Pommer said:

L. Ron Hubbard missed his calling!

Click to expand...

Especially now that talks of UAPs have gotten more prevalent recently.

He could've dovetailed that into his existing books.

camille70 said:

James isn’t out of the woods yet. They can indict her again. She might have a separate case requesting dismissal over malicious prosecution pending though. If so, I don't know what happens with that since this is currently dismissed.

Click to expand...

Comey can be indicted again despite this dismissal if it's done by someone properly appointed. This article discusses the issue:

We're now past the statute of limitations for Comey, it is true, but if an indictment is filed within the statute of limitations but dismissed after the statute runs out, the government normally gets another 6 months to bring the case; see US Code Title 18 Part II Chapter 213 Section 3288. Here's the full thing:

Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.

The key points are the bolded. It was dismissed, and thus they get another 6 months to bring a new one. Unless the dismissal was failure to file the indictment within the period prescribed or something else that would bar a new prosecution. That is not the case for this dismissal; all they have to do is have a properly appointed prosecutor bring the case and they can do it again.

That said, there were other motions to to dismiss Comey filed that aren't in front of the same judge that did this dismissal, and some of those might end up triggering the second bolded section by virtue of "failure to file the indictment" due to grand jury shenanigans, or the conclusion it's a vindictive and selective prosecution (which wouldn't be any less vindictive or selective six months from now). Despite Halligan doing a bad job with the grand jury, no doubt due to her inexperience, from my understanding it doesn't seem like the issues are enough to conclude that it was actually a failure to file, but they might. In regards to the vindictive and selective prosecution, the fact it's vindictive is easy (if this can't be ruled vindictive, what prosecution can?) but as I understand it, you need more than just that--you need to also prove it's selective, meaning other people aren't getting prosecuted for similar alleged crimes, which is where things get more murky. If the case is also dismissed on those grounds, then it seems like it would prevent another indictment for coming to Comey on this... but this current dismissal doesn't preclude another indictment.

jonojim1337 said:

The Empire of Alexander is the Roman Empire

Click to expand...

Not in any universe. You need to stop reading fantasy novels as if they were history books.

1 Corinthians 15:41-42 - From 35-58 is explaining several concepts at once using metaphors by using some of the same terminology that is described else where. So essentially, We cannot be born again in Christ unless we die to our flesh which is the same concept Paul uses here but hes making a different point. So, we will be raised with a heavenly body which is a different type in general vs the one we have now which perishable and hes giving examples of the differences in other things to illustrate his point.

Luke 19:17 - Is a parable about the different kinds of servants. 2 kinds used what God gave them and expounded on the nobles kingdom and was rewarded based on what was returned to the noble when he came back as King. This story is noble = Jesus. The 3rd servant didnt do anything with what God gave him which upset God, so he took back what was given and gave it to the guy who did the most. He says he should have at least put it in the bank which he would have gotten interest at least. So essentially: The 2 good servants brought people to Christ, corrected people etc. The 3rd servant could have helped others, taken part in the church, would would have at least passively helped in growing Gods kingdom but instead he did nothing.

Matthew 5:19 - Who ever teaches Gods commands (10 commandments and others like baptism and the last supper), God views as "great" in his kingdom.

1 Corinthians 7:38- Paul says it's better to remain single, because you can do whatever you need to do for God and you don't have any responsibility for anyone else (a wife) that could hinder what you could do for God. So if God told you to go somewhere, if you're single you can just pack and go but if you have a wife to look after, that creates issues in Pauls opinion because of "divided interests".

Matthew 19:12- Jesus is saying simply to accept how God's kingdom IS. It's like complaining about how someone runs his house and Jesus is just like, it is what it is, just accept it. The topic was divorce, where Jesus says if you divorce for any other reason other than sexual immorality, you are committing adultery. The pharisees didn't like that answer because back then they would write a divorce decree if the woman just got on his nerves... it was ridiculous. So clearly, they didn't like Jesus's answer.

Revelation 14:4 - This is a very very long study... and is not a simple answer. I will try to sum up because to explain would need a whole post for... so in the context of the verse "virgins" who haven't defiled themselves with women is debated among a lot of people... some people take this literally, and people like myself see the symbolic context to it. Woman = religion, virgin = being righteous, so someone who isn't a spiritual adulterer and has another god while also trying to follow Christ. So for me, in this context, these 144,000 are pure, undefiled (spiritually speaking), people who follow Jesus where ever he goes because he is their shepherd.

boughtwithaprice said:

Jesus Christ and him crucified is the Gospel, the Sabbath is not the Gospel.

