New Posts

David Lamb · 2025-10-22T05:21:26-0500

Guojing said:
Everyone love to use Abraham, and I agree, there is plenty of scripture from Paul saying we are Abraham's descendants.

As I already said, the reason for Galatians 3 is to say this:

Abraham received righteousness by faith without works, as Gal 3 quoted Genesis 15 correctly, which was before Genesis 17, before physical circumcision.

So he is our father in faith, we also received righteousness by faith without works thru Christ's death burial and resurrection, aka 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Paul says nothing about us having Jacob as our father, so you are explaining something else, other than the point you are replying to.

I don't understand what difference it makes whether or not all Christians can be called children of Jacob, as they are called children of Abraham. After all, we are not talking about physical descent, whether from Abraham or from Jacob, unless we happen t be Jewish Christians.

BelieveItOarKnot · 2025-10-22T05:16:48-0500

Dan Perez said:
How will you explain verse 18. as IT SPEAKS FOR IT SELF. and not talking about. a cup of WATER !!

dan p

I'm glad you find 1 John 5:18 difficult.

A "believer" is faced with 2 basic choices when reading that whosoever is born of God SINS NOT.

We can turn into lying hypocrites and claim we are not sinners, in the face of the obvious, that we are in fact sinners.

OR we can simply read the scripture and understand that there are 2 parties to this present drama, disclosed right there to see in the scripture, the person and the wicked one.

1 John 5:18
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

People are not and can NOT see themselves as scripture sees us unless they are "born again," with their eyes and ears opened to the scriptural fact that people are presented in scripture thusly:

[the person and the tempter or his own] = A PERSON

2 parties, ONE LUMP, just as Paul describes for example in Romans 9:18-24, 1 Tim. 2:20-21, and even with himself in 2 Cor. 12:7

NOW, knowing this Dan P. which one of those parties SIN? And which does not?

We also know from Paul in 2 Cor. 5:19 that sins are not counted against people, so the road is getting rather narrow isn't it?

There is only one answer, and the conclusion is that we ALL have to deal with our adversary

INTERNALLY

Those who do not accept the fact that there is an invisible world with invisible players have not yet stepped into the arena.

Those who exempt themselves are merely and still pawns of those players and have actually been sidelined by lying hypocrisy. God will SAVE THEM regardless, but they are not of much use in the state of lying hypocrisy, other than to judge what they carry in their own flesh in the service of God, which we all do.

GodAndChocolateVanilla · 2025-10-22T04:54:22-0500

I wish I could write a good love story!! But I am not a good writer!!

David Lamb · 2025-10-22T04:50:03-0500

Apple Sky said:
Okay - Freemasonry and the Illuminati claim that Nimrod was the first Freemason - Happy now

Thanks so much, Apple Sky, that makes what you meant much clearer, rather than giving the idea that you yourself believed Nimrod was a Freemason. Thanks again!

Job 33:6 · 2025-10-22T04:27:48-0500

BobRyan said:
"as I gave you" is the language that compares the two distinct giving of what is not food as found in Gen 1 compared to Gen 9.

Your idea of 'nothing changed here" needs a serious rework of the text.

your suggestion turns Gen 9 into "I forgot to mention that you could eat animals so now I am just reminding you I already said that "

But he didn't forget to mention animals. You just forgot to read it. God mentioned animals right there with plants the first time.

Genesis 1:28-29 NASB2020
[28] God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

And I never said that nothing changed. What changed is the prohibition about life blood. That's what's new. It's a prohibition.

And surely you could imagine, that if God tells people to subdue creation and to rule over wild fish and birds, that this includes a little bit more than simply making an aquarium and doing bird watching.

99% of the time that you interact with wild fish, what happens? You eat them. God's not talking about riding dolphins like boats. He's not talking about mounting seagulls like an airplane.

BobRyan said:
Gen 9 is not a command to animals , it is a command to humans.

So your argument is that animals were eating meat on the ark, but people were not?

BobRyan said:
The change for humans is that in Gen 1 humans are given plants to eat.

And animals, as noted above.

BobRyan said:
But in Gen 9 they are for the first time given animals to eat with no prior command telling them to eat animals.

Nope. Read it again:

Genesis 9:3-4 NASB2020
[3] Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant. [4] But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

I have given everything to you. That's past tense.

