The Liturgist said:

That’s false - we have archaeological evidence of second century icons in the catacombs of Rome and there was additional evidence in the house church in Dura Europos (which also featured a Jewish synagogue, also with icons in the form of fresco paintings), which were destroyed by ISIS, among many other examples of evidence of icons predating the Second Council of Nicaea.

There is also the important fact that no iconoclasm existed in the early church until the eighth century military defeats of the Byzantine Empire by the Muslims, and that iconoclasm was rejected by all ancient churches of Nicene faith that survive from the middle ages, including those which did not participate at the Second Council of Nicaea.*

*Indeed, unlike in the case of the Chalcedonians none of the six Oriental Orthodox churches was ever taken over by iconoclasts, and the scale of the problem was limited to a minor outbreak in Eastern Armenia which was swiftly suppressed by the episcopate of the Armenian Apostolic Church, a fact an Armenian friend and I like to jokingly attribute to the streamlined shape of their headgear allowing them to reach even the most remote parishes in their dioceses at supersonic velocity, since an Armenian bishop in choir dress neatly adheres to the area rule of aerodynamics for trans-sonic flight).

Click to expand...

archaeology but not written accounts.

RocksInMyHead said:

I didn't say that the government couldn't be tyrannical. I said that the supposed "enemies within" that the rioters claimed to be trying to stop did not exist. That is a fact.

Physically, no.

Incorrect. I've already explained this.

The intent of the protest isn't relevant - the fact is that it did turn ugly, and Babbitt was part of the ugliness. Leading the charge, in fact.

No, I said about 1600 people were arrested of the 10,000 or so who were present. And of those, about 500 were jailed.

Most people arrested were never charged with anything other than trespassing, vandalism, or obstructing an official proceeding. Nobody at all was charged with treason, and only seven were charged with seditious conspiracy - all but one of whom were convicted.

"Many years" lol. It's only been 4 years since the event, so this is already blatant hyperbole. The reality is that only a very small fraction of those arrested were ordered to be jailed pre-trial, and those were largely the most violent or severe offenders (or people who had already demonstrated themselves to be flight risks). This is standard criminal procedure in the US. At the point that Trump pardoned all of the defendants, the only ones still in jail were either serving sentences or had had the opportunity to appeal their pre-trial detentions.

Note that the surveillance videos as presented on Fox News were cut and re-ordered in order to present a false narrative. I believe @Hans Blaster has a complete writeup on all of the changes made from back when the videos were "released". See here: Why did McCarthy Give Tucker Carlson Exclusive Access to J6 Footage?

No one is still in jail for anything done on January 6th. They were all either pardoned or had their sentences commuted to time served as Trump's very first official act on January 20th of this year.

Granting Pardons And Commutation Of Sentences For Certain Offenses Relating To The Events At Or Near The United States Capitol On January 6, 2021

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the

www.whitehouse.gov

There were plenty of consequences for people who committed acts of violence or vandalism or trespassing during the George Floyd protests. From all the way back in 2021: https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8

There were certainly a greater percentage of the violent/destructive people arrested in connection to January 6th compared to those arrested in connection to the George Floyd protests, but that's going to be primarily down to the fact that there was detailed video coverage of nearly everything that happened on January 6th (especially for those who actually made it inside the Capitol building). When you commit your crimes in full view of multiple surveillance cameras, it should not come as a shock when the police catch you. In contrast, the US does not have very extensive video coverage of its city streets (dunno if that's a thing in Australia, so maybe you have a skewed perception of things), so it's much harder to identify people after the fact for crimes committed in a riot in a city. That's just reality.

Considering that, as far as I know, only two people were acquitted at trial, I think they did a pretty good job of keeping the innocent out of it.

Every single argument that you've used has been cribbed directly from right-wing/MAGA talking points repeated thousands of times over the past four years.

You're free to think whatever you want. But I am also free to call out tired misinformation when I see it.

Some might say that his exoneration was political rather than his impeachment, but you do you.

I'm only seeing one side in your posts, so color me skeptical.

Click to expand...

