Latest activity

probinson · 2025-12-09T09:30:39-0600

Gene2memE said:
Ah, the old guilt by association.

Simply pointing out that your contention that it's not "just" Democrats is somewhat less than honest, since the organizations you cited are primarily Democrat.

Gene2memE said:
Medical associations receive funding from medical companies.

And you don't see a problem with that?

Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support.

...

Results 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality.

Conclusion Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review - PMC

Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This next article is talking specifically about the food industry, but it illustrates just how much finance bias factors into these studies:

One study detected that research articles sponsored exclusively by food and beverage companies were 4-8 times more likely to have conclusions favorable to the financial interests of the sponsoring company than articles that were not sponsored by food or beverage companies. A subsequent comprehensive review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examining sponsor influences on the quality and independence of health research cited that industry-sponsored studies were about 30 times more likely than non-industry sponsored studies to report statistically significant findings in favor of the sponsor.

Navigating Industry Funding of Research • The Nutrition Source

Scientific research is costly. However, a concern with industry funding is a potential influence on study outcomes, even if unintended.

nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu

Industry-sponsored studies are about THIRTY TIMES more likely than non-industry sponsored studies to report findings in favor of the sponsor. You're in denial if you think that pharmaceutical companies' funding doesn't impact the findings of their studies and the recommendations that the medical organizations make that are funded by them.

Gene2memE said:
Except that the medical associations ARE concerned.

Hand-wringing seems more appropriate.

Gene2memE said:
Because this decision will "lead to more childhood hepatitis B infections, will lead to more chronic infections that will follow patients into adulthood, and will complicate vaccine access for children".

So they say.

Has anyone asked them why other countries that don't recommend a universal birth-dose don't have these issues?

Gene2memE said:
Those are VERY GOOD reasons to be "deeply alarmed".

Sure they are, if they were evidence-based.

Gene2memE said:
There is also a broader reason to be "deeply alarmed".

Here comes the slippery slope...

Gene2memE said:
This decision was taken with no new evidence with an ACIP board that has been concocted for its ideological purity rather than its independent expertise.

That's amusing. Prior ACIPs have been in the pocket of the industry for years. They weren't selected for their "independent expertise". They were selected for their willingness to rubber-stamp things. They have all been selected for their ideological purity. It's just now they're "concerned" because the "ideological-purity" in place now isn't the one that puts financial gain first.

Gene2memE said:
The presentations around the vaccination established no causal link to any injury beyond "death following anaphylaxis", based on a 1994 study. There was not a single public-health based reason given supporting the decision to revise the schedule. Instead, what there was was a lot of picture of sad babies with needles and insinuations about phamecutical firms.

It's funny you should mention that there was not a single public-health based reason to support this, because when the universal birth-dose was instituted, there also was not a single public-health based reason to recommend it to newborns at low-risk. Prior to the 1991 recommendation, it was common practice to only vaccinate newborns whose mother tested positive for Hep B. That was evidence-based and logical. No evidence was presented that there was a public-health benefit to indiscriminately vaccinating all newborns. Someone just decided that an evidence-based, risk-stratified approach was not as easy as a universal approach. It's odd that only now people are upset that recommendations are changing without evidence.

And for crying out loud, if you want the Hep B vaccine for your child, you can still get it. Just because it's not recommended does not mean it's not available. "Talk to your doctor". Works for just about everything else.

Gene2memE said:
The complaint that there were "randomized, placebo-controlled, extended follow-up trials" is just so telling. As is the admission that "The safety concern may be more theoretical than real".

Did you watch the 20/20 clips I posted from January 1999 about the Hep B vaccine? The parents of the children who died and are permanently injured from the vaccine are not "theoretical". That was at a time when industry capture wasn't nearly as pervasive as it is today and mainstream media wasn't afraid to do real investigations. Alas, that is no longer the case today.

Gene2memE said:
This is the thin edge of the wedge. RFK Jnr and his pack of cronies are out to destroy one of the greatest achievements in human health.

