BobRyan said:

Interesting how both Republicans and Democrats now , all agree, that the Democrat senators' vote to reopen the government,a vote to end the shutdown, is what actually ENDs it, since all the republicans were ALREADY voting to open it under the clean "CR" these 14 times.

MSN

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/which-8-senate-democrats-voted-with-republicans-to-end-the-government-shutdown/ar-AA1Q7wmX?ocid=BingNewsSer

Prior to this moment of unity, the "spin" was that "we have a Republican President, Republican Congress, Republican Senate - so then it is Republicans that are keeping the government shut down no matter how many times they all vote to open the government and resume negotiations".

Air Traffic related Labor unions were not confused by the Democrat talking point rhetoric. They were all asking the Democrats to reopen the government.

I wonder how many , laid-off, out-of-funds victims of that 40 day shutdown were actually "confused" by the "it must be Republicans shutting down the government, blame them" song and dance. Only to see in the light of today that it was Republicans voting to restore funding, and avoid having people go without paychecks and until we see 8 democrats vote with them, it was simply "not enough" to budge the bolder Democrats were creating.

The more Democrats pour contempt on their fellow Democrats that voted relief for the victims of the Schumer Shutdown, the more blatantly obvious they make it that it was in fact Democrats that were victimizing Americans by the shutdown.

And why those "Eight"? Because they were immune from the threat of being primaried/bullied in the next election.

Click to expand...

The GOP controls all branches & passed a clean CR. The Dems revolted b/c of the ACA & the 2 parties go at to see who blinks first. As the days waned, then the SNAP issue came into play. Both SNAP & ACA need to be fixed. I don't know if Congress will ever fix public aid programs. 2 roads diverged in a wood & I. Two problems. First the Dems believe in socialized everything. Their goal is to get all citizens hooked on a good made by govt so that they can get elected by holding that citizen hostage over the delivery. This is a clear lesson to never be dependent on govt. The other extreme is that some of the GOP do not believe in a safety net. Fact is you do have people with issues & the other issue is lack of work. What to do. There is waste, fraud, abuse, & just poor design. All programs need a reworked formula & better quality product. The SNAP budget is $99 billion. The Pentagon just got approved for $770 billion. You would think they could transfer $5 billion over to SNAP.

stevevw said:

Ok so theres one piece of advanced knowledge that is out of place. Way earlier than the orthodox narrative was saying. I think the same study found similar molded blocks on earlier pyramids. So this could go back even earlier. Now we can find other examples.

Click to expand...

Since this will not go away lets look at this forensically which I know a thing or two about in the automotive industry.

The casing stone has a visible front and side face and the immediate question which arises if it is composed of a moulded piece of limestone concrete why is the front face smooth and the side face coarse? It is possible their casting tool produced this type of finish but why would the ancient Egyptians go to all this trouble? From an engineering design perspective it serves no useful purpose.

If however the casing was abrasion cut, stone pounded and abrasion smoothed it makes perfect sense, the front face underwent a final smoothing process with finer grit as it is the visible face to convey the aesthetic value of the pyramid, the side faces remained coarse as they are not visible.

The next point is the hydrochloric drop test which I mentioned in an off the cuff way in a previous post. It turns out to playing a major factor in refuting the moulded limestone concrete hypothesis.

Did the Egyptians cast the casing stones like concrete?​

Joseph Davidovits (1970s–2000s) proposed that the outer casing blocks of the Great Pyramid were not quarried but cast in place from a kind of limestone geopolymer, a reconstituted “concrete” made by dissolving soft limestone with natron and lime, then moulding it into blocks.


That hypothesis has been tested many times by geologists, mineralogists, and Egyptologists.

---

1. HCl Reactivity Test – Direct Evidence for Natural Limestone​

Explanation:
If the casing stones were made from a chemically recombined limestone slurry, the calcium carbonate would not crystallize in the same interlocking matrix found in natural sedimentary limestone. Instead, it would have amorphous or microcrystalline binding phases, with much weaker and patchier HCl reaction.
Geologists have applied the HCl drop test on both casing fragments and core samples — all respond exactly like natural limestone from the nearby Tura quarries.

---

2. Petrographic and Mineralogical Studies​

Independent geologists (notably Dietrich & Rosemarie Klemm, 1993, 2008) performed thin-section microscopy and X-ray diffraction:

• The grain structures, fossils, and cementation within the pyramid limestones match the stratigraphy of the Tura and Giza formations perfectly.
• They show biogenic microfossils, foraminifera, and oolitic textures typical of Eocene marine limestone — impossible to reproduce by chemical reconstitution.
• No evidence of amorphous aluminosilicate binder or reaction rims typical of geopolymers.