Rock one you say that others say that former president Trump after being exonerated was political rather than his impeachment. If you mean to bar him from the political realm. Absolutely. Even some of the Republicans were siding on the grounds of impeachment with the thoughts of banning him. President Trump had to fund his own defence team now being out of office. One of his lawyers called Bruce Castor opened with his introduction he was rather confusing. A little story here and some chatting about all manner of things he seemed up amongst the fairies on his first day. It did not look promising for Trump. But come the days that followed he absolutely shattered and obliterated the impeachment accusations and charges into a thousand pieces. The guy was absolutely brilliant. It became clear to any fair minded person that Trump was innocent of all charges. That’s my honest opinion anyway . Well you have told us what others think. But Rock one what do you think ? As to the the matter of video surveillance cameras in facial recognition that certainly played a big part in the identification of many from January 6th and being in full daylight unlike some of the Loyd Floyd protests where many of the nefarious activities were done under the cover of darkness often with the culprits being fully covered over from head to toe to to hide their identity . Rock one you ask of Australian surveillance the inner city of all major cities just as here in Brisbane be like Fort Knox they see everything. The outer suburbs be a litter less controlled but there still be many cameras there also. We Be more concerned about the drones down under these days . Me even have a first hand encounter with one of those beady eye drones peering in upon me from the window when I about to shower well I guess the operator got his few minutes of heaven admiring me. But at a cost me threw my shampoo bottle at the beast dismantling its activity first pitch.Than me redress and much quickly scamper outside to punish it some more and finally dunking the beady eyed one in the water that it see no more. And of course there much drone bird watching activity upon our many beaches here too. Seems no where is sacred from surveillance these days. Rock one wishing you a pleasant morning in your America today. Yours Kathleen

ozso said:

It's not an illusion because it's actually been taking place. He's given them results they wanted. And at warp speed as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he best hurry, he don’t look long for this world.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

It likely will be

Click to expand...

No, the verdict was upheld.
Would Trump gamble that SCOTUS would deign to hear the case?
(Is this case even eligible to seek certiorari?)

ozso said:

I didn't point out any errors or even say there were errors. I said it was a hard left critique. If it was a Britebart article, then I'd say it was a hard right critique. Saying MSNBC is hard left, is like saying water is wet.

Click to expand...

Oh I see, there’s nothing “wrong” with it, per se, just that it was overly critical of the facts of the matter, that being this person has a documented history of fudging the numbers. Okay.

Dan Perez said:

And my first question is where where is THE LOLST HOUSE OF Israel lost at. , as there are Jews in the EAST COAST

Click to expand...

Jewish people are not part of the House of Israel. Over 160 Bible verses make the distinction.

Circumcision is irrelevant to Salvation. Conversely; a circumcised man is not necessarily a Jew.

Post #29, from what I can imagine, two souls descend into this world, find eachother and become one.

One in happy times and tough times, they are as one.

For it is not the body that matters so much as the soul that vitalizes the body.

Haha, maybe inspired by falling asleep in my chair and dreaming of falling through the air and not hitting the floor,

but awakening in my chair.

johansen said:

If Jesus was sent only to the lost of israel, why did he waste all his time in jerusalem, the land of the jews?

Click to expand...

He had to give the Jews first option, so to speak. They rejected and killed Him, but not before He taught the disciples the Gospel. They went to the lost tribes of Israel, who gladly accepted the Salvation offered. The Christian peoples, now as many as the sands of the sea.

In Gods infinite grace; the Jews still have a chance to redeem themselves, but this won't happen and their virtual demise is Prophesied. Romams 9:27

Daniel Carlton said:

That is exactly the point, you have just given it a different name and expect it to be believed. Sorry, I will not take your word for it - when a person or group create a thing, plant them in their place of worship, gives them names and make them fundamental part of their religion, to me that is literal idolatry.

Click to expand...

That definition is so broad it would ensnare all Christian denominations. For example, your local Reformed Presbyterian Church, not known as a place tolerant of icons, even avoiding the celebration of Christmas and Pascha due to Calvinist iconoclasm, nonetheless builds churches and gives them names, and these buildings are used in worship.