There's the slippery slope I was waiting for!

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-09T09:29:22-0600

12 yards long, two lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride!

fhansen · 2025-12-09T09:29:21-0600

Mercy Shown said:
Thi

This is a good point. We are incapable of righteous judgement unless we have been born again and are walking after the spirit.

Perhaps a righteous judgement would have us avoid the popular movements of social Justice in the world today and promote the Justice of God found in the cross alone.

Jesus did not come to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved.

Yes, and I think we might be over-complicating things a bit. Should we prefer to be socially unjust? And yet we necessarily live in societies, societies where injustices often occur due to the avarice and general selfishness of man. Social justice concepts at their best strive to identify and rectify those actions and systems that foster inequalities between our fellow man. With the onset of the industrial revolution, for example, labor was often woefully exploited, with low pay, poor and unsafe working conditions, sweatshops, etc. Some churches spoke out in support of unions and the right to strike. Were they being hypocritically judgmental against the poor industrialists? Similiarly the Geneva convention was a matter of setting forth social justice policies as they can be applied to the tragedy of war. Political involvement is sometimes morally demanded.

DaisyDay · 2025-12-09T09:27:16-0600

probinson said:
What is the evidence that newborns at low risk who receive the birth-dose have better outcomes than those who don't?

What is the evidence that infants receiving the vaccine 24 hours after birth have a better or worse outcome than those receiving it at three months?

JimR-OCDS · 2025-12-09T09:23:38-0600

The secular Christmas songs were written by Jews, but the religious songs were written by
Christians. FYI, Hallelujah isn't a Christmas song.

JimR-OCDS · 2025-12-09T09:20:31-0600

JD Vance and Marco Rubio are Catholic.

samaus123456789 · 2025-12-09T09:18:08-0600

⭐ 1. GOD PURPOSEFULLY HIDES TRUTH Isaiah 45:15 “Truly, You are a God who hides Himself.” Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our children.” Two categories: secret things → God keeps hidden revealed things → for humanity to obey Job 28:21–23 Wisdom is hidden from every living thing… God understands the way to it. True wisdom is inaccessible unless God opens it.
⭐ 2. GOD CONCEALS SPIRITUAL TRUTH IN PARABLES, SYMBOLS, AND MYSTERIES Matthew 13:11 “To you it has been given to know the mysteries… to them it has NOT been given.” Jesus deliberately hides truth from the hard-hearted. Matthew 13:34–35 Jesus spoke in parables “to fulfill what was spoken… I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.” Parables = concealment and revelation at the same time. 1 Corinthians 2:7 “We speak the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery.” Colossians 1:26 “The mystery which has been hidden from ages and generations but now is revealed to His saints.”
⭐ 3. GOD HIDES FROM THE PROUD AND REVEALS TO THE HUMBLE Matthew 11:25 “You have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children.” A deliberate divine filter. Proverbs 2:3–5 If you cry out for insight… seek her like silver… THEN you will understand the fear of the Lord. Truth is found only through earnest searching.
⭐ 4. PROPHECIES ARE OFTEN SEALED UNTIL THE APPOINTED TIME Daniel 12:4 “Seal the book until the time of the end.” Daniel 12:9 “The words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end.” Biblical apocalyptic literature often hides timelines, symbols, and meanings. Revelation 10:4 The seven thunders spoke… “Seal up what the seven thunders said.” Even John is not allowed to reveal everything.
⭐ 5. JESUS IS HIMSELF A “HIDDEN MYSTERY” Isaiah 53:2–3 “He had no majesty that we should desire Him.” The Messiah appeared ordinary, hiding His glory. 1 Corinthians 1:27–29 God hides the truth from the powerful and reveals it through the lowly. Luke 24:16 “Their eyes were restrained so they did not recognize Him.” Concealment is part of God’s strategy.
⭐ 6. GOD HIDES HIMSELF TO TEST HEARTS Jeremiah 29:13 “You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.” Proverbs 25:2 “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; the glory of kings to search it out.” God hides truth so that only the sincere find Him.
⭐ 7. GOD ORCHESTRATES HISTORY IN A HIDDEN WAY Ecclesiastes 3:11 “He has set eternity in the human heart, yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Psalm 77:19 “Your way was in the sea, and Your path in the great waters, yet Your footprints were not known.” He acts invisibly, leaving traces that must be searched.
⭐ 8. GOD HIDES TO PROTECT WHAT IS HOLY Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy; do not cast pearls before swine.” Divine truth is not for mockers. Proverbs 1:24–29 God refuses to reveal truth to those who reject correction.
⭐ WHY DOES GOD NOT PUT EVERYTHING IN THE OPEN? The Bible gives five reasons:
⭐ 1. TO SEPARATE THE HUMBLE FROM THE PROUD God reveals His secrets only to those who want Him. This preserves the moral dimension of revelation: Truth is a reward, not a triviality.
⭐ 2. TO PROTECT THE UNREADY If God fully exposed the spiritual realm: humans would be overwhelmed accountability would increase to unbearable levels rebellion would instantly receive judgment Concealment is mercy.
⭐ 3. TO TRAIN DISCERNMENT Truth is not just data. The search itself produces: wisdom transformation humility holiness Revelation is formative, not merely informational.
⭐ 4. TO PRESERVE FREE WILL If God revealed Himself in overpowering visibility: unbelief would be impossible love would be coerced faith would vanish Hiddenness creates space for genuine relationship.
⭐ 5. TO UNFOLD HISTORY IN STAGES Revelation is progressive: Old Covenant concealed Christ Christ concealed the Church Age Revelation conceals the future Things are revealed when the time is right. As Jesus said: “I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” —John 16:12