Click to expand...

Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”

Direct quote from the 4th comamndment

Exo20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Our salvation is from sin Mat1:21 no one is saved in sin Heb10:26-30 and if we allow God to define sin, it is breaking God's Laws 1John3:4 James2:11, why they sit under His mercy seat where justice and mercy will come together soon.

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

The good news or gospel is Jesus died for our sins and we too can be free of the bondage of sin though Christ if we repent, which means turn from and abide in Him. If we are in Christ we would be doing what Christs asks and not rebel Rom 8:7-8 why He calls on if we hear Him Heb3:7-13 so yes God's Law- His version is very much part of the gospel message.

The saints get to meet Him in the air when He returns. He calls on everyone, sadly many use their will over His.

Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. What is the faith of Jesus what He taught and how He lived. Jesus kept the Sabbath Luke4:16 and never once changed it, He promised He would not change His commandments, not a jot or tittle Mat5:18-19

boughtwithaprice said:

Those who are in Christ do not profane the Sabbath and it is slanderous and libelous to say that we do.

Click to expand...

Christ knows who is in Him and is not, we can't hide anything from Him Ecc12:13-14 He will sort out the wheat from the tares, but He said plainly not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter into heaven, those who do what He says, obey Him, the way He said and not what feels right to us or is popular with the world. Mat7:21-24 Luke 6:46-49 Mat7:13-14 Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13

boughtwithaprice said:

The Sabbath has been fulfilled in Christ

Click to expand...

Jesus never fulfilled the Sabbath commandment so we can profane it, just like He never fulfilled the commandment for murder so we can go commit murder.

boughtwithaprice said:

Why do you think that He says come unto me all that are heavy laden and I will give you rest?

Click to expand...

The rest in this verse is not the Sabbath rest, His rest is from sin

Psa 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.

If we go to Him and ask for His help in overcoming our sins, He will help us, this is the rest He speaks of not that we can profane His Sabbath commandment. The rest He gives is not the Sabbath- the Sabbath is about resting from our works and labors on the seventh day so we can keep the Sabbath day Holy Exo20:8-11 to honor Him on His holy day Isa58:13 so we can spend sanctified time with God on the day God set aside and blessed and sanctified.

There is no rest in disobedience Rev 14:11 and that includes the 4th commandment.

Isa 48:13 Oh, that you had heeded My commandments!
Then your peace would have been like a river,
And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

boughtwithaprice said:

He does not tell them to go to the Sabbath to get their rest.

Click to expand...

Jesus said come to Me and I will give you rest and still kept the Sabbath day holy as a holy convocation Luke4:16 so obviously His rest didn't delete the 4th commandment. We would actually need a verse for that and there is none. Also God has always had more than one rest throughout the entire Bible, never once does it say it deletes the 4th comamndment. In fact the opposite is said, those who enter His rest also (which means they do something in addition) they also cease from their works Heb4:10 as God did on the seventh day Heb4:4 Exo20:11 because God's people are made in the image of God to do what He does and follow Him that has His power of blessings and sanctification. Never did Jesus tell anyone not to keep the Sabbath commandment.

boughtwithaprice said:

You are worshipping a day above the man Jesus Christ. Is Jesus impotent to save?

Click to expand...

Actually that's what you are doing. I am doing what God asked over and over again in the Scriptures. Not only did He speak this He wrote it our plainly so there will be no excuses at His second coming.

boughtwithaprice said:

Oh, and the antichrist could not care less upon which day you worship as long as you worship him instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Click to expand...

The antichrist doesn't care what you do as long as you are not obeying God the way God says.

Hans Blaster said:

Deflect, as in refuse to look at or deny evidence that the whole cadre of pseudoarcheologists you've been citing are deeply tied to Hancock and his predecessors, personally, or "intellectually". You do it every time it comes up (and you are right now). I see no point in laying out detailed evidence if you are just going to dismiss it.

Click to expand...

Actually this is an assumption that I dismiss the idea that what I am saying could be construed as what you are trying to point out to me. I have said I know the difference and that you underestimate those who may speak of the idea of lost advanced or alternative knowledge.

The topic itself is not a conspiracy theory and those who investigate and propose such an idea are not grifters. That there are some who do does not make everyone the case. This is my objection to your tarring everyone with the same brush.