If someone composes a hymn or a musical setting for a Psalm, in those denominations which practice a capella exclusive Psalmody like the RPCNA (some of these denominations also regard organs as idolatrous, although most refuse to use them for what was historically an overapplication of the “regulative principle” but which doubtless has developed, particularly in the case of those Baptists who take a generous view of salvation of Christians in other churches, into an aesthetic preference.

Likewise different people translate the Bible, give their translations names, and these are used in worship.

This definition is exceedingly broad, and also, importantly, lacks any Scriptural basis, and also fails to address the more serious kinds of idolatry in our modern society, such as the idolization of wealth, of riches and material goods, of popular preachers, particularly “celebrity pastors” associated with the Prosperity Gospel, many of whom deny the Trinity or are otherwise non-Nicene, and of celebrities, national identities and ideologies.

@Garrett.theo

The word "trumpet" is found in 60 instances in the kjv bible. "trumpet" is used when some sort of action is to take place.

How is it "government efficiency" to fire 5000 people and then train 5000 new ones to replace them. And to a lower standard, to boot.

A New Dawn said:

Only the worst of the worst people see their depravity. And, again, that is using it in the secular sense. In the Biblical sense, most people don’t see their depravity (or inability) because most people feel they are living good lives. But the Bible is quick to point out that our good deeds are as filthy rags when it comes to how clean you need to be to come before God.

Click to expand...

I don’t agree that “only the worst of the worst people see their depravity.” The introspection may well be the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is even evident in Jung’s Id.

Glory in Hebrew is the word kavod, which has connotations of weight or substance. It has nothing to do with ego or reputation in the usual sense, and has more to do with God's being or nature. It is more metaphysical than psychological.

God, in classical Christian theology, doesn't lack anything good, so the idea of vanity or ego doesn't apply to explain God's motivations. In Christian theology, God creates out of freedom and love, not necessity.

Apocalyptic imagery can be difficult to interpret, as it's full of symbolism. The point is that the symbols are meant to be weighty and evocative, to communicate spiritual truths that are metaphysically and morally charged, and shouldn't necessarily be understood in a crude way.

rjs330 said:

In other words any science rhat doeant agree with man caused Catastrophic AGW is bad and can't be considered.

1. This is probably true.
2. This is not true and hasn't been proven to be true.
3. This might be true, but we dont know yet.
4. This is probably true, like getting more air-conditioning to people would be good.
5. I'm sure they do, because if they disagree they wont get funding.

Click to expand...

35 years till you hit the century mark!?
Great, will you (and heck I) still be arguing about this then?
(I would nope that I’d be dead well before my 36,525th day!)

Hans Blaster said:

For the last couple days this is all you have done -- added more and more "examples" of "ancient machining" that you claim could not be done with copper tools and grit. This is a complete side track from your own thread topic. Even if you showed that ancient Egyptians had technologies that were greater than we thought 4500 years ago, it would not impact the principle claim of the thread.

Click to expand...

Yes and I have pointed this out several times. I did not introduce the conspiracy idea that this thread was about the usual back and forth arguements on specific examples. As you said I have been there and done that.

Unfortunately it became about specific examples again and I bought into it again. I was hoping to avoid this as I know now where this always ends up with endless disagreements about how we see the evidence.

I thought perhaps allowing this to play out I could perhaps show one specific example to then open the door to the arguement that knowldge is not necessarily an evolution from simple to complex and that there could have been knowledge just as advanced in different ways.

So if anything after several attempts I know better now. In some way this supports exactly what I am saying. That there is never a resolyion to how each side sees things.

That this is really about different metaphysical worldviews in how we see the observations and data. One side wants to contain this within a material worldview where only certyain kinds of evidence count. The other takes a more expansive view that goes beyiond the orthodox view.

So really though side tracked it is still beneficial in that it is supporting the OP in practical reality of how once again these kinds of threads get bogged down in semantics, methodology, epistemics and metaphsyics. Rather than the pure science.

Hans Blaster said:

"more sophisticated" or "more advanced" compared to what? Your grammar is failing you.

Click to expand...