samaus123456789 · 2025-12-09T09:16:23-0600

The sabbath was the last day of the week. The disciples met the first day of the week. Early Christian, and Roman writers said sabbath was saturday (well it was friday sunset to saturday sunset) , and the disciples met on Sunday (unsure if it was defined as saturday sunset to sunday sunset or not) so within the bible there is that transition from saturday to sunday. Ask chat GPT. Hebrews explains for those first century Israelite Christians once they believed in Jesus they rested from the works of the law of Moses.

durangodawood · 2025-12-09T09:14:46-0600

Servus said:
No Christian I've read accepts the two innocent fishermen murdered scenario. That's what they keep getting accused of by those who do accept that scenario. While failing to acknowledge others are leaning towards the other scenario.

It's not a sin or a moral failing to give the benefit of the doubt that the administration and Navy aren't being careless and homicidal. Those that hate Trump basically NEED it to be that way. They MUST be incompetent monsters.

I dont think thats the scenario most people are talking about. The one I understand is:

Killing of criminal suspects who werent putting up any resistance. And then going on to kill more when they are shipwrecked.

I dont see a defense for this thats compatible with traditional Christian morality as understand it. I will admit that my sense of Christian morality has been evolving tho.

Factotum · 2025-12-09T09:14:24-0600

RDKirk said:
The last 30 years of the 20th century.

If you mean 1969 - 1999, can you give some examples?? I can't seem to find any military counsels' refusals to bow down when I consider thing's like... Vietnam, Libya 1986, Desert Storm, etc...

Lukaris · 2025-12-09T09:09:51-0600

Larniavc said:
Yea

Yeah But how many janitors marry Kennedys? There is still a rigid caste system in late stage capitalist countries.

I do warehouse and janitorial work and if I lived in India, I would probably be a Dalit stuck in a caste system with thousands of years of formal structure. It would be the result of my karma and my underclass status would be deserved because of past lives I supposedly wasn’t “enlightened” to deserve better. Capitalism hasn’t discriminated against me religiously, culturally or socioeconomically. Capitalism can thrive if people have civil rights and economic opportunity. If I didn’t have a low IQ, I would probably do better in a capitalist system.

