stevevw said:

You do this a lott. You pick out one aspect and ignore the rest. Between those links they clear state that this is a science wide problem and not just within the medical sector. So you are making a strawman and misrepresentation of what the articles are actually saying.

Click to expand...

If the problem is especially bad in archaeology it should have been relatively easy to provide a link which show this.

stevevw said:

Another fallacy and thats why I don't like debating you. You tend to throw in these personal jibes that is completely unnecessary. This is proving my point exactly that skeptics immediately and automatically equate everything said as conspiracy and psuedoscience.

Click to expand...

What has this got to do with equating your nonsense with Erik Von Daniken's book?
If you haven't read the book then stop making stupid personal based opinions trying to pass them off as facts.
Alternatively if you have read the book explain why it's conclusion of aliens being the cause is less valid than the use of transcendental knowledge which also produced zero evidence.

stevevw said:

Do you mean like you just literally did lol. You cheery picked the one article on bias in peer review that mentions the medical sector to make out that this was only about the medical sector.

Click to expand...

Anyone with a half a brain would not use two examples of peer review issues in medicine as an example of a problem in archaeology.

stevevw said:

Just just equated everything I said as quack and offered no evidence. But even so just dismissing it all as conspiracy is itself a disqualifier. Thus your arguements are from personal incredulity and ignorance because you have obviously ignore most of what is said and you know it.

Your doing it again. Assuming that what I have said is conspiracy or quack. What have I said that is not within the scope of todays sciences.

Click to expand...

What hope do you have in being able to put forward a coherent argument when you do not understand the meaning of words like conspiracy?
This is the very argument from ignorance you constantly engage in and project on others.

stevevw said:

Don't confuse the spectualtion in trying to workout how the ancients gained their knowledge through their experiences and beliefs with science.

Lets establish a basis as to where you draw the line. It seems you do not believe in anything but empiricle science as to what is knowledge of the world and reality. Is that right.

So therefore any spectualtion about transcedent knowledge such as through cultural beliefs or direct conscious experiences is unreal and but rather make believe. Is that right.

Where have I lies. Or is this lie concocted based on the many strawmen you have created and attributed to me.

Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish, you have turned this thread into a lie fest by deliberately ignoring every of piece of counter evidence given and then claiming no such evidence exists. It's called lying by omission.
As result your lies a more than a distraction they completely undermine your efforts in putting forward a coherent argument in defending what is basically pseudoscience.

stevevw said:

Another logical fallacy. This time an either/or ie criticising Hawass or peer review means attacking science and archeology altogether. It does not follow.

It is well known that Hawss holding a lot of power and authority has used his position to control the information coming out. It is well know that there is bias and gatekeeping.

It seems reasonable in a debate about the insistence of using specific gatekeeping rules that the credibility of such is brought up. Its rather hypocritical considering I have spent most of this thread having to defend the sources I have linked. Another example and red flag of bias.

Click to expand...

This is another example of lying, since you were unable to provide a single example of unethical peer review in archaeology, you decide to discredit the entire field on the behaviour of a single individual.
Whether the individual is actually guilty of your accusations is another story.

This thread is not about you having to defend your sources but your disgraceful level of dishonesty in having to make a point.

What

BCP1928 said:

I hope the people at NOAA have their resumes up to date,

Click to expand...

What is it, like 4 people after the mass firings?

Valletta said:

"Federal agents were forced to deploy pepper spray and other crowd control measures after a sizable mob of Somali and far-left rioters surrounded them as they conducted deportation operations in Minneapolis on Tuesday."

WATCH: Feds Clash With Somali Rioters In Minneapolis

Federal agents were forced to deploy pepper spray and other crowd control measures after a sizable mob of Somali and far-left rioters surrounded them as they conducted deportation operations in Minneapolis on Tuesday. Immigration agents have increased their presence in the state of Minnesota...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

They were interfering with a federal law enforcement operation, continuing to block access after a lawful order was given.

Click to expand...