Even Hancock gets stuff right. I showed you how Dunn was correct in his idea that the pyramid may be some sort of energy generator. This idea is now being proposed by mainstream science.

So a person is able to take what is good and leave the rest even if the person may promote some conspiracy. The very topic is primed for that type of elaboration. But that does not make it all pseudoarcheology.

Hans Blaster said:

They is what they is, and you are deflecting right now.

Click to expand...

No I am not. I have acknowledged the difference. But you have not. It is you who are deflecting in that you cannot admit that these people are sometimes right and on to som ething in some cases. You reject it all based on assuming ots all bunk.

Whereas you have not actually shown any evidence for this assumption. I can show that some of the stuff they mention is supported by the science.

You seem to be tarring the whole topic or any mention of ancient advanced knowledge as all (hancock grifting) when its clearly not. Its a genuine hypothesis and line of investigation.

Hans Blaster said:

I don't care.

Click to expand...

Well thats the problem then. You don't care to properly investigate human behaviour as far as culture and belief and creating legends and myths are related to real events.

This is dismissing a good chunk of the evidence and imposing a specific epistemics that we must exclude such considerations from how we can understand the ancients and human behaviour.

Hans Blaster said:

That doesn't make it a good basis for an understanding of history.

Click to expand...

It depends what history your talking about. We are talking about legends like Atlantis and the Flood. Understanding the cultural aspects of human behaviour such as belief helps understand how legends and myths are based on real events.

It links the two. Thus it lends weight to informing the science ie if the flood myth is based on a real even then there will be geological evidence. Or eveidence of mass destruction in places that match the stories. Thus giving a real basis for the event that became the legend or myth.

That is more or less what some people are doing. Believing the legends and myths have some substances. Not the magical and unreal stuff. But real events that happened that sparked the legend.

So I mentioned the bible events and how archeology is actually finding the real places and events that may have been made into myth or moral tales as a comparison.

Hans Blaster said:

I have a separate post calling this out, but stop talking about conspiracies. (or claiming I am talking about them.)

Click to expand...

Ok so is anything in this thread so far not a conspiracy. Or not promoting conspiracy and pseudoscience. Because what I am getting is its all unreal and conspiracy.

Hans Blaster said:

If you want a thread about some paranoid conspiracy fantasy involving the archeological establishment conspiring against the Hancock acolytes to keep them down, go start a thread about that in the conspiracy subforum. This sub-forum ain't the place for that stuff.

Click to expand...

Lol I thought that was already happening in this one. Except its been spread to everyone mentioned. They are all in the Hancock mould. Even the presenter in the OP.

Remembering that this thread was actually about the idea that there was a flaw in the orthodox/mainstream narrative about our history. That it was actually the orthodoxy that was hiding stuff and pushing a particular narrative that conformed to the establishment.

So in reality this thread actually involves issues like Hancock and determining what is conspiracy and what is not. That this thread has decended into arguements about the credibility of the sources is evidence for this.

Hans Blaster said:

What "good people"?

Click to expand...

There you go, you confirmed what I just said above. If you have to ask that question shows that you have already made your mind up none are good that I have linked. Therefore a blanket ban and tarring.

Hans Blaster said:

No they are not machines, they are apes, just like us.

Click to expand...

This is interesting that you say this. Considering that the very beliefs and alternative knowledge is beyond just being an ape. This a physical explanation.

That human belief and culture is just a biological byproduct. Its begging the question that the whole idea of human spirituality and culture is an aspect of humans independent of any such physical explanations and a force in itself that can bring knowledge.

Hans Blaster said:

The thread has been about the physical evidence for earlier settlements (at first) and the technologies used on certain Egyptian objectss. These are not "worldview" topics, for the ancients or for us. (This also isn't a "worldview" section of CF.) You have not discussed Egyptian culture, you have instead denigrated their stone working skills.

Click to expand...

But the thread is about the flaw in the narrative of our history which is more about the epistemics and metaphysics. Which is related to scince and including behavioural sciences. But can include science in the form to determining the level of knowledge and tech in what they made. Which seems an obvious way to work out how knowledgable they were.

But its not restricted to just that and in fact as I mentioned earlier we could argue about the specific micron of difference or marks on one item and make it a threead in itself like the vases. But it still does not help. We would need to do a global assessment of all the works and not just Egypt.