Thus, the stones are unmistakably natural.

---

⚗️ 3. Stable Isotope Analysis (δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O)​

Geopolymer fabrication using dissolved limestone and natron would reset isotopic signatures due to recrystallization.
Yet isotope ratios of casing samples match those of unaltered natural limestone from Tura — showing no sign of chemical reformation.

---

4. Textural and Tool Evidence​

• Quarry tool marks remain visible at the Tura quarry faces where casing stones were cut and removed.
• Some unfinished casing blocks at Giza show chisel dressing, wedge marks, and lever sockets, not mould seams.
• The Great Pyramid’s casing blocks are dimensionally consistent with quarry-cut blocks, not cast pours — each with bedding orientation consistent with quarry strata.

---

5. Conclusion: HCl Tests and Geology Refute the Geopolymer Claim​

---

Scholarly Sources​

1. Klemm, D. & Klemm, R. The Stones of the Pyramids: Provenance of the Building Stones of the Old Kingdom Monuments in Egypt. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008) — detailed petrographic and isotopic data confirming Tura limestone origin.
2. Harrell, J.A. “Archaeological Geology of the Giza Plateau.” Geoarchaeology (2004).
3. Stocks, D.A. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (2003) — demonstrates quarrying and dressing with copper tools.
4. Davidovits, J. (1990, 2009) — proposes the opposing geopolymer theory, but data inconsistent with observed mineralogy.

---

✅ Summary Statement:

The simple HCl acid test, combined with petrographic, isotopic, and field evidence, conclusively demonstrates that the Great Pyramid’s core and casing stones are natural limestones quarried and dressed, not moulded geopolymers or artificial concrete. The effervescent reaction with hydrochloric acid alone is one of the clearest and earliest field indicators confirming their carbonate, sedimentary origin.

Click to expand...

---

David Lamb said:

The bible doesn't tell us how old Mary was, nor does it tell us that she rode a donkey to Bethlehem. It also doesn't tell us that Joseph was much older than Mary. We have songs that tell us these things, for example, "Little Donkey" and "The Cherry Tree Carol" which begins: "Joseph was an old man, an old man was he." But such songs are unbiblical.

Click to expand...

Information/facts that are not mentioned in the Bible may not be necessarily untrue. The early church has circulating info and sometimes literature/books with extra-Biblical stories - of course the reliability and authenticity of those are at a very different level than the Biblical texts (and may even be completely fabricated), but there is no reason to dismiss by definition ALL extra-Biblical accounts/stories/books. These were part of early Christian society and its written or oral tradition. We assume all kind of historical events based on extra-Biblical information ..

probinson said:

I tend to agree with the article that I posted earlier that said Mamdani made a bunch of promises he can't keep. As such, since many of his more radical policies will never see the light of day, the impact of people leaving the city will be smaller. But only time will tell.

Click to expand...

QFT

A whole lot of promises - here is the rub. The do not have to move out of state - they can move 45 min away to another city.

Chesterton said:

You know who else talks back like a human? Humans. I get emotionally triggered by talking to humans on CF, but not by talking to AI. More on that in the next post...

Click to expand...

Who would have thought! I actually feel stronger emotions with AI on debates. Probably due to higher expectations because AI is trying its best to deliver the best quality replies. People usually don't on online debates.

I expect people to give mocking and insulting replies and probably grown numb to it. But you see AI contradicting itself transparently, delivering contradicting logic in extreme cases and it can be frustrating to see.

The facts are that it was a clean CR. SNAP was not an original issue. It was the ACA subsidies. The GOP is the majority party so they did not create the shutdown. Then as days go on the DEMS exploit the poor hoping to get the ACA subsidies retained. Now then the issue went to Court. The Court ordered a partial release of the SNAP funds. I agree here Trump should have just release whatever was there. But he did not create the original mess. The ACA is a failed program. They should scrap it & start over. The premiums are outrageous so a permanent fix is needed. Now part of the problem was state coverage to cover illegals checking in at the ER. We cannot sustain this. Having administered public assistance programs I can tell you that they are poorly designed. FS in particular seeks to add as many people but does not ensure a quality benefit. The Pentagon budget was $770 billion. Surely they could have found $2 billion to fix SNAP.

