, it's all conjecture at this point.

stevevw said:
In that sense I would expect peer reviewed papers breaking down how the traditional methods can achieve such precision. Or papers refuting that there was advanced ancient tech. Same thing. But not just some objection made by someone without any support. As has been happening. Therefore the double standards. At least I am trying lol.

There are no double standards, the artifact foundation and Maximus Energy can try to get their findings published just like anybody else.

stevevw said:
Thats why I mentioned that this is ongoing because it may not be up to the point where repeated metrology in specific methods or all methods have been done yet. I think other testers have used the same 3D CT scanning. From memory Adam Young and Matt Beall have sent vases to places like ZEISS who have scanned some. I am pretty sure UnchartedX has 3D scans on their vase resources.

Here is the paper.
I was able to obtain high-quality 3D CAT scans of 22 stone vessels purportedly of ancient Egyptian origin from Matt Beall’s collection – Fig. 1.

https://maximus.energy/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Precision-and-Classification-of-Predynastic-Egyptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf

Here are the tests from Károly Póka research team.

It's a podcast, they should write a manuscript and get it published

stevevw said:
We brought a micron-accurate 3D scanner into the Petrie Museum to examine Egypt’s oldest stone vases

Ancient Technology Podcast with Karoly Poka | Ancient Technology

Join electrical engineer Karoly on the Ancient Technology Podcast as he delves into lost ancient technologies, cultures, and mysteries. Listen on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcast.

karolypoka.com

Heres 3D scanning of Pottery rather than the precision stone vases for comparison which destinguishes the difference in signatures between handmade and ones turned on a wheel or lathe.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X21002017

The word lathe does not appear in the article, but they do argue that a turntable might have been used. I don't have a problem that a turntable might have been used. It's the claims about ancient technology and lost knowledge that are unsubstantiated.

stevevw said:
But heres the thing. 3D CT scanning is just a more accurate metrology to other 3D light scanning like structured light, lazer and Xray. Its just a matter of how precise the measures go down to. But the other methods are reliable and still get down to the micron level. They are still repeating the precision found in the vases.

Even the guage metrology is repeating the precision. All methods find the same precision.

So which measure of quality have they landed on? Maximus Energys or the one used by the Artifact foundation? Neither one of them can be performed with gauges.

Richard T · 2025-10-04T22:33:56-0500

Pommer said:
I dunno, highly training a team of dedicated professional soldiers to do operations but without killing anyone (should things not go according to plan), seems wildly optimistic.

Your probably right. I wonder though why they did not have radar or something so that they would not stumble on a boat in the first place?

zippy2006 · 2025-10-04T22:30:11-0500

ViaCrucis said:
That'd depend on who you spoke to.

In fact the word has a significantly different semantic range in our two different cultures, which is why your objection to the OP is so poor. If we used the word 'god' the same way St. Paul used the word 'god' (theos) 2,000 years ago your objection would hold. But we don't.

Dan1988 · 2025-10-04T22:17:09-0500

fhansen said:
This only means that the elect will persevere, which is redundant since of course the elect will make it into heaven. But we cannot predict our perseverance with absolute certainty, the quality of our own soil. Again, there will be some who thought they were His, but who were not.

Of course they exist-that's one aspect of what becoming a new creation means. Now with God, man can do what he could not do apart from Him. The purpose of the gospel is to restore friendship and union between man and God, and that union is the basis and source of man's authentic righteousness. Man fails, he falls into unrighteouness, injustice, when he attempts to go it alone, IOW, as Adam did, and this world has the purpose of helping us come to learn that very fact-so we'll begin coveting more, finally "coveting" God as we come to know Him via His revelation and grace, instead of all the other lesser, created things that we covet above Him in this world while seeking a happiness and fulfillment and satisfaction that cannot come to us apart from Him.

You want the Fall to be all or nothing. It is “all” in the sense that man cannot possibly lift himself up to God, or fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. This is so because man is also characterized as being lost-separated from God- which is the meaning of his being dead and in need of being reborn. But it’s not “all” in the sense that man can do nothing, even if that only means saying “no”. Again, there’s no reason for God to even send man into this godless world, patiently working with Him throughout the centuries, through those whom He chose, to ultimately prepare man for the advent of His Son if He’s only going to now say, "Never mind, I’ll just do it all for you now, with some going to heaven and some to hell as the result of my determination. We’re here to learn, with the help of experience and grace, just why we need God, so that we may choose.

I get the sense that your interpretation of the gospel, is the (God + man's effort) version. But that's not the one I find in my bible.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".

This verse confirms that salvation is a divine gift, but many think that they conjured up their own faith before they heard the gospel. So according to their interpretation of the gospel, salvation is achieved by combining Gods grace with their own faith. I take it you also believe that interpretation.

Philippians 1:29 "For it has been granted to you to believe in Christ, not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for Him".

This verse confirms that belief/faith is also a gift, and it's not of yourself, lest anyone should boast. So, if both grace and faith are gifts which Gods gives to those whom He chose, where does mans will or choice fit into the equation.

I also get the sense that you believe that those who chose to follow Jesus, have added Him to their life. But the gospel doesn't support this view, because it conveys is about dying to self and being made alive in Christ.
We don't just invite Jesus to be our life coach or spiritual guru, the gospel describes a total transformation. Where the old man dies and all things are made new.

Salvation is dependant on anything we do or don't do, it's wholly dependant on what Christ did on thew cross. So the deal was signed sealed and delivered back then. But God had already chosen those He was to save, before he created the earth.
We don't need to concern ourselves with why God chose some for salvation and left others condemned in their sin. God never told us why, so I assume He doesn't want us to know whom He has chosen.
We can only know if we ourselves are chosen, but we can't be sure about anyone else. So, only you and God know if you are saved.

I know that I'm saved, because the Lord doesn't lie. He said nobody can snatch them out of My Fathers hand. If your salvation depends on your own faith and ability to remain faithful to the end, then there is every chance you will fail. But if your salvation is dependant on the Lord, then you can be sure He will never fail you.

John 10:28-29 "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand".

Romans 8:38-39 "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord".

Philippians 1:6 "being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus"

New Posts

New Posts

AMBASSADOR HAT​

Language​

AMBASSADOR HAT OFF​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

AMBASSADOR HAT

Language

AMBASSADOR HAT OFF