Let’s take a look at a similar case in the book of Judges. Once again we will see several people losing their lives because of an attempt of sodomy or homosexuality. These attempts that were made let’s us know this act was accepted and a routine among these men. The bad thing about the scripture that we are about to read is that these were Israelites that should have known the law. Let’s take a look at the story of the Levite in Gibeah that belonged to Benjamin:

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehem Judah. And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehem Judah, and was there four whole months. And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him. (Judges 19:1-3)

At this point the father in-law asked the Levite to stay a few days with him, so he did. At the end of the fifth day the Levite, his damsel, and his servant packed up and began their journey home. After traveling for several hours the servant asked the Levite if they could stop and rest in the city of Jerusalem which was called Jebus at that time. The Jebusites were the inhabitants of the city at that time and were not of the stock of Israel, but rather they were sons of Ham through Canaan. The Levite told his servant that they will not stop in a city of strangers, but that they will continue on until they come to a city of Israel. Once the sun had set they turned into the city of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin. After arriving in the city they sat in the street. Then came along an old man who asked them where they were from and where were they headed. The Levite answered the gentlemen and the man then took them into his house and provided food and drinks for them and their beasts. While they were enjoying themselves there was a knock on the door and this is where we will resume in the scripture, at the 22nd verse:

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. (Judges 19:22-29)

We see this account was similar to the sequence of events in the book of Genesis. But in this case, we see a female being raped, which is also a vile act that was and will be punishable by death even the lake of fire. Let’s see what takes place after the children of Israel received the token from the Levite.

Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, unto the LORD in Mizpeh. (Judges 20:1)

The children of Israel started out on the right track, by gathering themselves onto Lord. After they were gathered, the chief among them asked the Levite what had taken place in Gibeah. Let’s see what the Levite had to say:

And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead. And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel. (Judges 20:4-6)

He states that they were trying to kill him. He doesn’t mention the fact that he pushed his wife out the door to save himself. We are supposed to protect our wives, and if needs be lay down our lives for them, not run behind them. Let’s read the next verse,

Behold, ye are all children of Israel; give here your advice and counsel. (Judges 20:7)

They asked counsel of among themselves, instead of taking the matter directly to the Lord. So the children of Israel encamped against the city of Gibeah, and told the Benjamites to send the men out so they could put them to death. The Benjamites refused to hand them over. Now, note what happens next:

And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of God, and asked counsel of God, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the LORD said, Judah shall go up first. (Judges 20:18)

Note what the scripture says, “Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin?” They should have said, “Lord, should we go out to war against our brothers?” We see that they have made their minds up, before consulting with the Lord. Let’s see what happens next.

And the children of Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah. And the men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin; and the men of Israel put themselves in array to fight against them at Gibeah. And the children of Benjamin came forth out of Gibeah, and destroyed down to the ground of the Israelites that day twenty and two thousand men. (Judges 20:19-20)

Wait a minute! Benjamin destroyed twenty thousand men of Israel. The men of Benjamin are the ones that committed that lewd act. If the son of Benjamin had not sinned against the Lord, none of this would have taken place. Here in their first encounter twenty-thousand of the men of Israel had die. Let’s continue:

And the people the men of Israel encouraged themselves, and set their battle again in array in the place where they put themselves in array the first day. (And the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until even, and asked counsel of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the LORD said, Go up against him.) (And the children of Israel went up and wept before the LORD until even, and asked counsel of the LORD, saying, Shall I go up again to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother? And the LORD said, Go up against him.) And the children of Israel came near against the children of Benjamin the second day. And Benjamin went forth against them out of Gibeah the second day, and destroyed down to the ground of the children of Israel again eighteen thousand men; all these drew the sword. (Judges 20:21-25)

In the second encounter Benjamin destroyed eighteen thousand men of Israel all because of the lust of a few men. So far a total of thirty-eight thousand men had die. Now, let’s take a look at the final battle between these brethren.