And this is how every dietary prohibition is written. It always begins with animals already consumed.

Example:
Deuteronomy 14:9-10
[9] “This is what you shall eat from all that is in the water: everything that has fins and scales you may eat. [10] But anything that does not have fins and scales, you may not eat, for it is unclean for you.

God is not giving people fish to eat for the first time in history. People were already eating fish. What's new is the prohibition, verse 10. And in Genesis 9, God is not giving remes to people to eat for the first time. They were already eating that class of animals. What's new is the prohibition in 9:3.

Just face it. You're ignoring all of these issues in your argument. And you're doing nothing to address any of my own. And still no mention of the focus on remes vs behema.

timewerx · 2025-10-22T04:26:02-0500

Hans Blaster said:
E/V = 3/2 n k T

as has been known since the early days of stat mech.

With the wind blowing in every direction at the same time. No net force on the turbine.

The device you are looking for to extract is "Maxwell's demon".

There are ways to rearrange random molecular motion into more or less one direction flow without recruiting Maxwell's demon.

You really have to start reading more engineering books because I'm not going to drop any more clues.

The Liturgist · 2025-10-22T04:08:18-0500

Daughter of Ararat said:
Hi, who is still here in 2025?

I am an EO with close relations to the Oriental Orthodox and regard the Oriental Orthodox as fully Orthodox in an exemplary manner. Indeed you may notice the icon I use is Coptic.

rocknanchor · 2025-10-22T04:04:49-0500

''I think "Holiness" churches used to concentrate on outer holiness, whereas now, a lot think about more inner holiness. Though, the outer holiness would probably come automatically with the inner.

I am a Holiness pastor, except I preach inner holiness.''

SOURCE

1Tonne · 2025-10-22T04:00:09-0500

d taylor said:
-

Must be a Ray Comfort Disciple

Login to view embedded media

As Ray says, and Peter said, "Preach with gentleness and respect".
We are to warn people of the condemnation, but I don't think that the people in the video are doing this with gentleness and respect.

Can you please send me a video where Ray preaches like that to back your belief. Or is it simply you want to slander Ray?

Kathleen30 · 2025-10-22T03:45:21-0500

keras said:
Ther Kingdom is here now; Spiritually.
To come physically after Jesus Returns; Isaiah 2:1-4, Isaiah 65:18-21, Zechariah 14:16-21

Keras that future new kingdom would commence after the great white throne judgement would it not with a new heavens and a new earth

FutureAndAHope · 2025-10-22T03:31:43-0500

Romans 8 said:
When I was first saved a few years ago, I reluctantly subscribed to the doctrine of OSAS. It's a nice thought. Once you put your faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross and resurrection, you're saved for all your sins past, present, and future. Done. But then I would listen to certain pastors, denominations, and even people's NDE's (experiences where people claim to have had direct revelation from God in dying). It shocked me to think that a "born again believer" could actually go to hell because they decided to abandon the faith, or they followed the wrong doctrines later in life, or they didn't show proper fruit and a proper repentance. I remember walking out of the Baptist church when I made my decision for Christ with conflicting thoughts recalling how the pastor informed me how one is saved; that all we need to do is believe and we will inherit eternal life quoting 1 John 5:13. He was right. But later I thought, Can it really be that simple? Emotions play on us, and we listen to the wrong "authority" or we read the wrong book, or watch the wrong video and we can find ourselves trying to please God through our bible reading or devotionals or good deeds, or even second guess our salvation altogether. Given the times we live the world is full of theological error and it's easy to get tripped up.

I found a really great resource I want to share: Andrew Farley has books and a YouTube channel. He has cleared up a lot of questions I had on many challenging verses which people often misinterpret. Andrew makes a great argument in one of his videos entitled, "What if fruit only grows in freedom?", how can we bear fruit if we're cheating on Jesus (grace) with Moses (the law).

*Edit: OSAS is true. Once we're sealed, we're sealed unto the time of redemption. Our names are written in the book of life. For he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus.*

I have cut the following from my website to save time:

OSAS and Lawlessness

Now let’s move to the issue of preservation of salvation. The acronym OSAS stands for Once Saved Always Saved. It is the logical conclusion of accepting Predestination. If God fixes destinies, if I am saved now, then I will always remain saved. The thinking that I will be saved no matter what can lead to (although not always) the thought that it does not matter if I sin, which in turn can lead to lawlessness, even a falling away from Christ.