I like how the fine journalists @ trendingpoliticsnews polled the crowd to see if the mob was centrist or “far-left”; (we know they’re not right (far or otherwise) because they always like what the government does when there’s a R in the WH).

essentialsaltes said:

House GOP will not allow amendment vote to extend ObamaCare subsidies​

Click to expand...

4 Republicans defy Speaker Johnson to force House vote on extending ACA subsidies​

Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Robert Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie, all from Pennsylvania, and Mike Lawler of New York signed on Wednesday morning, pushing it to the magic number.

[Vote could come in January.]

ThatRobGuy said:

What are people actually expecting?

What? Do they think that there's some magical number of outrage threads that'll finally turn people? "Boy, this one more brick up on the Trump bad wall could be the one that finally gets them to see the error of their ways and bow to our will"

Click to expand...

When the outrages and illegalities continue on a daily basis, would you have everyone stop reacting and just accept the new MAGA world? At least we don't have to manufacture these outrages - they are real and egregious.

ViaCrucis said:

Shoplifting is against the law, and for good reason. And theft is morally wrong.

But if the wealthy are out stealing bags of gold, I'm probably going to be less worried about when a poor mother steals a loaf of bread to feed her kids. Especially if a big reason why her kids are starving and she's poor is because the wealthy are stealing the gold.

Click to expand...

But I can't help but wonder... at what point do I have the right to tell that mother that feeding her children is wrong? That seems like an incredibly presumptuous thing for me to do... to assume that I have the right to judge the actions of someone who's shoes I've never walked in. Perhaps God has that right, but I'm not God.

If there's one thing that I can be sure of, it's my ignorance. So whether it's a mother shoplifting bread to feed her children, or a crackhead shoplifting iPhones to feed his habit, I always try to keep in mind that while I may be able to judge what's legal, I'll never be certain about just how good I am at judging what's moral.

BCP1928 said:

They can't. Cat meat is Haram, forbidden by the Quran as the meat of "fanged beasts of prey." No dogs, either.

Click to expand...

A pet friendly haven.

jas3 said:

Way to let everyone know you didn't actually read the document.

"Yet when thou readest the Law, beware of the Second Legislation, that thou do but read it merely; but the commands and warnings that are therein much avoid, lest thou lead thyself astray and bind thyself with the bonds which may not be loosed of heavy burdens. For this cause therefore, if thou read the Second Legislation, consider this alone, that thou know and glorify God who delivered us from all these bonds."



The Holy Spirit lied to you that the Didascalia Apostolorum teaches the Mosaic Law? I think not.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it's just a bunch of thrown together stuff. I don't have to listen to the whole text to know better. It only took me less than 5 mins on that.

Servus said:

The so called anti-fascists can be said to have their own brand of fascism. Like how they controlled Twitter as one of many examples.

Click to expand...

The so-called abolitionists can be said to have had their own brand of slavery. Like how they tried to enslave southerners into emancipating their slaves

Pam Bondi Dismissed Charges Against a Surgeon Who Falsified Vaccine Cards. It Emboldened Others With Similar Cases.​

Dr. Kirk Moore had been on trial for five days, accused of falsifying COVID-19 vaccination cards and throwing away the government-supplied doses.

The Utah plastic surgeon faced up to 35 years in prison if the jury found him guilty on charges that included conspiracy to defraud the United States. Testimony had paused for the weekend when Moore’s lawyer called him early one Saturday this July with what felt to him like unbelievable news.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi had ordered Utah prosecutors to drop all charges, abruptly ending his two-and-a-half year court battle.

Moore was one of at least 12 health care professionals charged after giving or selling fraudulent COVID-19 vaccine cards since 2021, according to cases identified by The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica through government news releases and media clips. Those charged include midwives, nurses, pharmacists and another surgeon. Eight were charged in federal court by the Biden administration; prosecutors from California, New York and New Jersey brought state charges against four others.

Other than Moore, only one of these health care workers went to trial: a Chicago pharmacist whom a jury found guilty of selling on eBay blank vaccine cards that he had stolen from the Walgreens where he worked. The rest pleaded guilty and were sentenced to a mix of probation, home arrest and, in a few cases, prison. Many also were professionally disciplined with fines or suspension of their medical licenses.