Criminals indicted, convicted, pleading guilty, and/or pardoned in the Russiagate scandal;

• On February 20, a federal judge sentenced Stone to serve 40 months in prison for convictions on charges of making false statements witness tampering, and obstruction in connection with the Russia probe.
• In March, Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted the final report on his nearly two-year investigation to the Department of Justice.
• Since 2017, Mueller has investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and whether the Trump campaign collaborated with Moscow to tilt the race in Trump's favor.
• So far, Mueller's team has charged eight Americans once affiliated with Trump's campaign or administration, 13 Russian nationals, 12 Russian intelligence officers, three Russian companies, and two other people with federal crimes.
• Here's everyone who's been charged, convicted, and sentenced in the Mueller probe so far.
  
  

  Here's everyone who has been charged, convicted, and sentenced in the Russia probe so far

  A federal judge sentenced Roger Stone to serve 40 months in prison for his convictions on making false statements, obstruction, and witness tampering.

  www.businessinsider.com

Quite a haul. Trump wasn't indicted, according to Robert Mueller, because Justice Department policy rules out indicting a sitting president.

Explained: Why Robert Mueller Couldn’t Indict Trump, Despite 10 Obstruction Incidents​

Detailed in his report were 10 instances that Democrats have alleged to be obstruction of justice and amount to impeachable offenses. Included among those 10 instances were efforts by Trump to thwart Mueller's probe by ordering those under him to have the special counsel removed from his post. Mueller determined that Trump was unsuccessful in influencing the 22-month-long investigation largely because the president's aides refused to carry out his orders.

Mueller later told lawmakers that Trump could be charged with obstruction once he leaves office.

Why Mueller Couldn't Indict Trump Despite 10 Obstruction Incidents

The former special counsel reiterated that longstanding legal opinion by the Justice Department prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents.

www.newsweek.com

In spite of Trump's pardons for many of these criminals, the scandal remains one of the most serious cases of corruption within a presidential administration.

PloverWing said:

If your interest is primarily in Ukraine -- and the various churches' support or lack thereof for Ukraine -- then perhaps pick some churches or living church leaders, and analyze them. I wouldn't pitch it as "Bishop so-and-so isn't Christian", because Bishop so-and-so is almost certainly baptized, but you could argue that Bishop so-and-so is teaching about Ukraine in ways that conflict with the values of Jesus, and then make your argument.

Click to expand...

One thing I'll say that I appreciate is how Trump's pastor Marc Burns has traveled to Ukraine and is an advocate for the country.
Now if only Trump listened to his pastor.

Hentenza said:

Again, there is no recent hermeneutical evidence or scholarly evidence to change the comma. I’m sorry that it doesn’t agree with your doctrine but you can’t use the “it shouldn’t be there” error to justify it.

Click to expand...

I have presented to you evidence in the words of Christ, as recorded in Jh. 20:17, that Christ did not go to heaven/paradise the day of His death, but two days latter. I have also shared with you in my first post (Ezekiel 18:20, and Rev. 16:3) which states that souls die, which I assume you don't believe. (John 5:28,29; Acts 2:29,34; Job 17:13) that the saved do not go to heaven when they die, nor the lost to hell, which i assume you believe. And Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10; Psalms 115:17) that the dead know nothing, nor do they praise the Lord. All of these Biblical texts and others I have not mentioned prove that the thief could not have gone to paradise along with Christ the day Christ was crucified.

You need not apologize for not agreeing with me, as you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. But certainly my previous posts show that I have given Biblical support for why the comma in Lk.23:43, has been placed in the wrong place, since it contradicts what the Bible clearly teaches on death. So no, I haven't relied on "it shouldn't be there to justify it

The key is that each group should have representation proportional to their proportion of the population.

rjs330 said:

That supports gerrymandering.

Click to expand...

No. It's precisely opposed to Gerrymandering. The point of Gerrymandering is to give specific groups more representation than their share of the population.

Bradskii said:

If what you think you presented was actual evidence of something then you might have a point. But it wasn't, so you don't.

Click to expand...

If you say so.

In any event, multiple outlets have reported about the Mamdani effect. How big that effect will be remains to be seen. But it's straight up denial to pretend like there hasn't been ANY indication that people are concerned with what Mamdani's election means for their continued residency in NYC.