It seems like secularists can rationalize a caste system from economic data in a secular economy and equate wealth & poverty ( which is a human condition) with a structural economic disparity of a formal caste system that is based on primitive religiosity of a concept like karma. Capitalism can be good or bad depending on obvious economic and social conditions.

The case of the Dalits in holdovers from the caste system in India:

Socioeconomic status and discrimination

Discrimination against Dalits has been observed across South Asia and among the South Asian diaspora. In 2001, the quality of life of the Dalit population in India was worse than that of the overall Indian population on metrics such as access to health care, life expectancy, education attainability, access to drinking water and housing.[64][65][66] According to a 2007 report by Human Rights Watch (HRW), the treatment of Dalits has been like a "hidden apartheid" and that they "endure segregation in housing, schools, and access to public services". HRW noted that Manmohan Singh, then Prime Minister of India, saw a parallel between the apartheid system and untouchability.[67] Eleanor Zelliotalso notes Singh's 2006 comment but says that, despite the obvious similarities, race prejudice and the situation of Dalits "have a different basis and perhaps a different solution".[27] Though the Indian Constitution abolished untouchability, the oppressed status of Dalits remains a reality. In rural India, stated Klaus Klostermaier in 2010, "they still live in secluded quarters, do the dirtiest work, and are not allowed to use the village well and other common facilities".[68] In the same year, Zelliot noted that "In spite of much progress over the last sixty years, Dalits are still at the social and economic bottom of society."[27]

According to the 2014 NCAER/University of Maryland survey, 27 per cent of the Indian population still practices untouchability; the figure may be higher because many people refuse to acknowledge doing so when questioned, although the methodology of the survey was also criticised for potentially inflating the figure.[69] Across India, Untouchability was practised among 52 per cent of Brahmins, 33 per cent of Other Backward Classes and 24 per cent of non-Brahmin forward castes.[70] Untouchability was also practised by people of minority religions – 23 per cent of Sikhs, 18 per cent of Muslims and 5 per cent of Christians.[71]According to statewide data, Untouchability is most commonly practised in Madhya Pradesh (53 per cent), followed by Himachal Pradesh (50 per cent), Chhattisgarh (48 per cent), Rajasthan and Bihar (47 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (43 per cent), and Uttarakhand (40 per cent).[72]

Dalit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ecclesiastes 12:1-14, Romans 13:1-14

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-09T09:07:36-0600

Larniavc said:
America really is the 80s mini series ‘V’.

durangodawood · 2025-12-09T09:06:35-0600

RDKirk said:
I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.

So has it often been with organized crime.

Still, if we are going to bring acts of war rather than law enforcement upon these groups, then congress need to take the lead, as the constitution prescribes.

But why would the Trump admin wait for that when loads of its base in the electorate and in congress are more loyal to the man than to the constitution?

Factotum · 2025-12-09T09:01:40-0600

wing2000 said:
The US military has not previously directly attacked drug operations. However, the military has provided intelligence support to Latin American militaries:

"In the 1990s, the U.S. military assisted Colombian and Peruvian antidrug law enforcement activities by sharing information about civilian flights suspected of carrying drugs — like radar data and communications intercepts. But after those governments started shooting down such planes, the Clinton administration in 1994 halted the assistance for months.
The Office of Legal Counsel produced an opinion saying that military officers who provided such information while knowing it would be used to summarily shoot down those aircraft could be putting themselves at risk of later prosecution. Congress eventually modified U.S. law to permit such assistance.