Compared to what we would consider what is sophisticated and advanced. Is not these qualifications a subjective thing in itself as to what worldview you think qualifies as sophisticated and advanced.

For example we could say that Indigenous knowledge of nature abd medicines, plants and seasons and astronomy was advanced. Though they may not have approached this as we do today.

In fact we might say it more advanced and we have lost some of that knowledge and in some ways only rediscovering it through science which has taken centuries to replicate.

But this was seen up until recent times as primitive and still is in some ways because it also introduces a mystical element to the knowledge that connects this with the gods and spirits. A more holistic view of the world.

Daniel Carlton said:

Sorry, I will not take your word for it - when a person or group create a thing, plant them in their place of worship, gives them names and make them fundamental part of their religion, to me that is literal idolatry.

Click to expand...

To you, maybe.
But you are not God and cannot see into anyone's heart.

What reason do you have for not believing your fellow Christians - brothers and sisters in Christ - who declare that they use icons, but worship only God?

ozso said:

What it really is, is Trump gives them what they really want. Trump knows what the right wants and he makes it happen.

Click to expand...

He gives the illusion that he’s doing what the people who voted for him want…yet some have become disillusioned with some of his policies and are beginning to question their allegiance to him.

ozso said:

Jesus being the focus is what the church is all about and that's what brings about unity. We are united in Christ. The rest is sideline disagreement.

Click to expand...

He is, or should be, the source of all unity.

As I've said before, there is only one Gospel.
To suggest that other Christians have only part of the Gospel, and therefore the truth, is not helpful.

Holy Father, thank you for you Word we have!
You are light!

Please bless everybody who prayed for because Jesus told in Lk 6:38 in Jesus name Amen.

Ophiolite said:

You keep being asked for solid evidence and you routinely fail to provide it.

Click to expand...

But I have provided evidence. You just disagree with it. Don't mistake disagreeing and providing alternative possibilities with your take on what the evidence represents as not providing evidence.

You have engaged in that evidence when you give explanations for how the signatures are caused by the traditional tools. All arguements and evidence sought is to support this view of the signatures.

Alternative views then provide counter possibilities for what the signatures represent that don't match the traditional tools. Thats how it works. Both sides are providing evidence and arguements and we have to work out which is the truth. If both sides are providing evidence and arguements then there is no clear truth until we properly investigate this.

You seem to be relegating the alternative evidence and arguements as not even evidence and arguements because they don't meet your preconcieved ideas of what that evidence is.

Ophiolite said:

Now you provide, lengthy, repetitive attempts to justify it, all the while demonstrating that you have close to zero idea of how science works.

Click to expand...

I think I am exactly following the science. Science is made through observations and then investigating how this is applied to the methods we know of. If the observations show that say current tools on record don't match the signatures observed then this is supports that the tools claimed are not the cause.

This is done by a scientific analysis for the signatures. What marks tools leave or should leave. Petrie was the best at this in his time and even back then his rigorious measures and testing questioned the tools available in the records.

In fact none of his contemporaries disagreed with his scientific findings. They just did not know how the signatures could have been made.

Ophiolite said:

Is the scientific method perfect? Of course it isn't and no one on this side of the argument is saying it is. It is implemented by humans and humans are unreliable, narcissitic, forgetful, careless, biased, argumentative, emotional, etc. That is precisely why the checks and balances of the method are essential to increase the quality of the end product. You are complaining about the time constraint this places on the development of new ideas.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. As mentioned part of science is observation of the data. Taking measurements, checking what best explains the signatures. Even you applied this when you said that the three fine cuts in the example look like they were made by a circular saw. This was applying the science.

That is all I am doing. I am taking well know 'out of place' examples that are not just an individuals personal opinion but are concluded in the same way you think those cuts were produced by a circular saw. These other signatures look and measure like they were produced by something other than the traditional toold on record. Thats all. No other reason.

Ophiolite said:

And that is where you should have started, with a discussion of the contents of those links, with a critical review of them - not a lovey dovey "isn't this great" in eight verses and oft repeated chorus. That could have got you some credibility, but your approach comes across as that of a gullible fool (which, as I have previously noted, you are not) and gullible fools are justifiably ignored.