And Israel set liers in wait round about Gibeah. And the children of Israel went up against the children of Benjamin on the third day, and put themselves in array against Gibeah, as at other times. And the children of Benjamin went out against the people, and were drawn away from the city; and they began to smite of the people, and kill, as at other times, in the highways, of which one goeth up to the house of God, and the other to Gibeah in the field, about thirty men of Israel. And the children of Benjamin said, They are smitten down before us, as at the first. But the children of Israel said, Let us flee, and draw them from the city unto the highways. And all the men of Israel rose up out of their place, and put themselves in array at Baaltamar: and the liers in wait of Israel came forth out of their places, even out of the meadows of Gibeah. And there came against Gibeah ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was sore: but they knew not that evil was near them. And the LORD smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men: all these drew the sword. (Judges 20:29-35)

This third and final battle, twenty five thousand men of Benjamin died. That brings the total to 63,000 men being killed in battle. Why? Because of the “men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.”

What does this phrase indicate “that we may know him” or the act of “knowing”? This phrase simply means to have sexual intercourse.

sjastro said:

I assume this image is behind the comment.

Did it ever occur to you the ancient Egyptians cut out the rectangular block and then used a dolerite pounder followed by hand abrasion with a water sand slurry to refine the curvature and the sharp edges using a finer emery abrasive?
No exotic equipment is required, unlike your circular saw for abrading where there is zero archaeological evidence.

Click to expand...

The photo has me wondering if it's from grinding something and not intentionally curved. Something a simple as, well, the blanks used in grinding a reflector telescope mirror.

No, have never ground one. The old Edmund Scientific catalogs had a section where you could get blanks and the rather low-tech substance used to secure the bottom blank, and other odds and ends, like a means of testing curvature through light interference - but it's been nearly sixty years so that could be wrong. The take-away is that both blanks start flat. You adhere one to the work surface and use the other to grind. End up grinding both, with, IIRC, the one not mounted ending up with as the mirror. Just a type of glass and maybe rouge (did they use rouge?) as grit.

Then you do all that hard work, send it off to be "silvered," and really, really, hope nothing goes wrong.

I asked Grok about the question about love and it's connection to love and suffering and pain throughout history and this was its response.

Me: Have people throughout history said that love is pain and suffering or that pain and suffering is love and that outside of the context of pain and suffering love cannot or has trouble functioning?


The idea that love is intertwined with pain and suffering, or that one cannot exist without the other, has been a recurring theme in philosophy, literature, and art throughout history. Many thinkers, poets, and writers have explored this complex relationship, suggesting that love often involves sacrifice, longing, or emotional turmoil, and some have even argued that pain is an essential component of love’s depth or authenticity. Below, I’ll outline key perspectives from historical figures and traditions that touch on this concept, drawing from philosophy, literature, religion, and cultural thought.Philosophical Perspectives

1. Plato (Ancient Greece, 4th Century BCE)
   In The Symposium, Plato explores love (eros) as a longing for completeness, often accompanied by pain due to the unattainable nature of the beloved or the ideal. The philosopher Diotima, in the dialogue, describes love as a yearning for what one lacks, inherently tying it to a kind of suffering or incompleteness. Love, in this sense, thrives on the tension of desire and absence, suggesting that without this lack (a form of pain), love might not exist.
2. Søren Kierkegaard (19th Century, Denmark)
   Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist, often linked love with suffering. In Works of Love, he argues that true love, particularly agape (selfless, Christian love), involves sacrifice and suffering for the sake of the other. He suggests that love without sacrifice is not genuine, as it requires giving up one’s self-interest, which can be painful. For Kierkegaard, love’s depth is tied to its capacity to endure suffering.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche (19th Century, Germany)
   Nietzsche famously wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.” He saw love as a force that could transcend conventional morality but often involved pain, struggle, and self-overcoming. For Nietzsche, love was not just joy but a transformative, sometimes destructive, force that required enduring hardship.