And the Navy has long participated in intercepting vessels in international waters that are suspected of smuggling drugs toward the United States. But naval ships typically do so as a law enforcement operation, working under the command of a U.S. Coast Guard officer. Under an 1878 law called the Posse Comitatus Act, it is generally illegal to use the military to perform law enforcement functions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/us/trump-military-drug-cartels.html

....and such operations can lead to misidentifcation and inocent civilians dying:

"On 20 April 2001, the Peruvian Air Force (FAP) shot down a civilian floatplane, killing American Christian missionary Veronica "Roni" Bowers and her infant daughter Charity.[1]

While flying into the Loreto Region of Peru, Bowers, her daughter Charity, husband Jim, and six-year-old son Cory were being followed by a United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) observation plane. The Peruvian Air Force was operating as part of the Air Bridge Denial Program. The CIA did not attempt to identify the tail number of the church-owned plane per procedure."

2001 Peru Cessna 185 shootdown - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is great idea info. Thanks for sharing!
I had 2 questions after reading it;

▪︎Do you know how many months, the Clinton Admin waited, before continuing to aid Peruvian and Colombian GOVTs with the bombing of those planes --while awaiting Congress to modify the laws?
▪︎If you are aware of Sen. John Fetterman rejecting Adam Schiff's recent attempt to end Trump's power to bomb Caribbean drug trafficking boats... can you list why you would dispute or support Fetterman 's stance?

orbiter · 2025-12-09T08:58:24-0600

Peace in Christ.

This is the “death” that we are to die: bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus so that His life might be made manifest in our body….in our MORTAL FLESH. This is the keeping of His “daily” sacrifice as we are to ALWAYS do it. We then manifest the Son of man to the outside world by doing so. The people of the outside world who are sitting in deep darkness will then "see" Him made manifest through us by looking at us. They will come to His manifestation through us. They will come as a "cloud" as the Son of man comes upon a cloud of EYEWITNESSES of His glory that they will see through us who manifest it to them.

2Co 4:10-11 KJV
(10) Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
(11) For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

But currently, the Son of man is “going away”…sinking out of view from this earth…as His life is not being made manifest in the man-based churches as the Son of man is being given up/betrayed into the hands of sinners. The people of the outside world are in complete spiritual darkness as they do not see the form of Christ nor do they have the knowledge of the glory of God.

We are “asleep” to this fact in the man-based churches and we need to “awake” …to “behold”…to perceive… what is really going on in them: He is being betrayed (PRESENT TENSE) now in the man-based churches who know not what they are doing. The man-based churches will not believe in this knowledge when they will hear it.

Mar 14:41-42
(41) And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed (present tense) into the hands of sinners.

We are to “awake” (RISE UP= awaken) to this fact and take action and GO away from them: “let us go.”

We must come out from among them and be separate and be no longer attached to the unclean body of the man-based churches where His life is being given up.

(42) Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.

The Son of THE man is being betrayed PRESENT TENSE)!

Mat 26:24
(24) The Son of (definite article: THE) man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of (THE) man is betrayed (PRESENT TENSE)! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

The people of the outside world who are sitting in deep darkness cannot now “see” His life shine through us for He is being currently given up so that His life is not being made manifest in the mortal flesh of any of the man-based church goers.

The Son of THE man (man = Anthropos - From aner and ops (the countenance; from optanomai). Aner = man and “ops” = EYE.

Optanomai = the first a (middle voice) prolonged form of the second (primary) which is used for it in certain tenses; and both as alternates of G3708; to gaze (that is, with wide open eyes, as at something remarkable;

The outside people (the anthropos) are to SEE….to GAZE with wide eyes at something remarkable: the manifestation of the life of the SON of God made through the flesh of His people. The Son of the "man"...the anthropos...as the outside people of the world will see the Son and consider what they are seeing.

They …the anthropos…will “see” Him manifest through us and will consider. Kings will SEE something remarkable with their eyes. They will see the King of kings and the Lord of lords through us. He makes us kings and priests through His manifestation of His glory in us to them.

Isa 49:7 KJV
(7) Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

Kings shall SEE His "visage"...His view....and they will consider Him at the VIEWING of the Son whom we manifest to their eyes. They will see the Son of the man…the seeing man that will consider what he is seeing with eyes wide open to this remarkable sight of Him at their viewing of Him made manifest through us.