Because its not the specific examples but the overall examples and patterns we see which then relate to the legends and align. Its not just the knowledge of making stuff. Its the overall worldview they had. Its understanding that compared to today and other times. Its a massive topic and restricting it to just measuring objects is narrowing down things and missing the point.

Hans Blaster said:

Your principle sources aren't doing anything but speculation.

Click to expand...

This is false. The articles on stone softening, casting and weakening and others on the piezoelectric and electromagnetic effects are not spectualtion and warrent further investigation. There are several lines of investigation into the ancients knowledge and tech from mainstream science that is justified and not spectualtion.

There are many archeologists who are proposing and invesigating such possibilities. Are the clear and obvious images I showed you that everyone seems to want to deny spectualtion.

Hans Blaster said:

Neither has anything to do with DNA. I'm not discussing UFOs no matter how much connection the material presented here might be tied to ancient astronauts, nothing is to be gained by discussing particular modern sightings.

Click to expand...

I don't either. It was merely to point out how even today people testify to alternative and advanced knowledge and its not conspiracy. In this sense its related to the thread in that if the orthodoxy narrative is flawed. Then maybe part of the flaw is pretending there is no alternative and advanced knowledge that is beyond what is suppose to be the case.

Hans Blaster said:

And of course "lost advanced tech" is somehow (thanks to you and your sources) the subject of this thread. (Karoly even has it as part of his YT channel name, or is it his podcast.) But "UFOs and DNA" are not.

Click to expand...

"Lost advanced tech and knowledge" is the subject of this thread. A flaw in the orthodox narrative is what is being said that denies the lost advanced knowledge. Thats the point. The links I have posted are in support of this.

But you have turned everyone presented into Hancock of the worst types. Even a extreme caricature made of Hancock himself and then presented as the big bad boogy man who is lurking in everyone presented on this thread. As grifters and woo merchants. By doing so you have turned the thread into conspiracies.

Once again guilty by association. You assume that if there are linked sites with spectulative ideas that somehow Karoly is a quack. Without actually finding out what he actually has said on this lol. But then you would not believe him anyway.

Then on top of that you tar me and others by an association of an association lol. Assuming everyone and everything said is all conspiracies.

Hans Blaster said:

I've seen several of their videos, both "unchartedX" and "michael button", to know enough about their "deal".

Click to expand...

Then show me exactly where they say they support these unreal and alien or Atlantis type fantasies.

Hans Blaster said:

I'm not. It doesn't matter if a "source" is a fool or a liar. If they are transmitting false information, then they are useless and should be dismissed.

Click to expand...

Then whats the false info they are saying. From memory Button was proposing possibilities. He presented a few unanswered contradictions in the timelines. What is the problem. He is not claiming any Atlantis conspiracies. Show me where he does this.

In fact he actually goes out of his way to state that determining the facts and academic investigation is important. You only notice or even make up what you want to hear. Just because someone is more open in their language does not make them a nutter.

Hans Blaster said:

Nope. Read what I write.

Click to expand...

So Button in the OP is pushing conspiracies. You have already claimed Hancock even though I have not mentioned him. But Dunn, Ben from UnchartedX, Karoly and I assume everyone they were associated with that helped them.

The peer review and other science articles were dismissed as speculation and fringe science. More or less psuedoscience. I don't know if there is anything left. I think you have classed it all as conspiracy or at least dismissed it as not important enough to take seriously.

Hentenza said:

At the end of the day Jesus nailed the law to the cross and you would expect that those that carried His message would be aware of that.

Click to expand...

So when Jesus told them Matthew 28:20, to obey ALL that he commanded them, do you expect the 12 to understand that "Jesus nailed the law to the cross"?

If so, their behavior all the way to Acts 21 did not reflect that understanding, would you agree with that?

Otherwise, Peter would have replied to the remnant who criticized him at Acts 11:3 for visiting Cornelius, with "Hey didn't Jesus tell us he nailed the Law to the cross"?

Landon Caeli said:

That is the most biased chart I've ever seen. Where's Uruguay, and all the other South American countries?

Click to expand...

Where is China?

Mark Quayle said:

If I take this as an answer to my question, then you do indeed depend on CHANCE to cause things. Your notion of Free Will depends on it. And it is self-contradictory. Chance can cause nothing.

But, maybe you think that man is a 'little' first cause. That too is self-contradictory, if God, THE First Cause, created man and the universe in which man lives.