Literary and Poetic Perspectives

1. Sappho (Ancient Greece, 7th–6th Century BCE)
   The Greek poet Sappho frequently described love as a bittersweet experience, blending ecstasy with torment. In her fragment 130, she writes, “Eros, that loosener of limbs, shakes me again—a sweet-bitter, inescapable creature.” Here, love is depicted as an uncontrollable force that brings both pleasure and pain, suggesting that its intensity is inseparable from suffering.
2. Dante Alighieri (13th–14th Century, Italy)
   In The Divine Comedy, Dante portrays love as a force that can lead to both salvation and suffering. In the Inferno, the story of Paolo and Francesca illustrates how romantic love can lead to tragic consequences, with their illicit love causing eternal torment. Yet, in Purgatorio and Paradiso, love (divine and human) is purified through suffering, suggesting that pain is a necessary part of love’s redemptive power.
3. William Shakespeare (16th–17th Century, England)
   Shakespeare’s works often depict love as inseparable from pain. In Romeo and Juliet, the lovers’ passion leads to tragedy, with Romeo lamenting, “Why, then, O brawling love! O loving hate!” (Act 1, Scene 1). Similarly, in his sonnets, love is portrayed as a source of both ecstasy and anguish, as in Sonnet 147: “My love is as a fever, longing still / For that which longer nurseth the disease.” For Shakespeare, love’s intensity is amplified by its capacity to wound.
4. Rumi (13th Century, Persia)
   The Sufi poet Rumi often described love as a transformative, painful process that leads to spiritual awakening. In his poem “Beyond Love,” he writes, “The wound is the place where the Light enters you.” For Rumi, love’s pain is not just suffering but a gateway to divine connection, suggesting that love cannot fully manifest without the experience of being broken or wounded.

Religious and Mystical Perspectives

1. Christianity
   In Christian theology, love and suffering are deeply intertwined, particularly in the concept of agape. The crucifixion of Jesus is often interpreted as the ultimate act of love, where suffering and sacrifice are central. Theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized that love involves self-giving, which often entails pain. The idea of “carrying one’s cross” suggests that love for God or others requires enduring hardship.
2. Buddhism
   In Buddhism, attachment (often associated with romantic love) is seen as a source of suffering (dukkha) because it ties individuals to impermanent things. The Dhammapada (Chapter 16) states, “From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear.” While Buddhism encourages compassion (metta), it warns that clinging to love can lead to pain, suggesting that true love may require detachment from ego-driven desires, which is itself a painful process.
3. Sufism
   Sufi mystics, like Rumi and Hafiz, often portrayed love for the divine as a burning, painful longing. The metaphor of the lover as a moth drawn to the flame illustrates love as both destructive and illuminating, requiring the lover to surrender to suffering to achieve union with the beloved (God).

Cultural and Modern Perspectives

1. Romanticism (18th–19th Century)
   The Romantic movement, exemplified by poets like Lord Byron and John Keats, celebrated love as an intense, often painful experience. In Keats’ Ode to a Nightingale, love and longing are tied to a melancholy awareness of mortality, suggesting that love’s beauty is heightened by its transience and pain. Byron, in poems like When We Two Parted, portrays love as inseparable from betrayal and sorrow.
2. Modern Literature and Psychology
   Writers like Franz Kafka and Virginia Woolf explored love’s connection to suffering in existential and psychological terms. Kafka’s letters to Felice Bauer reveal a tormented view of love, where his devotion is inseparable from self-doubt and anguish. In psychology, thinkers like Sigmund Freud suggested that love involves a tension between desire and frustration, as the ego grapples with unattainable ideals. Erich Fromm, in The Art of Loving, argues that love requires effort and sacrifice, often involving the pain of vulnerability and self-transformation.
3. Popular Culture and Music
   The theme persists in modern culture, with countless songs and stories equating love with pain. For example, Bob Dylan’s “Love Sick” captures the torment of unrequited love, while Adele’s “Someone Like You” explores heartbreak as an essential part of love’s narrative. These works echo the historical view that love’s emotional weight is tied to its capacity to hurt.