Isa 52:14-15 KJV
(14) As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
(15) So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-09T08:58:23-0600

I can remember when FBI de- escalate meant shooting the wife, kid, and dog.

BNR32FAN · 2025-12-09T08:55:41-0600

Postvieww said:
My only reason for responding the way I did is the fact that many anti gun proponents use scripture to try and make the gun the problem. My only point was the weapon is not the problem it is the person using it . If it was the weapon that was bad I do not believe Jesus would said to get one in any context.

Yeah I agree, there is nothing wrong with carrying a weapon it all depends on what you intend to do with it.

probinson · 2025-12-09T08:54:35-0600

DaisyDay said:
What is the evidence that infants receiving the vaccine 24 hours after birth have a better or worse outcome than those receiving it at three months?

What is the evidence that newborns at low risk who receive the birth-dose have better outcomes than those who don't?

probinson · 2025-12-09T08:53:20-0600

DaisyDay said:
If you pay attention to these posts you would know that "saturated with lies and misinfo" aren't my words so putting them in quotes and declaring them to be my beliefs is careless or worse.

I know they're not your words. But they were indeed a quote from someone in this thread. Your words were not "proof of anything".

DaisyDay said:
I don't think VAERS is saturated with lies - although lies are put in by some people for their own agendas - there is much misinformation primarily, imo, because correlation is not causation but such correlations when they reach a concerning significance trigger investigation. Tracking trends is done by statistics to filter noise from data, which are then studied. This is pretty basic.

Do you have any evidence that is occurring? Every time VAERS is brought up., it is immediately dismissed. No one attempts to "filter noise from data". They simply point out some obviously ridiculous example as a reason to discard everything. You do it later in this very post, where you point out that someone got run over by a bus. That seems to be the MO. Find one crazy report that is clearly false as a reason to discard everything else.

Have you ever read a VAERS report that concerned you? Have you ever actually done what you suggest here and filtered the noise from the data?

DaisyDay said:
Have you ever looked into the VAERS database yourself and actually read some the cases as submitted?

Yes. Have you?

I've even submitted two VAERS reports of my own: one for me and one for my daughter. We had very severe and concerning reactions to the COVID vaccination. I reported thinking maybe someone would follow up. But no one ever did. I guess temporary paralysis and fevers of 105 aren't "severe" enough to warrant further investigation.

DaisyDay said:
One case was of a patient who died some time after getting a covid vaccine, but she had also been run over by a bus (or something similar, this was a while back so I don't recall the exact details) shortly before dying. VAERS had this flagged as death post vaccine which was true chronologically. Now, if hundreds of patients died by bus post vaccine, then that should be looked into as well as to why.

Again, have you ever read a VAERS report you found concerning?

DaisyDay said:
There is a ginormous difference between evidence and proof.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

essentialsaltes · 2025-12-09T08:50:16-0600

No, you, unilaterally, would not be allowed to do that. We The People can do that.

I don't know if it's enhanced our National Security, but Trump has enhanced China's access to more advanced chips.

Well, at least we're getting our $25%.

BNR32FAN · 2025-12-09T08:49:08-0600

Mercy Shown said:
Christ often used things like parables, hyperbole, metaphors, and similes to make his point.

For instance he commanded that we be perfect even as God is perfect and yet none of us are in ourselves.

Jesus gave extreme commands to people at times that were all but impossible to obey such as telling a man who had been lame for 30 plus years to take up his bed roll and walk. Or commanding a person with a withered hand to stretch it out.

These commands fortunately came with his divine power so that the impossible became possible.

Unfortunately many who are obsessed with social Justice are attempting the impossible by their own power. They believe that what they deem as just and unjust is a fact and that could be the biggest log they have in their eye.

The industry of social Justice is a very hard place to check one’s ego where as in the gosple the ego finds no purchase.

What was the point of the statement? Get the beam out of your own eye then you will see clearly enough to take the speck from your brother’s eye.

