Release from Epstein files
- By ViaCrucis
- American Politics
- 163 Replies
The left comes up with one scandal after the other.
Is this a case of a political double slit experiment where observation is somehow causal?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The left comes up with one scandal after the other.
Dunn is an Egyptology expert and has been for decades. He inspired all of the commonsense.Dunn is an Egyptology crank and has been for decades. He inspired all of the nonsense.
So does that make his findings false. Show me how his findings were false. The reality is 100 years later we have confirmed his original findings. And have a guess what Dunn helped confirm Petries findings. Now we have two cranks with repeated scientific testing 100 years apart. Thats good science.He was, but then he died, and now 100 years later we know a whole lot more. Get up to date.
Your creating a logical fallacy by equating the idea of questioning which expert is best for a specific skill in testing ancient artifacts as questioning Egyptology itself.You guys seem so willing to ignore Egyptology that it is disturbing.
No one knew stone softening or weakening either. As I said earlier I don't think ancients had computers and modern machines or had academic knowledge how we understand. They did not know about the maths behind chemistry and physics.The paper was about how you could design EM wave focusing devices in a pyramidal shape and they thought it would be fun (and eye catching) idea to analyze the pyramids. That someone (in this case Khufu and his employees) built something that has an effect that they could not anticipate does not mean they intended that effect. It is silly to think that Khufu's architect was trying to focus radio waves because no one knew that radio waves existed until the 19th century. Shesh.
See how you frame it. They are students so they are wrong because they are not yet knowledgable enough based on the assumption that more time equals more credible knowledge. You slip in ad hominems without knowing. Their work has been cited by other scientists so it must have some value.I wrote a whole post about that student paper less than 2 days ago. I'm not repeating it because you missed the post.
Ok so your confirming your bias and making more ad hominems as your arguement. At least these so called nobodies have done the work and published the findings.These nobodies need to learn some Egyptology, unfortunately, most of them are going into this to prove that the objects are from a prior civilization just like they believe about the pyramids.
Man it was only an example of how finding a modern day small and insignifiant object could be a significant find. I used a modern needle, not an ancient one. You could have asked what my point was instead of diverting into a story on ancient needles lol.We have. Egyptians could sew. They had needles of bone and copper. [Also: "sow" is planting seeds, "sew" is stitching cloth.]
Did you even understand the point I was making.Firstly, then say that. Be more precise. Second, modern needles look just like ancient metal needles, but in steel.
Ok but I get there in the end. I don't think you make it easy though with all these conflations. I think you knew what I meant as that was the principle we were talking about. Finding something modern looking in an ancient time and whether it was significant and to whom..Your failure to be precise is well demonstrated through these interactions. You are talking to people used to the use of precision in language, particularly on technical things.
So what about knowing Egypt through Egyptology will help in understanding how they made vases or other works technically.One of the key aspects of all of this pseudo-Egyptology is a lack of actual knowledge about Egypt from the junk peddlers.
This is the problem. Your equating Egyptology as the sole discipline in understand the Egyptians. It was not Petries Egyptology that caused him to recognise the tooling marks and what this implied.(Well, hey, at least you didn't claim Einstein was an amateur outsider as he wasn't.) Knowledge advances with time and that applies to relativity and Egyptology.
Yes of course. But Einsteins theory is still correct 100 years later and its built upon or adjusted. The same with Petrie. Petrie actually pioneered the methology of rigorious testing, measures and analysis of artifacts. His methods and measures are the basis for Archology and Egyptology.I know people who understand relativity better than Einstein ever did. There are also things Einstein worked on that he just got wrong. Petrie is no different. The field has learned so much more that many of his claims are necessarily out of date and even wrong.
Ok so you have just acknowledge that you have not done any work to back up your claims and that you can't be bothered. Which is not a very good basis for me to have faith in your claims.I've got my own science to do. I am not your dogs boy.
Like I said that went out the window from page one and it was not me who derailed it into fallacies that everything that I will ever say and anyone who I will present will all be relegated to whacko and theres nothing I can do but persist despite the derailment.We wish you had actual standards on this.
Which shows I am willing to even put religion in the firing range and therefore not favoring anything. Whereas you have religion, and other immaterial ideas in the firing range because you belieeve its all Woo and unreal and material science is the truth. Similar to promoting a religious belief. They are all beliefs.You attacked religion as conceptually bad in your last post.
Actually if you listened to the video its was an academic who cited his credentials who was presenting the video. He was taking an academic appraoch. Thats is what I have been doing. I stated that the views on how this might have come about such as knowledge from immersions in nature was spectualtion.You created a thread in a science discussion and debate forum using a video from a Graham Hancock from ancient civ fan. Where did you think this was going to go?