To counter the thought of OSAS we will show from scripture that people can lose their salvation after receiving it.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (NKJV, Hebrews 6:4-6)

The first passage shows us clearly, that people who were “once enlightened” - given sight by God, “have tasted the heavenly gift” and have even “become partakers of the Holy Spirit”, can fall away from God, and if they die in sin, will be crucifying Christ again.

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: “A DOG RETURNS TO HIS OWN VOMIT,” and, “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” (NKJV, 2 Peter 2:20-22)

Peter also shows this same fact, that people who have escaped the pollution of the world can again be entangled in them and lost.

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)

Hebrews states that there is a worse punishment for those who fell away knowing Christ.

Even Jesus Himself spoke of casting away people who draw away from Him.

So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Rev 3:16)

Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent. (Rev 2:5)

Lampstands in scripture refer to the Holy Spirit; so Revelation 2:5 is a very severe warning, if as a Christian we go back to sin, and don't repent, God will remove the Spirit from us.

So from the scriptures, we can see that OSAS is not logical.

Quoted from The Way and Freewill

RamiC · 2025-10-22T03:19:29-0500

concretecamper said:
Another Mental exercise:

Did Jesus partake of the Eucharist at the Last Supper?

Eucharist, in Christianity, ritual commemoration of Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples. The Eucharist (from the Greek eucharistia for “thanksgiving”) is the central act of Christian worship and is practiced by most Christian churches in some form. Along with baptism it is one of the two sacraments most clearly found in the New Testament.

In the eucharistic prayer, the church commemorates Jesus Christ and his redeeming work, especially his sacrifice for the sake of all humankind through his crucifixion. The celebration also recalls the origin of the Eucharist in the Last Supper, when Jesus, anticipating his imminent death, offered his disciples bread and wine, saying, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you,” and, “Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood,…which will be poured out for you.” Jesus instructed the disciples to perpetuate this banquet in his memory.

Eucharist | Definition, Symbols, Meaning, Significance, & Facts | Britannica

Servus · 2025-10-22T03:05:26-0500

Theodore Roosevelt Renovation (1902): This renovation expanded the space by adding the West Wing, establishing it as the primary office space for the president. It also removed the Victorian-era decor that had accumulated over the years to restore the building's more classical style.

Coolidge Administration Expansion (1927): President Calvin Coolidge oversaw the addition of a third floor to the residence.

Franklin D. Roosevelt Expansion (1930s–1940s): The West Wing was overhauled in 1934, and the Oval Office was relocated. In 1942, the East Wing was added to conceal an underground bunker. And an indoor swimming pool was installed.

Harry S. Truman Reconstruction (1948–1952): Considered the most significant renovation in the building's history, the interior was completely gutted. Only the exterior walls were preserved.

Richard Nixon Expansion (1973): A bowling alley was added.
Donald Trump Expansion (2025): A ballroom is being added to the East Wing

CoreyD · 2025-10-22T02:59:14-0500

childeye 2 said:
We need to qualify what the will is free from, when we assert a free will. Who can understand what it means if it's not qualified?

I understand what a self-will is. That is why I posted this:

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Notice that there is no term "free" being used in Isaiah 53:6. Isaiah 53:6 is talking about being self-willed. You are using John 8:44 above to describe being self-willed.

Please note that 2 Peter 2:10 is saying that to be self-willed is to walk in servitude to the flesh.

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Self-willed = carnal-willed = the will of the flesh.
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders.

The children born of the Spirit of God have the same Character as their Father. --> But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. <-- God is Spirit.

The tares like obscurity and darkness because they don't want to be found.
The wheat like clarity and Light because they want to be found.

Therefore, it's wrong to use unqualified terms that obscure rather than clarify.

The devil will use semantics to obscure the truth. For example, below are two opposite meanings of free wills using this dichotomy Free/slave, but only one is truly free and the other is a lie.

(1) A will that is free from righteousness and is therefore a slave to unrighteousness.
(2) A will that is free from unrighteousness and is therefore a slave to righteousness.