Click to expand...

The original video had enough discussion of the contents and provided scientific articles for supporting the particular claim that there is a gap between the evidence claimed and what we actually see on the ground. That was the starting point.

Yest we should go into detail and nut out exactly what is the case for these specific examples. We could make an entire thread on just one example and break it down. I have done this many times. But I know what ends up happening. There still remains a disagreement on how the evidence is seen.

We just had one. You say that the cuts in the rocks in my example were caused later than the Egyptians. Because you cannot possibly entertain the idea that it was made by the early Egyptians. It does not align with the traditional tools. So you have to come up with a possible explanation as to why it is so.

Whereas myself and many others will believe this is a prime example of early tech that is hard to explain. You finmd reasons that will explain everything in line with gradualism (they gradually smoothed rocks. Rather than any knowledge that allowed them some way to produce the result like we do today with modern tech. Because that cannot be possible that ancients had such knowledge.

But if you were open then you may see that example as evidence for ancient tech on par with today. You followed the observations and it told you it was a modern signature. Therefore this could not be possible so it was a modern forgery. You could not contemplate that this could actually be early.

Ophiolite said:

I don't think I have claimed any conspiracy in relation this thread.

For the reasons noted above. Poorly made arguments, associated with crackpot ideas would take away from the tedious, meticulous, careful, endlessly tested "real" science. How do I know the arguments are poorly made? Because their authors do not apply self-criticism. . . . Just like your posts.

Click to expand...

And likewise poorly made arguements relgating content thats worthy of discussion as crackpoy when its not also does not help. I think nothing in what I have linked can be said to be crackpot. It is others doing that and injecting such conflation. Both sides are guilty.

But its the fact that one side is made out to be pure and never guilty of conflation because they stand on the side of science or a metaphysical truth they claim superior is the problem that denies alternative views even getting through the front door.

Ophiolite said:

As above

No. I am saying to change the course of an ocean liner takes time and patience, a gargantuan effort and understanding of how the ship operates.

APPARENTLY I NEED TO SHOUT THIS. UNTIL YOU DISPLAY EVIDENCE OF SELF CRITICISM I HAVE NO INTENTION AT LOOKING AT ANY VIDEOS YOU POST. MAKE A LENGTHY POST DETAILING WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT VIDEO AND I SHALL HAVE A LOOK AT IT.

Click to expand...

I have already done this and it seems its the other way around. I have acknowledge that presenting alternative ideas borders on conspiracy. That is its very nature. I am aware of the epistemics but I don't know if others are.

I have acknowledge that worldviews taint how we see the evidence but I am not sure you agree. It seems that only certain kinds of evidence are allowed according to what others say. Yet this is not applied even handedly to those who disagree.

That is really the point of the thread. Not going into specific examples which we have already seen is not so clear and can be biased. Rather its about the different metaphysical and epistemic truth claims behind how each side see the evidence.

One side insists everything is tightly contained within the empirical. Only that which conforms to science. Then when dogmatically applied to deny alternative views it becomes a belief imposed on others in how we should know and measure the evidence. What evidence counts.

Sure the science allows us to ground things. We can measure the signatures in the rocks and tell what may have caused this. But when it produces results that contradict scientific naturalism then these are fobbed off as conspriacy. So the science cannot detach itself from the scientist who carries their metaphysical beliefs about how reality works.

Vambram said:

Sounds like to me that Gemini is correct about this.

Click to expand...

Yes, right up front this AI? (is it) says quite clearly that the Federal Reserve does “no direct role” in setting the Prime interest rate.

You may have made a tiny mistake, but cannot, for some reason, admit to making it.

ozso said:

I'm not a journalist.

Click to expand...

You can spot errors in journalists stories, but won’t share your insights?
Fine, be that way.

Oompa Loompa said:

The video shows how proof that the country has a mental health problem, not a gun problem. These are the same people who will shoot up a Catholic school attending Mass in Minnesota.

Click to expand...

And what are we doing about the “mental health problem”?

(This could a fun rabbit-hole!)