Will it be like the buffoons who claim they'll leave the US if/when Trump wins the election? Probably to some degree. People say a lot of things. It's easy to claim you'll flee the country if you don't like the election results. It's another thing entirely to actually pack up and move. But with NYC, it's not nearly as involved. Some people could move just a few miles and still live near the city they love but be outside the city limits.

I tend to agree with the article that I posted earlier that said Mamdani made a bunch of promises he can't keep. As such, since many of his more radical policies will never see the light of day, the impact of people leaving the city will be smaller. But only time will tell.

redraven said:

Sure, although I mentioned this quite a bit in the 'Charlie Kirk' thread I started.

Kirk spoke favourably about Russia. He said that putin had shown 'great restraint'. He insulted Zelensky. He wanted Ukraine to concede land. These comments are unChristlike and morally indefensible.

Here's an opinion piece I had which may provide you with some insight. I've deliberately omitted the opening and closing lines
because they may be considered too graphic for this forum, though to me they are accurate.
Charlie Kirk suggested that Putin had shown "extraordinary restraint".
Putin is a pedophile who has abducted 20 thousand Ukrainian children, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians - many who have been tortured and burned alive. Putin's army is responsible for raping numerous women, castrating male soldiers and gouging their eyes out.
Yet according to Charlie Kirk, Putin showed extraordinary restraint.

Heres another one:

American Trump mouthpiece Charlie Kirk
was assassinated in an act of violence
that should be condemned. Having said this,
Mr. Kirk made many comments that were
deeply offensive and objectively untrue.
One such comment was his claim that Ukraine
was 'not a not a democracy', a view that misrepresents
reality. Charlie Kirk was in over his head on international
affairs. He was a Trump yes man. He naively
inspired a lot of animosity. Mr. Kirk
should not have been killed, but his views
were far too dogmatic and distorted by Trump
and Putin talking points. Mr. Kirk believed the Bible
was the ultimate truth. The Bible indicates that lying is sinful
and this is how Mr. Kirk spoke about Ukraine.
He had a large platform and used it irresponsibly.
Some people talk too much and study too little.

Click to expand...

Login to view embedded media

redraven said:

No, I'm not obsessed - I do find it extremely hypocritical for him to claim 'Christianity' given his comments on a number of issues.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

I was hoping his supporters would have the ability to recognize and admonish his unChristlike behaviour, yet it appears that is probably asking too much.

Click to expand...

There are two separate questions here: 1) Was he a Christian? 2) Did he behave and teach in a Christlike way, or in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

People differ in how to evaluate question 1, but as my church tradition evaluates it, if he was baptized and intended to accept Jesus' forgiveness for sins and to follow the teachings of Jesus, then he was a Christian. As far as I know, Charlie Kirk was a Christian.

On 2, he probably did follow Jesus' teachings in some ways and failed to follow Jesus' teachings in other ways. I suppose we could analyze that, but I don't see the point of it. He wasn't that important a figure, and he didn't represent any Christian churches in any official capacity, and he's dead now.


If your interest is primarily in Ukraine -- and the various churches' support or lack thereof for Ukraine -- then perhaps pick some churches or living church leaders, and analyze them. I wouldn't pitch it as "Bishop so-and-so isn't Christian", because Bishop so-and-so is almost certainly baptized, but you could argue that Bishop so-and-so is teaching about Ukraine in ways that conflict with the values of Jesus, and then make your argument.

Michie said:

I think it’s obvious at this point you are just interested in promoting your channel. Not interested.

Click to expand...

Partially correct.
I would like my channel to have greater viewership, but that doesn't negate from the debate I was bringing up.
Using the same logic of doing something for promotion - this is exactly what Kirk did - he would engage in 'debates'
and post them to social media for profit.

Nothing is wrong with this at all.

I am more focused on the actual debate, and remmeber if anyone agreed to it they would be able to use the content for their own purposes - meaning it is about equal promotion - not exclusively about me.

I stand by my belief it is quite unlikely anyone wants to debate me to defend Kirk. I say this because I suspect it would be uncomfortable for them defending him on the specific points I've raised and they'd realize it is not a debate worth getting into.

Robban said:

Hi,
LIstened to your vid, you mentioned Ukraine twice, care to shed a little light on what is on your mind.

Otherwise it would easily seem you are holding something back.

Click to expand...

Sure, although I mentioned this quite a bit in the 'Charlie Kirk' thread I started.

Kirk spoke favourably about Russia. He said that putin had shown 'great restraint'. He insulted Zelensky. He wanted Ukraine to concede land. These comments are unChristlike and morally indefensible.