Of those 11, the Chicago pharmacist appealed his conviction but the U.S. Supreme Court in November declined to hear his petition; his attorney told The Tribune and ProPublica that they are exploring a presidential pardon. One other health care worker said she, too, would like to be pardoned by Trump.

--

Moore met with The Tribune and ProPublica in his clinic in the Salt Lake City suburb of Midvale.

Moore referred to COVID-19 vaccines as “bioweapons” a dozen times and said he distrusts how quickly the government facilitated the vaccines’ rapid development and distribution. He said he concluded the vaccines were unsafe after conducting his own online research

The plastic surgeon said that he believes all vaccines are “poison” and that they have not been adequately tested — a view he says he has held for more than two decades. [Sounds like an unbiased Internet researcher!]

some children who received saline shots at their parents’ request falsely believed they were being vaccinated against COVID-19, according to court filings and Moore. This was a breach of medical ethics

Moore’s medical license is in good standing.

DaisyDay said:

The problem is the repeated, constant conflating all Muslims with Islamists.

Click to expand...

Funny how if a Christian commits an act of extremism isn't not an indictment against Christianity. I can point to a long history of extremism and violence committed by self-professed Christians. Does that mean Christians are violent--that Christianity is a religion of violence? I certainly don't think so, I'm a Christian, I'm committed to following Jesus who commands that I love and exhibit peace and abstain from violence. Yet the majority of Muslims, the world over, who follow and practice Islam without engaging in acts of violence, are still bundled together with every act of religious extremism committed by a Muslim somewhere, or with the most extreme, hyper-authoritarian expressions of Islam that can be found.

Should I, as a Christian, be judged because of the actions committed by the Kingdom of Castille during the Reconquista or the Spanish Inquisition?

No no, perhaps it's a difference in our respective holy texts. Christians have the Bible, and Muslims have the Qu'ran. And surely there aren't Christians who have used things written in the Bible to justify acts of cruelty. I mean could you imagine?

Okay so then maybe it's a difference in what happens when a religion becomes a super-majority and tries to enact a theocratic or near-theocratic form of government, and creating blasphemy laws or legislating beliefs and morals based on a particular interpretation of a religion--oh right, Reconquista, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Jewish ghettos, pogroms, the English Commonwealth, Tyndale being burned at the stake, Salem witch trials....hmm.

And we have all sorts of people calling themselves Christians who want to enact Christian Sharia, it's called Christian Nationalism.

Don't worry, I'm sure we'll hear all kinds of excuses for why Muslims, specifically, are really bad. And it won't at all be hypocritical, double standards, or double-speak at all.

Mount Vernon cops are union, but I'm not sure which one. I hope he wins his case.

Mark Quayle said:

Mark Quayle said:
No. If he caused it, and that is reality, then whatever is real within that reality is caused by God. To characterize something within that reality as uncaused is therefore logically self-contradictory.

What? We are all causers. Even inanimate facts are causers. But we are not uncaused.

Do you not understand the difference between First Cause, and subsequent causes? The law of causation says that every effect is caused. And I say that the law of causation is universally pervasive. Even you speak that way, and with good reason, until suddenly you back off about God causing.

I'm sure you have heard of the chains of causation. As far as I know, all effects are also causes, and all causes have multiple effects. These interwoven "chains" are always there, right down to the point where you decide what you decide. And God did that. God made that. God spoke that reality into existence.

Click to expand...

And that reality is one in which at least some of the participants make new reality. That's how God made us. I think it's one way we are made in God's image.

Mark Quayle said:

That characterization is false. You choose to do those things. I would love to hear you show me something for which God is not first cause.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "first cause"? Do you mean that the first causer causes in a predetermined way for all subsequent causers? Then there are many things for which God is not the first causer. If I write a sentence, like this one, God is the first causer in that without His causation of me, and all the things that preceded me such that I came to be (not to mention all the things that happened after I came to be that shaped my personality), but He is not ordinarily the first causer of my thoughts and actions. In other words, His first causation was not a sufficient cause of my writing of this paragraph. More was needed.