What are you talking about. Do you understand the point that we were discussing. It was about out of place works. I mentioned the pyramids. You said so what we see a progression building up to the great pyramids.Are you incapable of understanding written words? Your reading comprehension is just awful. If you write less and read more carefully, this might be more manageable.
Your missing the whole idea of how knowledge comes and goes and can repeat again and again in some places and not others. Its the peak of that time thats important.The reality is that we have a clear, documented sequence of pyramid development and decline. The pyramids can be absolutely dated as well as any event in Egypt in that period (to within about 50 years, and that level of uncertainty is from the general issues with the chronology). We know who built each pyramid and in what order.
This is a false assumption that is influenced from your overall cynicism of all things alternative belief and knowledge and reality can only be material or naturalistic in nature.A huge problem with the credibility of your sources is that they are almost all (and in every case where we know, they are) rejecters of the established time line and believe in fantasies about pyramids built by civilizations ancient to the Egpytians that simply put their stamps on them. They are cranks who believe in some mystical unidentified technology who latch on to these "anomalous vases" to "prove" what they already think.
Really are you now the gatekeeper of peoples feelings and opinions who think its awesome for that time.It has nothing to do with what an awesome accomplishment the Giza pyramids are.
I understand the difference. I actually don't mind not talking specific and talking epistemics as this is really what the OP was about. How there are different worldviews depending on your metaphsyical beliefs and assumptions about knowledge in the past. How people can be influenced by those beliefs.Did you notice that I'm not discussing specifics in these last few posts linked backward? Well you should. Filling your reply with pictures is not going to change anything.
Thats fair enough and I am not saying you can't. But don't be offended when people disagree and persist with a different point of view.Despite the levels of frustration I have felt in this thread, I have worked hard to avoid insulting you. I even spent months largely not putting in digs about your idiotic sources, but on the latter I gave up this week. In this post I have not avoided illustrating your flaws.
How can you not understand that post. If you buy corn, it's going to come from Iowa. If you buy oranges, they'll likely come from California. Some basic foodstuffs that you buy can be home grown. But check out your pantry. I literally just walked into my kitchen and 5 of the first 6 things I looked at were from Pakistan, China, Italy, UK and Thailand. Put tariffs on those and they'll cost me more.But you mentioned it effecting international trade... Now you're backpedaling. Are you now saying international trade isn't effected by the tariffs? Only Americans feel the crunch?
It most certainly does not leave any such impossibility. There's no need for the success of the drawing to depend on force in order for it to create the possibility of success. It is only within a Calvinist framework that the need for force is required, because the act of being drawn is presented as a sufficient grounds for coming to Jesus. You are imposing your conclusion onto the text, and then engaging in grammatical puffery as if that is argumentation.I skimmed your latest set of assertions. I will not waste my time responding point by point because the pattern is clear: claims are being offered without engaging the actual argument or evidence I've presented. It is not my burden to disprove your assertions; it is yours to substantiate them. If you want a substantive discussion, raise focused, textually and methodologically grounded objections. Broad dismissals and unfounded accusations do not qualify as argument and do not merit serious engagement.
To clarify the stakes: your position on ἑλκύω implies that, syntactically, John 6:44 leaves coming to Jesus potentially impossible -- a consequence of your view I have already argued and that you have ignored. You have also ignored that the semantics of ἑλκύω are irrelevant to the Calvinist argument itself. Once again, you are sidestepping the actual issue and fishing for something to latch onto just to have a reply. I am not going to play that game. Until you offer a focused, substantive objection that engages these points seriously, this conversation is over.
I skimmed your latest set of assertions. I will not waste my time responding point by point because the pattern is clear: claims are being offered without engaging the actual argument or evidence I've presented. It is not my burden to disprove your assertions; it is yours to substantiate them. If you want a substantive discussion, raise focused, textually and methodologically grounded objections. Broad dismissals and unfounded accusations do not qualify as argument and do not merit serious engagement.I'm not dismissing "50 years of scholarship", I'm dismissing your assessment of said scholarship.
Those semantic domains are highly subjective, and a lot of the usage data was drawn from English glosses.
Sure, but lexical indexing is a misconception of how language functions. Context determines meaning, because meaning is not a function of individual words but a function of whole passages. Semantic mapping can be helpful, but ultimatelly it is context that sets the meaning.
The method itself is built on a flawed conception of meaning that provides undue weight to individual words, and goes wrong at the first step by artificially restricting the semantic range.
You did no such thing, you determined the conclusion and then read matched the grammatical argument to your conclusion.