Direct Claims About Love’s Dependence on PainWhile few historical figures explicitly stated that “love cannot function without pain,” many implied that pain and suffering are intrinsic to love’s depth or authenticity:

• Ovid (Roman Poet, 1st Century BCE): In The Art of Love, Ovid describes love as a battlefield, where joy and pain are inseparable. He suggests that love’s intensity is fueled by challenges like jealousy or separation.
• Simone Weil (20th Century, France): The mystic and philosopher wrote, “Love is a direction and not a state of the soul. If one is unaware of this, one falls into despair at the first onset of affliction.” For Weil, love inherently involves suffering because it requires openness to the other’s imperfections and the world’s harshness.
• C.S. Lewis (20th Century, England): In The Four Loves, Lewis writes, “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken.” He explicitly ties love to the risk of pain, suggesting that the two are inseparable.

Synthesis: Does Love Require Pain?The recurring theme across these perspectives is that love, whether romantic, platonic, or divine, often involves pain because it requires vulnerability, sacrifice, or the confrontation of human limitations. Some thinkers, like Rumi and Kierkegaard, go further, suggesting that pain is not just incidental but essential to love’s transformative power. Others, like Sappho and Shakespeare, depict pain as an inevitable byproduct of love’s intensity. However, views differ on whether love cannot function without pain:

• Mystical and religious traditions (e.g., Sufism, Christianity) often see suffering as a purifying or deepening force, implying that love’s highest forms are tied to pain.
• Philosophical and literary perspectives (e.g., Plato, Nietzsche, Romantic poets) suggest that love’s emotional or existential weight is amplified by pain, but they don’t always claim it’s impossible without it.
• Buddhist thought offers a counterpoint, suggesting that true love (compassion) can exist without suffering if one transcends attachment, though this transcendence itself may involve painful discipline.

ConclusionThroughout history, many figures have portrayed love as inseparable from pain and suffering, often because love involves longing, vulnerability, or sacrifice. While some, like Rumi or Weil, suggest that pain is a necessary crucible for love’s depth, others, like Sappho or Shakespeare, describe the two as intertwined without explicitly claiming that love cannot function without suffering. The Buddhist perspective offers a potential exception, where love as compassion can aim to transcend pain, though even this process involves struggle. The idea that “outside of pain and suffering, love cannot or has trouble functioning” is thus a recurring but not universal theme, with its strongest advocates in mystical, romantic, and existential traditions.If you’d like me to dive deeper into a specific figure, text, or tradition, or if you want me to search for additional sources (e.g., on X or the web) to explore modern takes on this idea, let me know!

rambot said:

I would posit that you'd want your president to start implementing POPULAR policies. People in the US are more prone to vote AGAINST things then for things. It's easy to TALK about hating the Democrat party; it's HARDER to turn those votes in Trump votes. Because htose people are looking in the OTHER direction away from Trump.
When the Republican working class decides that it is MORE important to better their economic position, they'd stop voting for Republicans too.


"Know your Enemy" - Sun Tzu.

You clearly don't.

Click to expand...

Declining Democrat voter registrations and growing GOP voter registrations say Trump is doing a good job turning votes around. The only thing democrats have left is their unified hatred for Trump. That is it. Makes me wonder what they are going to do after Trump finishes his term. By the way, it is really concerning that you view the other political party as your enemy.

Promises made - promises kept - his base is still strong because of it.

Tropical Wilds said:

I’m super proud that part of that free speech includes the right to burn a flag in protest (in a way consistent with local fire laws).

But I suspect the goalposts are about to do another little tap dance and when you say “I’m proud of our free speech,” you mean “I’m proud of the free speech I like to hear.”

Click to expand...