Jesus said these words below so as to indicate that people will do/act according to the inner character of the soul which implies a pre-disposition. Hence the carnal will/self-will serves the desires of the flesh, and those desires are not voluntary.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You see the above underscored in bold? Now look at this -->
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

People who are blinded by lies do not represent intelligence nor an ability to act freely of their own.

One's own desires are predicated upon one's image of God/god in their heart. The angel that became Satan had a corrupt image of god and so do his children.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

This scripture is referring to a voluntary offering. It is an adverb, not a noun as in a man's will.

I see Paul conveying that he does NOT volunteer to preach the Gospel.

He does NOT preach the Gospel willingly. He does it because he has to --> (a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me).

This is a choice/option to either do these commandments or die. It is the exact opposite of unforced.

This is exhorting us to be liberal concerning our being charitable. Charity is a fruit of the Holy Spirit of Truth, it is not self-willed.

This scripture is simply saying Paul doesn't want Philemon to feel forced about receiving Onesimus.

This is why we need to qualify what the will is free from when we assert free will. Here you're now saying it means we have two options to choose from Life or death which now means it's NOT voluntary --> Do these commandments or be cursed and die.

Below is the Merriam Webster definition for volition. If you will notice #1, the term WILL standing alone without the adjective "FREE" added, already denotes the ability to reason and make choices/decisions.

volition
noun
vo·li·tion vō-ˈli-shən
və-

Synonyms of volition
1
: the power of choosing or determining : will

2
: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made

will
2 of 3

noun
ˈwil
1
: a legal declaration of a person's wishes regarding the disposal of his or her property or estate after death
especially : a written instrument legally executed by which a person makes disposition of his or her estate to take effect after death

2
: desire, wish: such as
a
: disposition, inclination
where there's a will there's a way

b
: appetite, passion
c
: choice, determination

3
: the act, process, or experience of willing : volition

4
a
: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending
b
: a disposition to act according to principles or ends
c
: the collective desire of a group
the will of the people

5
: the power of control over one's own actions or emotions
a man of iron will

6
a
: something desired
especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power.

I don't know why you would think Adam desired to disobey God. The scriptures actually show that Adam didn't volunteer to eat, he was persuaded by the woman who was deceived --> And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

No, this above is incorrect. God is Spirit. The True worship of God is drawn out by the object of worship, it's not a choice/decision. When we become fully convinced that God's Spirit is the Light of the soul and the only goodness in our soul that keeps us from becoming abominations, then we will worship Him in Truth.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

In this post I'm responding to you've identified 4 different meanings of "free" will:

(1) Being "self"-willed (a carnal will, a noun).
(2) You've identified a "willingness" (an adverb) as proof of a "free" will, when in fact It only requires a will (noun) to have willingness (adverb).
(3) A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice (an adjective).
(4) The presence of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die was claimed as proof of a free will even though it's not voluntary. In fact, the presenting of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die is NOT even a product of man's will, it is a situation where a choice/decision must be made out of necessity.

Your first statement says you still do not understand, so I did not read any further. Sorry.
If not a will that is free from anything. It's having the freedom to do, or act accordingly...
I don't have the skills required to simplify what I explained any simpler.

Servus · 2025-10-22T02:45:46-0500

camille70 said:
No, he wants US, the American taxpayers to pay him 230 mil. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the cost of the damage being done to the WH for his ballroom is 250 mil.

And they claim he's not a genius.

Mercy Shown · 2025-10-22T02:36:37-0500

Fervent said:
Even when there aren't explicit conditions, there is always an implicit condition within prophecies that they are contingent upon either repentance of those who are under the threat of judgment or obedience of those who are receiving benefits. Prophecy was given, at least in large part, to warn or encourage covenental adherence. Of course, there are exceptions, but as a general rule all prophecy was contingent.

what, if any, is the difference between a prophecy and a promise?

Aussie Pete · 2025-10-22T02:20:07-0500

Has anyone managed to sit comfortably on a stool with only two legs? The least you need is three. Otherwise, you become, in effect, the third leg, having to hold it up yourself. Too many Christians live as if they were the 'third leg". It's as if God has provided the way to salvation and heaven, but we have to perform the Christian life ourselves. I can assure you that this is a recipe for failure and defeat.

Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth and............. most Christians fail to appropriate the third aspect of our great salvation. How do I know? I listen to them speak, I listen to preaching and watch while so many struggle. If I get the opportunity, I will share the great truth that transformed my life. After way too many years of failure, I saw what I should have seen much sooner: Jesus is The Life.

What does that mean? Let me use another analogy. Suppose a chemist developed a pill that solved every human sickness and healed every injury. Most people would jump a the opportunity to be healed on anything and everything. Now perhaps that pill is expensive. It costs everything that you have. If you were desperate enough, you would pay the price.

God has only one answer to every human condition. Man's sickness is sin, leading to death. We receive forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross of Calvary. We die to self, sin, Satan and the world through our co-death with Christ. We are made new creations as we are raised with Christ. And we are made alive spiritually.

Paul summarised it best: 'For me to live is Christ.........' (Philippians 1:21). God is not a chemist, dispensing patience, love or joy. He has one remedy and that is Christ. Ask Jesus to live out His life, in you, through you and in place of you. You have to give up your pride and independence, rebellion and stubbornness. So it will cost you everything. But in return, you will know freedom, victory, love and joy that you cannot gain for yourself.

Does it work? Yes. I was sick with a potentially fatal and incredibly painful condition. I spent 8 days in hospital. The treatment was no fun. My mind was fogged so it was hard to pray for the first few days. Yet I knew peace that puzzled the medical staff. One told me off for not taking it seriously. I was able to witness to some, including an unbelieveing doctor who was raised in a Christian family. I was playing Christian hymns (A Mighty Fortress is our God for one) and only one patient complained.

Some might see this as boasting. No, my boast is only in the Lord Jesus. He gets the glory, not me. You have this new life within you, if you are born again. Let Jesus live in place of you and see the difference yourself. There is no room for pride. We should all be experiencing this wonderful new life. It's yours for the asking.

David Lamb · 2025-10-22T02:04:59-0500

Ed Parenteau said:
If your talking physically that there's no "second coming", I completely agree as He didn't actually come physically the first time--He was born of a virgin here on earth, but He did come. The same with the "second coming", He doesn't come physically, but He still in His words "comes" I am coming quickly", "hold fast to what you have until I come," So, when He says that, what do you think He means.

I don't understand how you can say that He was born of a virgin, but that He didn't actually come physically the first time. If He didn't come physically, why does the bible say:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” (1Ti 3:16 NKJV)

How could a spiritually being be crucified?

As for His Second Coming, the angel told His disciples:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”” (Ac 1:11 NKJV)

In other words, He didn't ascend invisibly, and He will not return invisibly.

bèlla · 2025-10-22T01:45:45-0500

Learning always said:
Let's look at the fruits of 2 different lifestyles:
The modern era - literacy rate going down, more divorce, more drug addictions, more crimes, more suicides.
1950s - higher literacy rate, less divorce, less drug addictions, less crimes, less suicides.

Modernity hasn’t prevented me from walking with the Lord, pursuing my purpose or living with holiness in mind because I agree with His principles. I love Him more than my sin. It doesn’t matter what’s happening around me. Staying the course is a choice.

~bella

jonojim1337 · 2025-10-22T01:35:15-0500

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Aaron112 · 2025-10-22T01:29:41-0500

Sapiens

Joined Aug 29, 2015
Last seen Feb 28, 2023

Bradskii · 2025-10-22T01:26:59-0500

Oompa Loompa said:
Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances.

I'll just repost that from close to the start of the thread (thank you Oompa). It's the definition that is common wherever you might want to look. It states quite clearly that if an action is right or wrong regardless of context, culture, or circumstances then it cannot be a case of relative morality.

I'm absolutely certain that the following basic question will not be answered. But that's exactly why I want it here. The next time a thread starts on relative morality I'll be able to point to this post to indicate that asking such a basic question is a worthless exercise.

'Please give me an action that you can determine to be right or wrong that disregards context, culture or circumstances'.

Actions which are described in a way that already contains the circumstances are invalid, such as murder (killing an innocent person in a premeditated manner, as opposed to killing in self defence) and rape (sexual intercourse without consent, as opposed to sexual intercourse with consent). This has already been discussed.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-22T01:24:39-0500

stevevw said:
Yes and they are saying that these discoveries are as they say rewriting and reshaping our understanding of human evolution and development. Being far more sophisticated in knowledge than we thought.