Mark Quayle said:

Even YOU believe God is the creator of all that is. If he is that Creator, and if there is sin, then he caused that there be sin.

Click to expand...

No, not in a predetermined fashion.

Mark Quayle said:

You continue to group God into our level with the rest of reality.

Click to expand...

Only insofar as that is how He describes Himself.

Mark Quayle said:

Disclaimer: Now this that follows, I'm not saying is fact, but it points toward something you ignore: God does not reside with us within this reality, in the same way that we are within and bound to this reality. He MADE this reality. Consider the notion that we are mere thoughts in God's head —again, I'm not saying that notion is true, but it points at a truth. God is not like us.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that notion helps, but if you are presuming that our thoughts are only God's thoughts, the Bible tells us you are incorrect.

Mark Quayle said:

Nope. Your insistence that you choosing what God knows you will choose means that you do not actually choose, is insistence on vapid notions. God knowing (and causing) what you choose is the only way you even CAN choose. I wish you would find anywhere in the Bible that teaches that human choosing is a result of plain chance, or even, that human choosing is pure spontaneity on the part of the chooser.

Click to expand...

Why is that necessary? You seem to be saying that if God is not directing our every choice, the choice must be random. Why?Are you saying that God did not create us capable of making choices?

Mark Quayle said:

You cannot do it. Nor can you show it logically. All you can do is reiterate your thesis based on circular thinking. You keep trying to prove I am wrong by assertion alone.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the club.

Mark Quayle said:

Go back to the beginning. God. God is first cause, and, btw, the ONLY first cause. There can be only one first cause, and that is God. EVERYTHING else, therefore, is result.

Click to expand...

God is not a sufficient first cause to produce my post.

Mark Quayle said:

You don't even engage me on this —you only keep asserting that choice by definition means uncaused choice (in various different words) and that therefore my claim is false.

There's a reason you don't engage me on this. You are insisting on self-determination.

Click to expand...

Why is self determination a problem? He didn't say "self-creation" after all

Factotum said:

Well, then you should have nothing to say about if laws exist. Once you concoct reasons to not go learn that you were flagrant for challenging me.

And remember too, if you and @BPPLEE find tomorrow that you completed yall's objective to start up enough nonsense in here for Admin to close this thread? It won't change how THE. LAWS. STILL. EXIST! And there's nothing you can do to dispute that.

Click to expand...

That's not how this works. If you want us to believe such laws actually exist you need to post links to the actual law (like the kind of link posted to the unsuccessful federal legislation. If the laws exist, they are online in text or PDF format. This is what it is called to do you own work to demonstrate your claim, so...

pick up your android tablet, open up the chrome browser, search google again for your string, and collect the direct links needed to post here and demonstrate your claim. (Given all of the backlash to "defund the police" I suspect that no such law could have been passed without at least 2 days of full coverage on FoxNews et al., but if you've got it, show my assumption to be wrong.)

In case you are wondering, I got the bits about your device and browser from the google link you posted. This is why we should all try to practice good net hygiene.

Christs Death alone saved and redeemed them He died for, hear the testimony of the elders who sit around the Throne Rev 5:9

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10

Hmmmm...

On one hand, I'm not surprised that a pastor that comes across as abrasive, brash, bullying and dictatorial in the pulpit would be equally abrasive, brash, bullying and dictatorial outside the pulpit.

On the other hand, that the fact that the resigning pastors have a book about their experiences in the works and this whole timeline and messaging lines up so as to make maximum $$ and publicity from the book doesn't speak well for them either.

Pot, meet kettle perhaps?

joechristianwarrior said:

I’ve been reflecting lately on how often Scripture warns us about greed and how closely that warning is tied to God’s call for justice and care for others. Jesus speaks about money and the dangers of wealth more than almost any other topic, yet many Christians today find conversations about justice uncomfortable or “political.”

So I wanted to ask the community here:
Why do you think discussions about justice and greed create such tension among believers?
Is it a matter of theology, culture, politics, or something deeper in the human heart?