I am proud of the free speech, even the speech I do not like. Remember, it is the left who tries to censor language they do not like. Again, I am proud that the US has better freedoms of speech that the UK.

How many oligarchs will follow him?

GreatMysteryofChrist said:

staff edit

Click to expand...

Joe, you have been totally misled. I thought I recognized some of your musings. You are an apostle for the late heretic L. Ray Smith. His teachings are non trinitarian and completely heterodox. You have fallen for devil’s teachings. I will continue to respond to your posts but only to expose the heretical teachings.

Aldebaran said:

Arming teachers...

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

AFAIK, UFC isn't doing PPV anymore since they inked the deal with Paramount+.

Click to expand...

The company firing Trump’s enemies. Even better.

RileyG said:

Rose Montoya was the man banned from the White House after a pride parade when he went topless.

Click to expand...

And Jake was the man who went topless during an insurrection.

ozso said:

You've got events and people a tad mixed up.

View attachment 369278

Click to expand...

So toplessness is ok if you are trying to stop democracy and committing violent acts as part of an insurrection, but not Ok at a party. Got it.

Is that the Democratic Party method - if you do not like what the voters decided at some point - change the rules?

GoldenBoy89 said:

Fair enough and I’m sorry for assuming your position on the Floyd case. I think we can agree the situation at the Capitol was much more tense from a LE pov than what Chauvin encountered when he responded to the Floyd call.

Click to expand...

Floyd was handcuffed and in the back of a patrol car. He never should have been taken out of that car until they got to the jail.

Aseyesee said:

(To get it out of the way) I know God answers to no one, other than himself … he is an absolute, without partiality, and one who changes not …

Click to expand...

I enjoy reading your shared thoughts as well as your exchanges with Honey Badger. Although I must admit, I’m usually left scratching my head as I attempt to understand the spiritual context in view when they are written. Nevertheless, my spirit is usually stirred to pray and seek an understanding.

Aseyesee said:

People (as we all know) justify themselves as Paul said, Their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing …

Click to expand...

We are all cut from the same mold …

Aseyesee said:

God begins the dialectic with the words let there be light (which saying light was good made darkness evil by default) … when Cain and Abel bring a sacrifice never asked for …

Click to expand...

Interestingly, I never approached processing this passage concerning Cain and Abel, in the light of having never been asked/required from them. Appreciate the thought.

Aseyesee said:

he chooses one over the other, then asks Cain why his countenance had fallen … like the words thou shalt not eat … if God had not said/chosen between the two Cain would have had no reason to rise up against Abel …

Click to expand...

Aseyesee said:

Did God count the cost to build his house,

Click to expand...

Well, he was a carpenter wasn’t he? lol … I kid.

Aseyesee said:

and find (through thought) it premeditatedly worth sacrificing the many for the few (though those he did save would have been saved from the things he would do to them if they didn’t let him save them) … how does one who is the embodiment of unconditional Love convince itself of this … (especially knowing what mankind would do to each other over time) …

Click to expand...

Exactly … he doesn’t need to convince himself of anything. Counting the cost implies one is weighing that which one is willing to lose.

LOVE NEVER FAILS …

Blessings

LizaMarie said:

I I also propose to raise the legal age to purchase firearms to be 21, maybe even 25(heck you can't rent a car until you're 25!)nationwide. The frontal cortex of our brains aren't fully formed until the early 20's

Click to expand...

Alternatively, people between 18 & 21 should start a mass civil disobedience campaign and refuse to abide by alcohol laws. If they're old enough to buy a gun, they're old enough to buy a beer.

Seven months - has the Democratic Party done besides fight with each other and scream about something Trump did? Goodness, they are defending rapists and murderers now

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting for @2PhiloVoid to lead us down his rabbit hole.

My guess, it's all talk.

BPPLEE said:

Floyd had drugs in his system but as a former law enforcement officer I despise Chauvin.
Kneeling on Floyd's neck for over 8 minutes contributed to his death as much as any drugs in his system.
Chauvin is where he belongs

Click to expand...