Echo from the Past: How Göbekli Tepe is Reshaping Our Understanding of the Neolithic

Popular Archeology - Echo from the Past: How Göbekli Tepe is Reshaping Our Understanding of the Neolithic

popular-archaeology.com

How Gobekli Tepe Rewrote the Origins of Civilization

How Gobekli Tepe Rewrote the Origins of Civilization | TheCollector

Gobekli Tepe is an ancient site that changed how people view early human history and is believed to have been built between 9600 BCE and 8200 BCE.

www.thecollector.com

Yes its all covered in journals and archeology.

Geometry and Architectural Planning at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey

Geometry and Architectural Planning at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge Core

Geometry and Architectural Planning at Göbekli Tepe, Turkey - Volume 30 Issue 2

www.cambridge.org

Representations of calendars and time at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe support an astronomical interpretation of their symbolism

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876

And that is fine, they are allowed to publish their works. I don't have a problem with that at all, what do you believe support ancient technology and lost knowledge in those articles?

stevevw said:
I thought I was lol. I sure have linked a lot of amazing stone works. Many of these seem to have risen around the same time period. Like a peak in magnificant stone works. We see similar signatures of these stone works all over the world such as the pyramid. Is that not evidence.

Saying something looks too good to be true isn't evidence isn't evidence for any ancient technology or lost knowledge, no.

stevevw said:
Actually not just stone work as not all cultures had access to stone. Its really about megaliths and stone seemed to have been the main works. But there were also land glyphs and works such as in south America. Massive monuments, shapes in the ground that can only be seen from above. Other works that used the landscape itself such as large natural rocks being worshipped or used as monuments ect.

I'll gladly read about them in journal articles.

stevevw said:
The logic is if there was a flood and we have strong evidence. That most humans lived by water such as rivers and coast lines.

Only catastrophically quick floods are threats to humans.

stevevw said:
Then it is logical that quite significant numbers were lost. Cities flooded or washed away. We see evidence for this flooding especially in the northern hemisphere.

Only if the cities actually existed before the flood.

stevevw said:
Such as the Channeled Scablands in Washington carved by the Missoula floods,

Formed at the end of the last glacial age, what cities or remnants of cities have they found there?

stevevw said:
the Black Sea deluge hypothesis supported by findings like ancient shorelines and drowned river valleys, and other evidence of large-scale floods in locations like North Africa, the Middle East, and Siberia.

So what underwater cities have they found there?

stevevw said:
Its ongoing research. But there was definitely a big melt of the ide cap at the end of the last iceage and big flooding.

Ice cores reveal rapid Antarctic ice loss in the past

Ice cores reveal rapid Antarctic ice loss in the past - British Antarctic Survey

The first direct evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet shrank suddenly and dramatically at the end of the Last Ice Age, around eight thousand years ago, is published in …

www.bas.ac.uk

The ICE thinned 450 meters over 200 years, what are catastrophic about that. How much would that increase the surface level of the oceans? Yes, coastal settlements might be lost but people would move to higher ground if it is on that timescale.

stevevw said:
Most important we have the testimony of just about every culture on earth who tell us over and over again that there was a great disaster like a flood that actually wiped out their ancestors.

If the descendants are alive, the ancestors didn't die.

stevevw said:
This is also evidence of a different kind. Testimonial evidence from lived reality that was passed down. But science relegates this as myth because it cannot be tested in a lab.

Are you calling me a moron lol. Oh sorry Muron lol.

No, I'm asking what is a Muron? You used the word in #812.

stevevw said:
Well you will know of the research into electromagnetism and these sites around the world.

Eh, no. Electromagnetism describes the interaction of moving charged particles and magnetic fields. Or two charged particles in realtive motion to each other. Don't quote me on that, if you think you have a better explanation give it to me.

stevevw said:
Especially the pyramids. Something to do with some sites being aligned in locations of higher electromagnetism.

Locations of higher electromagnetism, what does that even mean?

stevevw said:
Or that some sites can generate electromagnetism.