Further, your notion of Free Will puts God as a reactor to fact, and not the beginning of fact.

Further, or to say what I have already said, but differently, your notion of Free Will diminishes God's Sovereignty and Omnipotence.



Further, your notion of Free Will

Click to expand...

God's omnipotence, sovereignty and omnibenevolence can allow humans to make some autonomous free will choices out of a Love for humans which can allow them to become like God Himself with Godly type Love.
God is wise enough and powerful enough to be the first cause in the creation of a free will human, who can be the first cause to a very limited number of mental choices which do not negatively impact others.
You're the one limiting God's power to making only robotic type beings.

comana said:

I am not incorrect. I will, though, give her credit for being highly talented at what she does, though I suspect it will wear on her before 4 years are up. Trump press secretaries rend to burn out.

Click to expand...

She ain't a liar.

mkr said:

Hi Brother, Thank you.

I checked your wall, and I knew you write through the context of Asia. Yes, our culture and context is similar to what you said.

First of all, I see you are living at Philippians, the Fung Wong Typphoon is badly hitting right now? Are you safe? Our prayer is to the safety of people there.

To get back to the topic, I totally agree to what you said. Sharing the gospel to the first take or the first hearers are the best to share about Christ. While I was in Bible school back to many years ago, as practical class for requirements we used to share about Christ every Saturday. When we asked them "If they ever heard about Jesus?" They replied, "We never heard the person name, Jesus, if a thing or person or male or female?". Sharing about Christ to these people, challenge about life, witnessing, showing kindness is the great achievement we ever had sometimes. They willingly wanted to hear us. They expect the next visit.

Sometimes when we were sent to the wolves as a sheep, we have to be be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves (Matt. 10:16). But sometimes the past missionaries did the wrong witnessing like they did as they wished and left with a bad reputation. Buddhist believers had idols or kind of worshipping at home. A missionary the past rented their home, and throwed their gods, as they considered their sacred god, at the street to bin. When they found out, they had some problems then chased him out of the village. A second time, a lady came to the village some years later. She act wisely, and taught their kids as preshool students, showed them kindness. Later, as she was also in a rent, she has some problem with the landlord, then had a mean to leave.

This village is another way that they don't like Christian that they did every kind of indirect way. Giving something with showing kindness is also considered that we persuaded them to become Christian. This is the biggest mistake that they did the past.

When I situated this village, they considered me as I would do the same. But to this day, I never give anyone but I tried to involved with community work like we are poor village, I helped them repaired the road, or help need of school tables or some other works. They acted weird before but when I slowly did some community works, they talked me or greet me.

As our country is in a bad situation, if they report in a bad way about me to destroy me, then military easily come to arrest or torture me. This is happening everywhere. So I am very carefully to take any step further. As far as the situation concerns, I need to show some kindness, like involving some help for the community, not to individual but a whole so that they knew our care, love and act of Christ. This required physical needs, but challenging my condition. I knew the Lord would do some transformation one day.

I would like to ask to pray for us. God bless you.

Click to expand...

Greetings mkr,
The utmost thanks to you for persevering in your preaching and ministry under such clearly difficult circumstances. You clearly have great courage and persistence, and you're showing the finest example of the mission tradition. In all ways. Including bringing the Gospel to those who need to hear it most, meeting both spiritual and material needs for a flock who clearly appreciates what you are bringing. It's not much I know, but we wish you the best and pray for your safety and bless you and all around you for what you are doing.

rambot said:

I wonder if the election of Biden could have possibly influenced what your seeing?

OF course it could.

A common enemy? As ruthlessly conniving and doting and inneffectual as he was Biden could be a GREAT target for a united Right. A right united to defeat Biden and a right that was willing to keep the uglies at bay for a while.


If Biden hadn't been elected, do you HONESTLY this particular portion of the timeline would STILL be happenning now.

The election of Biden CAUSED the delay in what we're seeing.




By the way, what is stopping Republicans from solving their problem here?

Click to expand...

But the Democratic candidate has played the role of "common enemy of the right-half factions" for the last few election cycles. That trend didn't start with Biden.

And we saw a similar sort of dynamic playing out in Trump's first run regarding that time he got an endorsement from David Duke, and then rather than rejecting that support, played the "I'm not familiar with David Duke" card. It didn't cause fracturing of the party after Trump won and the common enemy of Hillary was no longer "a threat".