You've confused the basic element of meaning by reducing the meaning of words to their lexical form.
That isolate is exactly why your method is flawed, because it is only within the overall context of the passage that the force of the word can be determined not by atomizing the text and introducing foreign frameworks via lexical methodology.
Venezuela is a dictatorship it is not Democratic Socialism.It’s a fine line to walk.
Democratic socialism is based on a fable that increases human suffering while claiming to be morally superior and virtuous. Those who are frustrated with being locked out of the opportunities they dreamed of are most likely to fall for these poorly devised solutions proven to be catastrophic in places like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.
Venezuela is not communist but a socialist State with a Socialist government.
Trump? No I think Biden was not releasing them because that is not a normal thing the government does. I think it was the conspiracy theorists who think this is a big deal. The only reason anyone cares about them now is it is one of the few avenues where Trump and his supporters disagree.It's a maybe. Are you saying Biden was protecting Trump by not releasing the files in the years he could have? It goes both ways. Whatever one is going to apply to Trump and his admin, can probably be applied to Biden and his admin, who had them first.
In what way? You are claiming this is a problem unique to liberal run cities, rather than just being a big city problem. I see no reason to find that thesis compelling.Deflecting are we?
Deflecting, are we?So petty crime isn't a problem in conservatively led cities? They're crimeless utopias?
I'm not dismissing "50 years of scholarship", I'm dismissing your assessment of said scholarship.And you're clearly just firing off a response just to have something to say. I would encourage you to engage the actual literature on the subject. Nothing I said is novel or even controversial among scholars who work in lexical semantics. A simple Google search will confirm everything I said.
Barr's critique of TDNT is one of the most widely cited methodological corrections in 20th-century biblical studies. Silva's work on lexical method (see Biblical Words and Their Meaning) demonstrates why concept-historical studies produce semantic anachronism and illegitimate totality transfer. You're dismissing fifty years of scholarship just to have something to say in reply. That's a great witness for your position.
Those semantic domains are highly subjective, and a lot of the usage data was drawn from English glosses.As for the claim that Louw-Nida is "far more theologically driven" than TDNT, that is demonstrably false. Louw-Nida is explicitly usage-based and organized by semantic domains drawn from actual corpora, not by theological trajectories or concept-histories. Kittel explicitly states that TDNT is a theological project. Read the preface.
Sure, but lexical indexing is a misconception of how language functions. Context determines meaning, because meaning is not a function of individual words but a function of whole passages. Semantic mapping can be helpful, but ultimatelly it is context that sets the meaning.Establishing a verb's semantic core is always relevant before discussing its contextual function. Context determines usage, not lexical meaning. Pretending the lexical question is irrelevant demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of how language works.
The method itself is built on a flawed conception of meaning that provides undue weight to individual words, and goes wrong at the first step by artificially restricting the semantic range.Nothing in my explanation "force fit" a conclusion, and I wager you won't actually attempt to show otherwise. It was a summary of standard lexical method: (1) identify the semantic core; (2) distinguish meaning from contextual effect; (3) prevent theological conclusions from being smuggled into the lexeme itself. If you want to argue that the context of John 6 modifies, nuances, or limits the force of ἑλκύω, then make that case from the text. But right now, the dismissive nature of your comments only signals that you don't want to deal with the steps necessary to make a coherent argument.
You did no such thing, you determined the conclusion and then read matched the grammatical argument to your conclusion.This is not even coherent. My argument did three things that are simply standard lexical method (as noted above). That is the opposite of a "theologically driven" approach. You're just throwing out assertions, again just for the sake of responding.
You've confused the basic element of meaning by reducing the meaning of words to their lexical form.If you think I've confused lexeme and concept, then quote the sentence where I equate ἑλκύω with a theological construct. The word-concept fallacy occurs when someone loads a term with an entire doctrinal trajectory. I argued against that very move in TDNT's handling of ἑλκύω. Likewise, context has a central role in my analysis. I explicitly stated that success or failure of the action is determined by context, not by the lexeme itself -- contra your argument.
That isolate is exactly why your method is flawed, because it is only within the overall context of the passage that the force of the word can be determined not by atomizing the text and introducing foreign frameworks via lexical methodology.Your entire response has been very disappointing and underwhelming. You'll have to do a lot better for me to read and respond again. Your claim that I've "imposed theological baggage" on ἑλκύω is exceptionally absurd, given what I actually argued (most of which you simply ignored). What I actually did was isolate the term's semantic core and show how the syntax of John 6:44 functions independently of any theological overlay. The grammatical point -- the identity of the objects of ἑλκύσῃ and ἀναστήσω -- does not depend on whether you interpret the verb as "forceful" or "an attempt." That's the argument itself, and disputing the verb's semantics misses it entirely.