Study Reveals Electromagnetic Properties of the Great Pyramid of Giza

Study Reveals Electromagnetic Properties of the Great Pyramid of Giza - The International Space Federation (ISF)

There has been a number of recent scientific discoveries about the Great Pyramids of Giza using technologically advanced methods. For instance, a methodology

spacefed.com

That is not what the study says (https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/articl...-of-the-Great-Pyramid?redirectedFrom=fulltext), where is the generation of electromagnetism. So they did a calculation, have anybody measured the radio frequency spectra inside the the Giza pyramid? All short wavelengths will be blocked, but if the wavelength is long enough I guess it can travel through some rock.

stevevw said:
The Possible Relation Between Ancient Monuments and Geophysical Anomalies
There seems to be some indication that ancient people had some awareness of magnetism; maybe they were led to built temples upon what we can recognize today as geophysical anomalies.

The Possible Relation Between Ancient Monuments and Geophysical Anomalies

The location and concomitant potential geophysical properties of monumental sites is rarely considered in archaeology. In a previous paper by the same authors, the types of various geophysical anomalies are analyzed: geoelectrical, hydrogeophysical, geological. These anomalies originate mainly...

www.sciencepublishinggroup.com

The Possible Relation Between Ancient Monuments and Geophysical Anomalies. The abstract ends with them saying they are going to investigate 50 places in Greece with in-situ measurements. I really hope they choose those places randomly. We'll see if they get back to us with something interesting.

stevevw said:
Hum I did not think there was suppose to be an orthodoxy to begin with. Thats not science. Whenever science gets dogmatic about orthodoxy like anything its going beyond science and into belief.

You're the one calling it the orthodoxy. I just made the observation that we will keep believing in the current state of affairs until we see data and analysis that convinces about some other state of affair.

stevevw said:
Nowhere to be found.

You said the romans regularly wrote down when they lifted stones. Did they do that?

stevevw said:
Except the modern narratives that insist the Romans built them. But not the Romans themselves. You would think that considering they liked to detail all their works and achievements that moving the biggest blocks in the world would have been something to brag about.

Do they normally brag about big blocks?

stevevw said:
But more importantly describe in being able to achieve this as it would have required the greatest cranes ever built. Surely we would hear of such a feat.

No, why should we.

stevevw said:
I noticed even Ai which is a review of many findings acknowledges the Romans built the temple on an existing platform that was already there.

That is not how LLMs work.

stevevw said:
Which though not evidence does show that at least a large number of articles say the same thing. The evidence seems strong its not made by Romans. Different style, old looking, eroded far more than the Roman work, not typical lifting holes, no crane capable of lifting such weights, no records of them moving them even though they mention the temple.

If so point out the articles in peer-reviewed journals.

stevevw said:
But this is an example of many sites and a bit like the vases where theres disagreement about origina and who made them. Which has not been resolved though there is growing evidence for earlier dates.

If there is something interesting here, it will get published and discussed.

stevevw said:
Why is it always those who propose an alternative idea. It is the orthodox narrative that has no evidence and relies on assumption. I never see anyone calling for their evidence. They just acept it as fact without any evidence.

What you call the orthodox narrative is the collection of published peer-reviewed articles.

stevevw said:
So lets say theres no concrete evidence. Does the rational I just gave of the erosion, age, lack of physical ability of the Romans, completely different signatures that align more with other ancient megalths and that there was a site before hand, ect seem a stronger case. Than the no evidence from the orthodoxy based on whoever built last on a site built it.

No, your case does not seem like the stronger case. Mostly because what you are putting forward as supporting information is often not peer-reviewed. And when it is, it often is highly speculative or doesn't support the conclusion you draw from it.

stevevw said:
Is expert itself the qualification. Who is more an expert lol. Is it a competition of experts. Which scientists is more an expert on a site. One who visits once or 150 times and has more detailed observations because they have been there many more times to be able to properly examine it.

And you have not shown it is natural. Funny that. How about we say it may or may not be. We cannot rule either out at this stage.

That's true I haven't shown it natural. This is outside of my expertise, so I'll let the subject matter experts discuss it and give me their most probable explanation.

stevevw said:
No Wiki8 cannot be trusted. Once again they just don't know and there is evidence its from an earlier time. Once again the signatures are different. But the point was regardless that there is evidence of very similar architecture from the same area.