I’m preparing a video on this topic and would truly appreciate hearing a range of Christian perspectives!

Click to expand...

The best example I've got for "greed" from memory is when Ananias and his wife technically stole from God since they wanted to give their money to God but were reluctant to give whole-heartly to the Church. They died after Peter explained to them their infraction of "tempting the Holy Spirit."(Acts 5). God's Justice is also shown here since His Justice clearly shows who is sinning against Him or not and why sinning is bad (since we're saying that God is not as good as He says that He is by sinning).

lismore said:

There's a passage in Tacitus about the Germans revering trees, this would be referring to 9AD. The Druids also decorated trees and put up Miseltoe, in the centuries BC. Ancient Pagan customs.

Click to expand...

Fun tree fact: Trees exist all over the globe. People of many different cultures and religions have included trees into their mythologies, practices, and symbolism. Because trees are ubiquitous.

You can also find the use of fish and crosses across cultures and religions, in myths, in practices, in symbolism. Because fish are literally everywhere.

Pyramids have been built both in Egypt and in Mesoamerica. Are they related? Nope. But if you want to make a large stone structure, then having a large base at the bottom and it getting smaller toward the top--a pyramid--is a pretty solid architectural design choice. Also turns out that people from very different parts of the world, without any connection to each other, have independently arrived at the same thing many times. For example, if you want something to float on water--a boat--there is a pretty common shape that is efficient for that purpose.

You can't just look at one time and place and see "trees" and then conclude some kind of universal meaning and connection.

This is the problem with these "pagan origins" arguments, it's pareidolia and sensationalism--not scholarship.

Jeesuspelastaa said:

The law of Moses is one whole, and its partial observance is the breaking of the law. If you keep only the Ten Commandments but reject the hundreds of other parts of the law, you are a transgressor of the law. Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the entirety of the law before it is fulfilled. Matt. 5:17-19. / John 19:30.

Click to expand...

I would agree to a point. God's Commandments, Statutes and Laws are all ONE unit, "God's Commandments". It is un-Biblical to say God's Law was different for Caleb than it was for Danial, or to say God's Laws, Statutes and Commandments given to Abraham's Children were different than God's Laws, statutes and Commandments given to Abraham.

But there was a LAW that Abraham wasn't given, that wasn't "ADDED" to God's Commandments, Statutes and Laws until after the Golden calf event some 430 years after Abraham.

Jer. 7: 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (God commanded Abraham the same thing in Gen. 17:1)

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. This is speaking to the Golden calf event when God was going to wipe them all out and make a great nation out of Moses, but had mercy on them and "ADDED" the sacrificial Priesthood Works required for men for the remission of their sins, "Till the Seed should come". (Paul speaks to this in Gal. 3)

This would be a Temporary Priesthood Law, according to the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, (After the Order of Aaron) that was prophesied to "Change" After Those days. It pertained to how God's Laws, statutes and Commandments were administered, and how the remission of a man's sins were provided for. (You can find reference to this in Jer. 31 where God Defines HIS Promised New Covenant) This Law was to be in force, until the Prophesied Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come. Moses speaks of Him in Duet. 18. David Speaks of Him in Ps. 110:4.

So it is true for instance, after the resurrection of the Lord's Christ, that if a man took a goat to a Levite Priest for the remission of his sins, this man was breaking God's Laws, and had refused to "Hear Moses and the Prophets", who all foretold of the Christ. Because the Pharisee taught for doctrines the commandments of men and not God, they were blind to this truth. But Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, who "Yielded themselves" servants to obey God, they knew the Christ before HE was even born.

I think your post fails to address these very important Biblical Truths, that show us that the Law of Moses was NOT "one whole law", as the Scriptures themselves clearly point out.