Fair enough and I’m sorry for assuming your position on the Floyd case. I think we can agree the situation at the Capitol was much more tense from a LE pov than what Chauvin encountered when he responded to the Floyd call.

Aldebaran said:

Besides, why should law-abiding citizens be restricted based on what criminals do, or might do?

Click to expand...

Excellent. I can now take my 2L bottle of Cola on a plane. And my pocket knife. Because why should law-abiding citizens be restricted based on what criminals do, or might do?

Children of the Promise:
Romans 9 to 11 proves the broken off branches who remain in unbelief are not true Israelites:
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named”.
This means that it is not the ethnic children who are God’s people, but the children of the promise, who have faith in Him, who are counted as Abrahams descendants.
The statement “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” clearly denotes that some are ethnic Israel, the remnant of verse 29. But the rest are shown as those who failed righteousness by attempting to keep the Law; verses 30-33.

As indeed He says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.’
Hosea prophesied of the coming time the descendants of the ten northern tribes, the nation of Israel/Ephraim, would be restored as God’s covenant people once more, which is precisely what the inauguration of the New Covenant accomplishes.

Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…
The inauguration of the new covenant was accomplished by the blood of Christ, which also released Judah and the House of Israel, the ten Northern tribes from the marriage contract of the Old Covenant. Romans 7:1-4
While Judah, for the most part, rejected Christ, Peter testifies of his ordained success with the elect exiles of the dispersion, Ephraim/Israel.

1 Peter1:1-12, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bithynia, chosen in the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
Paul, the Apostle to the people called Gentiles, but who are actually the scattered dispersion of Israel, John 7:35, reveals they are fellow heirs in Christ, part of the biological descendants of Abraham. The offspring or ‘seed’, by which the gentiles were prophesied to be blessed, was and is being fulfilled by the descendants of Ephraim/Israel of which Zechariah prophesied:

Zechariah 10:7-12 And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yes, their children shall see it, and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the Lord. I will call for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased. And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in far countries; and they shall rear their children, then march into and occupy the holy land.

What happened: God called Ephraim and gathered them in Christ and then scattered them in the world to proclaim the Gospel to the nations, which Judah was obviously not part of. The plan for Ephraim is the source of the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13. Proved by how the Western peoples have sent out missionaries and translated the Bible into most languages.

Isaiah 49:1-26 Listen to Me you peoples far distant,...... But Zion [the Land] said: The Lord has forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me…. The children which you will have, after you have lost the former ones, shall say to you: This place is too small for us, give us more space to dwell . Then you will say to yourself: Who has begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am alone and desolate, and where have they come from? Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders, for they shall not be ashamed that have faith in Me.

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come unto mount Zion......
We Christians are the latter children of Zion, of Ephraim, the true Israelites.
Ref: Jerry Huerta, Christian Forums

tampasteve said:

To be fair, I think that you are perhaps not paying attention to the developments in history, primarily in the fields of paleontology, archaeology and anthropology. There is honestly a lot happening that is vastly changing what people had thought and been taught for hundreds of years. I am a permit carrying amateur-paleontologist as well as a member at several associations that deal with these subjects, so I am not talking strictly from a place of previously published old books or AI knowledge - I am in the literal field helping to do the study.

Click to expand...

Well then you of all people should know. Tell me about the considerations these fields understand and have formulated regarding the environment in a world pre flood that allowed a man to live to be a 1000 years old. What changes did the flood cause to the environment that changed this as God reduced a lifespan to 120 years? Certainly these fields have made many considerations for this - especially in the aging and dating spectrum.

Maria Billingsley said:

I am beginning to think that there is a
"force" destroying the USA from the inside, an infiltrater with great influence over our president. I feel It's quite evil.

Click to expand...

I see ignorance, deliberately spread by quite clever power and influence hungry bad actors, targeting an unsettled, anxious, and sometimes just bored demographic.