What's different about this instance, is that Israel is involved, and people within the GOP are, for the first time, heavily divided on that issue.

It looks like it's about a 40/60 split on "We need need to stop supporting them" vs. "They're our greatest ally in the history of allies"

As where, among the GOP back in the lead up to 2016, a vast majority on-board with the latter. (the number of republicans that didn't support Israel back in that election was so miniscule that it wasn't even a blip on the radar)

"I don't want to support Israel, but I don't want me declination of support to cause me to be associated with the like of that Nazi guy on the internet" wasn't a common occurrence in 2016.


Or to put it more succinctly, "I need to distance myself from that guy" wasn't a common need. Since most supported Israel, their support for Israel was the the thing that would separate them from a Fuentes or David Duke.

But now that it's a situation where 40% of them don't support Israel anymore, they're wondering how they can hold that position without being associated with those kinds of guys.

Hans Blaster said:

Who at the Pentagon is "reviewing this"? JAG? DOD Press office?

Click to expand...

Cmon, the press office? All I know is Hegseth said it's a formal investigation. If you are that curious call up public relations at 703-571-3343 and let us know what they say.

ChubbyCherub said:

Thanks all.

I think I misread this whole thread as the bible wasn't a trustworthy source for basically anything and I wanted to know a) why this was the case b) to what everyone was referring to if this is the case c) how this could help me and my family on our journey towards God d) how anyone could believe in God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit from a text that no one believes...........

It was a bit shocking but maybe that's because I misread/misunderstood the premise of the whole thread and I probably should have realized that when I saw that the bible was being quoted despite what I thought I understood.

@RamiC @Fervent @2PhiloVoid - thank you all for your patience and assistance.

It's good to know I have somewhere to go with questions because my family has very tough questions that someone who believes, due to a Christian background, isn't really in the habit of asking until challenged.

God bless you all and thanks so much.

Click to expand...

Inerrancy and the overall trustworthiness are too often tethered together as if they are the same, so it's understandable that you would be suspicious. It seems especially problematic if your only tether to the faith is the Bible, but the reality is that it is the historic witness that tethers us together. And by that I don't mean some mystical tradition that is beyond question but the ongoing transmission from generation of Christians to generation of Christians. We know the Bible is trustworthy because we see how it changes the lives of the people who put it into practice, and there are a number of ways to understand what the Bible is that are easily overlooked with how many people talk about these things.

The Liturgist said:

I can be full of one thing and hungry for another. The passions wrap around. But Christ is always satisfying.

Click to expand...

That is not exegetically sound. if he was speaking in metaphor, i could agree - however he was speaking literaly

The Liturgist said:

Of course I have - and St. Paul is using a classical rhetorical device

Click to expand...

There is no rhetorical in scripture -

The verses are literal, not metaphorical.

Paul literally made tents to supply his financial needs
Paul received monetary gifts to supply his needs

Paul knew what is was like to abound in finances and be abase (in need).

Either way he was content with what he had.

PloverWing said:

I don't see Philippians 3 as addressing atheism in particular. Paul talks in 3:18 about "enemies of the cross of Christ", which is not the same thing as thinking that the available evidence is insufficient to prove the existence of God.

I believe atheists when they say that they are genuinely not persuaded that God (or a pantheon of gods) exists.

Click to expand...

My argument is this:

It is possible to worship one's own stomach (Phillipians 3)
It is possible to have gods made of inanimate things on earth (Genesis 31:19)

Therefore the Christian definition of 'god' and 'worship' is looser than most of us (including atheists) realize, meaning an atheist can worship a false god without believing in an all-powerful deity, making the term 'atheist' itself contradictory. An example of this happening is an atheist prioritizing financial success over giving to the poor. In doing so would be worshipping a false god.

Larniavc said:

Hypnogogic or hypnopompic hallucination. Really common. It’s not the spirits of our dead loved ones.

Click to expand...

When your father turns up the night he died, and apologises for the way he treated you, it's not a hypnogogic or hypnopompic hallucination, esecially when i didn't even know he'd died. I didn't find out for another four days by normal human methods when one of my uncles turned up to tell me.

Incidentally the uncle was my mother's brother and it was his wife who died brushing her daughter's hair years before as related in my post above.

Secondly when our exchange had elements such as "What is this?? A dream or something??" to which my father replied "No, it's not a dream. I died tonight." And "It wasn't easy for me either you know and I never had a chance to see anything like this!"