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey "is better" than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

Legalisms is the opposite to Antinomianism and just as destructive if not more. The definition of Legalism is as follows:

FTG’s Expanded Explanation: Legalism treats moral behaviors and obedience to God’s Law as to how you achieve salvation. This leads to a primary emphasis on behavior modification and rarely focuses on heart transformation. Legalism aims to fix someone’s behavior without ever focusing on their heart and is the opposite extreme of another term we’ve defined: Antinomianism. Since people who are antinomian believe that there is no need to obey the Law of God because we are under grace, people who practice legalism believe that keeping religious laws will make them good enough to earn grace. Legalism is practiced by religions which teaches that you must perform certain acts to keep your salvation. Legalism adds human rules to the Law of God. Legalism believes that your good works save you and keep you saved. Legalism knowingly or unknowingly makes your relationship with God a set of religious rules, rather than a desire for obedience out of genuine love for God. Legalism leads to a lifestyle of rule-keeping and outward moralism but does not save your soul.


The SDA church requires strict adherence to parts of the law. The consider those that do not strictly keep the Jewish sabbath to be sinners because they consider the 4th commandment to be strictly a moral commandment. In addition to the sabbath keeping they also keep the dietary laws. A good portion of the SDA adherents become vegetarians because they buy into the error that the early inhabitants of earth only ate veggies and they keep the Mosaic law in relation to prohibited foods like pork or shell fish. They also require a relatively strict lifestyle and dress.

The arguments in the op and other proponents center on the arguments that those for antinomianism would make but that is not what non legalists are arguing but an attempt to show that either one agrees with the legalism of the SDA or one is a heretic. The argument, of course, fails.

concretecamper said:

Micah 5:2 And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda, out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.
5:3 Therefore will he give them up even till the time wherein she that travaileth shall bring forth: and the remnant of his brethren shall be converted to the children of Israel.

Click to expand...

Thank you concretecamper
You probably think Mary was well informed of what is written in scriptures. As for me, i have no certitude

PloverWing said:

It's just coincidence. People are, unfortunately, murdered every day. Our posts here don't cause the murders.

Click to expand...

You're likely right, if they believe common sense

PloverWing said:

I didn't see your earlier thread asking God to kill you, but I wouldn't expect God to grant a request like that.

Click to expand...

Thank you PloverWing. Nor would i do. Notice, yet, my prayer was for muslim Allah

PloverWing said:

On veiling, we've had lots of discussions about head coverings in the past here on CF, and I didn't think I had anything new to add this time around. Covering one's head to show submission to men makes me uncomfortable, but if it's done to show reverence for God, then that's a positive thing. Romans 14 probably applies here.

Click to expand...

Thank you also. I 'll have a look at Romans 14 to study that. If christian scripture tells to do so, it must be for a good reason

The Story

Another moving story from Open Doors that highlights Christ I'd like to share with you.

We learn of a man from Nigeria, Joshua, he went through the horror of being blinded by militants.

But that wasn't all- his wife also left him after his injuries. Family members- they kept their distance. I don't think many of us reading would comprehend the feelings he must have gone through. Praise God for Open Doors helping him through a trauma relief centre.

Joshua knows that in this life he will remain blind but, in Christ, in heaven and the new earth his sight will be restored and he will worship Christ throughout all eternity.

Joshua worships Christ- Lazarus had two funerals, the second being his last and his bones remaining, but Christ's tomb has long been empty and it will forever be so!


Christ in all this

This just shows that in this life, even what appeared to be the strongest of bonds can shatter- whether by ourselves, other people or some other circumstance. But you know who never left Joshua and who will never leave those of us believers? Christ (God the Son). He never left Joshua and He will never leave you!

This Christmas let us reflect on the glory of Christ, God the Son, the One who created the universe, coming into the manger in order to save His people from their sin (and the hell they deserve with it). Let us reflect that after He came, the world would never be the same!

The late Rob Skiba read some FOIA documents from the Soviet Union that described research studying the brilliance of the firmament.

The dome of earth is lowest around Antarctica.


it is extremely cold there with, we are told packed ice from two to three miles high. Antarctica is a ring of ice on the periphery of flat earth. The dome of earth, aka the firmament, springs from the Antarctic ice ring. It is here on Antarctica blue ice is found.

Joseph Nazzaro
Ph.D. from University of Wales (Graduated 1978)Jun 21