A2SG · 2025-12-09T08:48:31-0600

wing2000 said:
Hernandez is believed to be in the United States after Trump pardoned him.

Is he here illegally? Can he be deported?

-- A2SG, asking for a friend....

Aryeh Jay · 2025-12-09T08:46:41-0600

iluvatar5150 said:
If I wanted to get cute, I could point out that, with a sample size of 1, it's actually Jews who have the highest propensity for establishing ethnonationalist state entities in the regions they control.

Yep, 110%, with a 10 point margin of error.

stevevw · 2025-12-09T08:45:21-0600

sjastro said:
Get through your thick skull you have not presented a shred of evidence of anything in this thread that supports your nonsense.

Except for the clear observational evidence of melted, weakened or softened stones. I gave you th evidence you you skipped it. Its easy to claim no evidence when you skip it.

sjastro said:
The sheer stupidity is for you give lectures to educated individuals in this thread who at the very least know what evidence means.
Evidence is physical in nature, it is measurable and/or observable not your idiotic definition where it is derivable and interpretable according to one's bias.

So what do you think this is. How is this stupid. It is you I think who is being silly by claiming that this is not evidence for stone melting and softening.

First image vitrified and melted stones at Dun Knock Hill Fort. Image two softened stones showing vitrification and flaking of surface at Cusco. Image 3 melted and fused stones of vitrified ramparts in Scotland. The paper for this was in the video I linked.

So I fail to see how you claim there was no evidence.

Just in case you want to dismiss the above heres some more.

Reproduction of melting behavior for vitrified hillforts based on amphibolite, granite, and basalt lithologies - Scientific Reports

European Bronze and Iron Age vitrified hillforts have been known since the 1700s, but archaeological interpretations regarding their function and use are still debated. We carried out a series of experiments to constrain conditions that led to the vitrification of the inner wall rocks in the...

www.nature.com

sjastro said:
When it comes to melted or softened stone in the case of Egyptology there is not a shred of evidence of any physical changes occurring when subjected to petrological testing as shown in my previous post.

Its not just about Egypt. But they definitely had some way of softening stones. Similar signatures are found between the Egyptian stones in walls and the Purvians.

I gave you the paper on the tests which showed that the cast blocks at Menkaure pyramid. They found Diatomaceous Earth (DE) within the mix which was not natural to limestone. Its easy to claim no evidence when you ignore it.

Then theres the scoop marks. You ignored all that evidence. Never mentioned it once. All you did was claim they used bigger pounders without one bit of evidence. Just like the claim that the split the pyramid blocks within evidence. Contradicting your own side that the blocks were hand sawed.

You forget I provided images of softened stones on the Temples around the pyramids and within the cemetaries east and west. You fobbed this off with the stock standard unsupported claim that the Egyptians must have pounded and ground the stone to look like it spread like putty within cracks lol. I guess pounding and grinding can do anything. But you provided absolutely no evidence for this.

So please be consistent and deal with that evidence. Either provide the same level of demands you want of me with peer review or something scientific showing that this was done by grinding or stop making unsubstanciated claims and then have the hide to claim I have provided no evidence. Its easy to make that claim when you ignore or dismiss my evidence.

I have more than provided evidence that the ancients were able to melt, soften, fuse, reconstitute and weaken stones. And I am not going back to reprove what I have already linked that you ignored. If you want to dispute this then find the links as I am not redoing this for the 5th time lol.

sjastro said:
If concentrating on Egypt is too narrow by all means supply petrological tests for any of your non Egyptian images showing the rock has been physically changed.
Otherwise as you have demonstrated images are subject to interpretation where bias not evidence is the determining factor.

Already did last post and you ignored it. So please go back and check. As well as what is provided above.

RDKirk · 2025-12-09T08:44:00-0600

wing2000 said:
Agreed. But tell me, what is the intent of drug cartels?

Is it to:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

....or, perhaps, make a profit on an illegal substance?

I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Socioeconomic status and discrimination​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

Socioeconomic status and discrimination