Here's an opinion piece I had which may provide you with some insight. I've deliberately omitted the opening and closing lines
because they may be considered too graphic for this forum, though to me they are accurate.
Charlie Kirk suggested that Putin had shown "extraordinary restraint".
Putin is a pedophile who has abducted 20 thousand Ukrainian children, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians - many who have been tortured and burned alive. Putin's army is responsible for raping numerous women, castrating male soldiers and gouging their eyes out.
Yet according to Charlie Kirk, Putin showed extraordinary restraint.

Heres another one:

American Trump mouthpiece Charlie Kirk
was assassinated in an act of violence
that should be condemned. Having said this,
Mr. Kirk made many comments that were
deeply offensive and objectively untrue.
One such comment was his claim that Ukraine
was 'not a not a democracy', a view that misrepresents
reality. Charlie Kirk was in over his head on international
affairs. He was a Trump yes man. He naively
inspired a lot of animosity. Mr. Kirk
should not have been killed, but his views
were far too dogmatic and distorted by Trump
and Putin talking points. Mr. Kirk believed the Bible
was the ultimate truth. The Bible indicates that lying is sinful
and this is how Mr. Kirk spoke about Ukraine.
He had a large platform and used it irresponsibly.
Some people talk too much and study too little.

Yttrium said:

Are you saying that Biden't corrupt pardons justify Trump's corrupt pardons?

I disagree.

Click to expand...

I don't think they justify them. However, it does annoy me when people talk about how awful Trump's corrupt pardons are if they didn't raise similar complaints against Biden's.

Every time a President offers corrupt pardons I hope it will finally incentivize people to get rid of, or at least restrict, the pardon power, but despite it being something both Democrats and Republicans complain about, there doesn't seem to have been much legislative movement in that direction.

redraven said:

I made this which I hope is informative to others in this discussion:
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Hi,
LIstened to your vid, you mentioned Ukraine twice, care to shed a little light on what is on your mind.

Otherwise it would easily seem you are holding something back.

Valletta said:

No president before ever faced as much waste and fraud with SNAP as there is today. The Biden administration did not do due diligence in signing up new people.

Click to expand...

Another diversion to the point. Trump 1 used SNAP emergency allocation to fund the government. Trump 2 refused to...and only partially did so when a court ordered him to do so.

Trump has no qualms with using hunger as a bargaining tool.

Fervent said:

The problem is you're railing against a dead man, so there's really no accountability to be had. It's just a bit weird that you seem borderline obsessed with Charlie Kirk in particular. I'm not sure why anyone would even bother trying to defend him, regardless of how they may feel about him.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm speaking matter of factly about his comments.
No, I'm not obsessed - I do find it extremely hypocritical for him to claim 'Christianity' given his comments on a number of issues.

I was curious whether he would have any support in a forum like this who may be interested in debate. It's perfectly fine if there is no further
discussion.

I was hoping his supporters would have the ability to recognize and admonish his unChristlike behaviour, yet it appears that is probably asking too much.

pasifika said:

Thank you for the beautiful verses you quoted. But if you have not taught or understand this, then let me tell you, the old covenant law (10C) was given only to show Sin and Not Love. Romans 3:20, Gal 3:19-

Click to expand...

Well let's see what Paul is saying here in (Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The deeds of the law is referring to the animal sacrificial laws, all those sacrifices can never remove sins, so they could never be justified. This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. The animal sacrificial laws was added because people continue to sin, and the wages of sin bring for death. So instead of God killing people every time they sin, the Lord gave Moses a law to use, animals. So by the other law (Ten Commandments, Statutes and Judgement) is the knowledge of sin.

Now didn't Paul say in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.

To sum up what going on here in Galatians, Paul is explaining that Christ came from Abraham seed, and remove the animal Sacrificial law. But in the days of Abraham that animal Sacrificial law never was on the table, and was not needed for Abraham to obey and have faith in God. But the Commandments was always on the table. Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created.

Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts. (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law.

How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus.

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.

In the days of Jesus, the religious leaders were constantly questioning Jesus in order to test Him and on this occasion a lawyer asked Jesus what is the great commandment?
Matthew (22:35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus reply was the 1st great commandment was to love God and the 2nd was to love ones neighbor. These were given as a commandment for man to love.