And PLEASE read Hebrew 9:18 means what you are quoting. does not apply for today as the OLD COVENANT hasThat's pretty funny.
How many scriptural citings would you like for loving our neighbors as ourselves? I can count at least 10 citings in the N.T. alone, all stemming from the O.T. where there are several more
Even funnier it never made the cut of requirements of any creed
I asked if you believe our "unsaved neighbors" are going to burn alive forever or be permanently annhilated.
I don't believe either happens to our neighbors, so you have my answer. Where's yours?
Why have you not answered my question regarding Romans 10 - for a meaningful debate - BOTH sides have to engage in question and answer - please be so kind in answering my query please
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Go back to Hebrews -
Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.Why is the concept of purgatory not mentioned? It is a simply stated sentence. Men die once and after that judgement - period - end of sentence, but not of thought -
So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.
I don't deal with hypotheticals -
The concept of purgatory, at best, is theoretical and I'll explain why.
There is a term in theology - exegesis - it means
Exposition; explanation; especially, a critical explanation of a text or portion of ScriptureWhen a teaching or concept is not plainly shown it does not rise to an exegetical level. It requires suppositions, reasoning and possibilities. All of which is demonstrated in your last few posts. (Forgive me, I am not picking on you)
And you're clearly just firing off a response just to have something to say. I would encourage you to engage the actual literature on the subject. Nothing I said is novel or even controversial among scholars who work in lexical semantics. A simple Google search will confirm everything I said.This sounds like an unfounded presumptive attack, rather than a substantive critique.
Establishing a verb's semantic core is always relevant before discussing its contextual function. Context determines usage, not lexical meaning. Pretending the lexical question is irrelevant demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of how language works.None of this is relevant, and instead appears to be a pretext to force fit your pre-arrived at understanding rather than dealing with the contextual usage.
This is not even coherent. My argument did three things that are simply standard lexical method (as noted above). That is the opposite of a "theologically driven" approach. You're just throwing out assertions, again just for the sake of responding.and your whole argument is theologically driven, particularly in your failure to recognize the role of context in meaning and instead seeming to cling to a word-concept fallacy of meaning.
Your entire response has been very disappointing and underwhelming. You'll have to do a lot better for me to read and respond again. Your claim that I've "imposed theological baggage" on ἑλκύω is exceptionally absurd, given what I actually argued (most of which you simply ignored). What I actually did was isolate the term's semantic core and show how the syntax of John 6:44 functions independently of any theological overlay. The grammatical point -- the identity of the objects of ἑλκύσῃ and ἀναστήσω -- does not depend on whether you interpret the verb as "forceful" or "an attempt." That's the argument itself, and disputing the verb's semantics misses it entirely.In order for the Calvinist conclusion to follow, sure. But not for it to make sense in the context of the passage. All you're doing is imposing your theological baggage
Which is the basis for every cult teaching in existence - not calling anyone a cult.
The basis for a teaching to exists prior to a certain point in time - is the teaching being present.
Sorry to disappoint you but my verses destroy your interpretation of the verses you tried to use against my theology. I have unleashed 45 verses below, which prove that your theology is based on false doctrine.Really? “God is hate” really? Yet the Bible says otherwise:
1 John 4:8, in context of 1 John 4:1-12
Then there is John 3:16-21 and what St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13.
I guess I can claim to know who God “hates” and judges and appoint myself as an assistant prosecutor too. Well maybe not: ( Matthew 7:1-12 etc.).
215,000 women is not a small sample size.That's more like 44%, but a small sample size probably makes such a distinction problematic.
You can deny the evidence all you want. The funny thing about reality is, it doesn't care what we think.you can support the system all you want
Evidence, again. BTW, nearly a half-century ago, when I was studying immunology, they had good data on the risks of immunizations for different vaccines. When I took the clinic, I set up some controls over just that issue. There are people at higher risk, and we go physicians to look at those people before allowing them immunizations.but there is systemic rejection of people's concerns due to the prevailing notion that vaccines were safe.
Sounds awful. I'm sure you have checkable data to support that. Show us.perhaps 90% of various ills that came in many cases months later were swept under the rug.
That's more like 44%, but a small sample size probably makes such a distinction problematic.50% increase in actual miss carriage rate. from 9 to 13 out of 100.
And I am. SPREADIND. the English word and. then. spending the Greek word so. it will be easier to understand and anyoneYou seem to be stuck in complication and self justifications land dan
"-everyone who loves knows God and is born of God" capital word spellings not required, but I like the bold