The Ryukyu kingdom is far away from Honshu, with it's own history and culture. So where can I read about the age of the Mount Nokogiri quarry?

stevevw said:
The Yonagumi monument as the name suggests is Japanese. The Mount Nokogiri quarry is Japanese. The similar signatures in other works such as at Peru are from a similar time if not also earlier works.

The Yonagumi monument is japanese only if it was created after 1609.

stevevw said:
This is the problem. The orthodoxy keeps relegating these works to people who themselves say their culture did not make them. We just don't know. But to assume they are from X culture when we don't know is wrong. Or that there is evidence they are earlier and just ignore this.

What like circular saws. How do they even get up there to use the tool. You would need a saw 20 foot big. Even then they are cut into the face and not across. How does a saw move.

If the quarry is from the Edo period, I'm sure there are some rudimentary writings about how it was done somewhere.

stevevw said:
Seems the good old orthodox methods can mimick everything from circular saws, lathes, giant graders, heavy lifters, almost magically.

Yes but the other forms like the Egyptian hyroglyphs were forms of written communication.

Hieroglyphs don't push the date back compared to cuneiform.

stevevw said:
Alternative knowledge by its very nature is not testable by science. Its alternative because it cannot be tested by science. Like conscious experiences cannot be tested by science. They belong in a different paradigm.

If one can use that knowledge to change anything measurable you can test it by science.

stevevw said:
Science can tests for the physical manifestations of brain activity. But the brain activity is not responsible for the experience.

Yes, it is.

stevevw said:
Thats like saying the wires in a computer are responsible for consious experience. Or alternative knowledge from God. How do you test for that. Say someones prayers are answered.

Easy, does prayin heal chopped off limbs? No, then we know prayer doesn't do that. Do those that pray die less from famine with all other things the same? No? Then we know prayer doesn't do that.

stevevw said:
Or God gives a revelation of knowledge. How do you test for that.

Because the deeper knowledge of nature may be experiencential which is a qualitative phenomena and not a quantified one. Science can only measure the quantified stuff. It will relegate the experiences or beliefs that bring the knowledge as something physical rather than immaterial. Belief is immaterial but brings knowledge.

In this case then its not lost. Its still happening. But it was a knowledge from the ancients. It was discovered by the ancients without science. It was part of their beliefs and experiences of being immersed in nature that they came up with it. They didn't have degrees in science where they worked out that this would be beneficial. ONly now we are beginning to understand this.

The point is they had medicines without the science. Its because they were immersed in nature. It was not just that they tried stuff. They understood nature as well and became aware of what worked and what did not.

Sure modern science is a modern thing. Of course, people could learn things before that, trial and error is a great teacher if it doesn't kill you first.

stevevw said:
That they understood the workings of nature. The cosmos was associated with crops, and seasons and movements of wildlife and other aspects of nature. They were living synchronised to nature. They worshipped the sun and moon and stars. They were their guides. This was part of what gave them secrets of nature.

I'm sure they had a lot of experience with their immediate surroundings, and they may have codified it into religious practices. But so what, if the knowledge can be used to manipulate reality we can use science to describe it.

stevevw said:
Like how the pyramids and other works are aligned to the sun and moon and stars. This brought knowledge and actually influenced their world. Do you think they just aligned these works to stars for nothing.

To the degree they aligned them after celestial objects they might have been important for them. But it has been possible to align things against celestial objects as long as there have been celestial objects and something to align.

David Lamb · 2025-10-22T01:24:20-0500

Bluebird60b said:
When 10 people or so saw Jesus ascend into heaven and he returns to the same spot, how can billions of people from around the world fit into that spot to welcome him back? I currently hold the belief that he won't return physically, but thru the holy spirit like at the first Pentecost. Giving them the ability to speak in tongues, convection to die as blood martyrs, and all the other graces that came out of those tongues of fire.

I don't believe that the return of Jesus Christ will be just spiritual, because the angel told His disciples:

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”” (Ac 1:11 NKJV)

Also, we are told that every eye will see Him:

“Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.” (Re 1:7 NKJV)

A spirit is invisible.

New Posts

New Posts

OSAS and Lawlessness​

volition​

noun​

noun​

Sapiens​

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page

OSAS and Lawlessness

volition

noun

noun

Sapiens