Matthew (22:37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

One should note that by following the 1st and 2nd great commandment they will be adhering to the 10 commandments issued by Moses. If they love the Lord they won’t have any other Gods before him, or make any graven images or take his name in vain, they will remember his Sabbath and if they love their neighbor they will honor their Father and Mother and they won’t kill or commit adultery or steal or bear false witness nor will they covet. This is why Jesus goes on to state that on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets. Because by fulfilling these two commandments one fulfills the law.

(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus stated that these 2 commandments where the 2 great commandments however the following verses will show that these commandments were not new and that the Jews and Jesus was speaking to were aware of them. These were the same ones issued to Israel by Moses.

Deuteronomy (6:5) And thy shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus (19:18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Now that it has been established that man was commanded to love one needs to examine the scriptures to get an understanding of the love required in these great commandments.

In the following verses Moses is telling the Israelites that God chose them strictly out of His love for them.Deuteronomy (7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Note in verse (9) Moses states a condition that God requires in order for Him to keep covenant and have mercy. And that is an individual must love God and keep His commandments. The scriptures will show that there is only one way to love God and that is by keeping His commandments.

Note that Jesus states in the following verse that in order to love Him one has to keep His commandments.

John (14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus further defines the love He requires when He states in the following verse that those who have His commandments and keep them are those that love Him. One does not have to guess at Jesus definition of love He made it clear.

John (14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jesus also reinforced what was said in Deuteronomy verse (9) by adding that those that love Him will be loved by the Father. How does one love Jesus? by keeping His commandments and Moses said God will keep covenant and have mercy with those who keep His commandments. So therefore by following Jesus one shall receive love from Him as well as mercy from the Father.

Note in these scriptures it did not say those who profess their love for Jesus or those that claim that Jesus knows what in their heart. Jesus made a clear and direct statement if one has His commandments and keeps them they are the ones who love Him. The statement that Jesus made as well as the condition Moses gave in Deuteronomy verse (9) were based on behalf of an individuals actions not their feeling or emotions or conditions. To exhibit love towards Jesus one must engage in a specific action and that action is being obedience to the word of God. And one will see that they are to be obedient regardless of their feeling or the surrounding circumstances.

Jesus states again in the following verses what is required of an individual to receive His love.

John (15:9) As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice Jesus use the word if ye keep my commandments, so what happen if ye do not keep his commandments. The above verse shows to be loved of Jesus one needs to be obedient. Jesus also states in verse (10) that He was obedient to the Father by keeping His commandments and therefore abides in His love.

FreeinChrist said:

The topic is not communism or Cuba or Baptista.

Click to expand...

The relevant point being: If American continues to abuse the rights of it's citizens, there will be political consequences. Batista faced a revolution due in part to the brutality of his security forces. The Trump Administration is not the Batista regime....yet. However, if we, the citizens, don't defend our fellow citizens who happen to be Latino, we are well on our way to living in a state where arrest are arrest are made at the whim of a president.

At least from the perspective of a Natural Historian(myself), Adam's story is most closely represented by a group of people who lived about 13,000 years ago within 100km of the shield volcano that is the source major rivers(like in genesis 2:10). The area itself would have been a mix of carefully selected food trees left over from Natufian culture and fertile areas of light soil(glacial dust) covered in wild wheat that can be worked much easier than a modern farm. In the span of a normal life the area went from being paradise to a grassy ghost forest. Someone, as few a one person and his family, decided to cultivate wheat, which i interpret as genesis 3:17.

The main issue is finding exactly when and where it happens because all the great hunter gatherer settlements of 13,000 years ago are abandoned around the same time for hundreds of years then reoccupied by expert farmers and shepherds who just appear in mass 11,700 years ago. In that 1300 year exodus farming was invented. Which is a good place for a historical Adam. Finding exactly where and when it started is still possible. It's just not going to be a settlement, so that complicates it quite a bit. Still I have faith that with LIDAR and other technologies we will be able to survey the land for the features of an Adamic clan.(that area is still very barren, 1000s of tells unsearched)

eleos1954 said:

Many of the pardon's Biden gave are questionable as well it's not a one sided thing.

Click to expand...

Not sure which is questionable. His pardons mainly were granted to people that had already served out their sentences and had led good lives. The pardons restore any civil liberties they had lost. His commutations were for nonviolent offences where people were on house confinement.

photovoltaic cell

eleos1954 said:

Decide for yourself ...
Pardons Granted by President Joseph Biden (2021-2025)

Click to expand...

Why? I didn't make the claim...you did.