To which I replied "I know it wasn't easy! I knew that by the time I was twelve."

It was no hallucination, and his departing scream just before he disappeared again was terrifying. Something was coming for him. I think he's in hell personally.

You weren't there to see it, were you?

He also said "You'll become a Christian" as I was an atheist at the time. And "You'll meet a pastor. You'll think he's great, but all he'll do is discourage you even more!"

I met the pastor shortly after I became Christian in late 1982, and before I left his church in 1991 as I got married and moved away (he died himself in 1992) he apologised to me. I asked him what he was apologising for and he said "You needed encouragement but all I've done is to discourage you even more".

I'd often told him about my father's apparition and pointed out he'd just quoted my "dead" father back to me word for word.

You can shove your arrogance and your "Hypnogogic or hypnopompic hallucination". You think you know it all because you've read a bit about psychology.

How wrong you are!

As you'll eventually find out.

rambot said:

Sorry. I'm fairly certain much of this is laid out for Judaism as well.

Click to expand...

To the same degree?

Keeping in mind, Muhammed himself was a political leader with territorial ambitions.

And the integration of the two concepts (religion and politics) was there right from the get go.

Along with prescriptions for how to infiltrate and overtake new territories, and govern them (including what to do with non-Believers who were already there)

For example, the dhimmi status. Where in a Muslim conquered territory, "people of the book" could be allowed to maintain their religion in exchange for a fee/tax known as jizya.

Vanellus said:

A lay preacher I had a lot of time for as a young Christian told me a basic principle: "The OT is in the NT revealed, the NT is in the OT concealed). And I've been thinking there is a warning here not to take the OT as normative without reference to the OT. A good example is why Christians believe that the system of OT sacrifices of animals don't apply to the Church today.

But I wonder if there are not more examples. Now I know some Christians make a lot of

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 5:17-20

But, in Jesus' day, those commandments would include the commandments for animal sacrifices that were still being done in Jesus' time.

Another aspect of the OT is there's a lot of wars and killing. If Israel was successful on the battlefield (i.e. killed lots of people) then that meant God was blessing them and vice versa. When Jericho fell we read:

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. Josh 6:21
The donkeys might lead them into idolatry! Everyone seems to include babies.

David is praised not so much for his poetry but for killing lots of people. Joshua holds up Moses' arms so the Israelites can kill lots of Amalekites:
So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset. 13So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword.
Ex 17:10-13

And there are many more examples in the OT. Not exactly blessed are the peacemakers or turning the other cheek. So I think we need to be very careful about drawing moral lessons for Christian behaviour from things that were done in the OT narratives or history books. Reference should always be made to the relevant teaching in the NT and we should interpret the OT in the light of the NT not vice versa. So hopefully any donkeys that might stray into a church in the next few weeks will be safe.

Click to expand...

According to our risen Lord, God and Savior in the closing paragraphs of the Resurrection Gospel in Luke ch. 24 the Old Testament is Christological prophecy. That should be how we interpret it.

FredVB said:

But there was real repentance, that is essential.

Click to expand...

The thief spoke truthfully, that he was a thief deserving his fate. the second time he spoke, and asked Jesus to remember him

Honesty in the face of God seemingly went a long way

I’m really surprised, to be honest.

Welcome!

bob121 said:

ViaCrucis, thank you for painting the altar-side scene—“Mt. Calvary present here and now” is exactly the kind of threshold moment I was hoping to collect.
I’ll happily let the mods shuffle the thread if they wish; in the meantime, keep the pictures coming, everyone—sounds, smells, sights, or silent heart-flips that tell you, “I’m on holy ground.”

Click to expand...

I would add removing one’s shoes in a Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox parish.

durangodawood said:

You arent even on the playing field when you just do an AI dump. Thats more like sending in an autonomous drone you bought off the shelf.

As for public intellectuals (real or pretend), I find zero inherent value in leveling the playing field by any other method than study and practice. It should be human mind vs human mind. Study could well include AI help. But on "the playing field" I want a sense you are there, and not some surrogate whos methods you may not even grasp.


Im fine with you using AI as a study tool to direct you to various sources you can examine and assimilate.

But just a dump of AI generated text has no interest for me. Theres no sense Im arguing with you there.

Click to expand...

Why is it okay to copy and paste some article from a source that leans left, or right but it's not okay to use AI?
Either way is dialing it in but I don't see anyone complaining about copy and paste jobs as long as a source is given