Latest activity

stevevw · 2025-10-26T19:22:57-0500

BCP1928 said:
Why haven't you done so already?

I have. I cited Chris Dunn with 50 plus years experience including working in Aerospace prcision tooling. I linked Nick Sierra and Alex Dunn both experts in precision tooling at the Aerospace level. Christopher King of Precision Components an expert in precision tooling. Also Yousef Awyan an expert stone mason and Egyptologist who makes these vases at the foot of the pyramids and grew up among these ancient works.

But I have also cited articles that are not about precision vases and before this was an issue. Just ordinary archeologists on the history who refer to lathes or rotating devices that were needed to make these vases. I even cited skeptics on this thread who claim to be experts and agreed that some sort of lathing was required.

Ironically it seems its ok for those disagreeing to cite their own opinion without any qualification and evidence but when I cite actual qualified experts at NASA level they are whackos and don't count.

BCP1928 said:
Fact: you don't know for sure what they had.

Thats a silly arguement. I could say you don't know. We could be forever dismissing stuff under that logic. We do know from what is current factual evidence that there was no lathe or wheel. It is cited as the consensus in archeology.

Some on this thread were just saying that because I can't show what created these signatures therefore its not evidence. They used the absense of any device as evidence that it did not exist. Now your using the exact same logic to say that non existent devices may have been available as evidence.

Jipsah · 2025-10-26T19:20:17-0500

Hentenza said:
Emotional fallacy.

Well, no. You're seriously going to have to learn how these things work. He simply contrasted the positions of loving one's nighbot as opposed to torturing them forever. Diametric opposites.

Hentenza said:
But not to the rest that will be thrown in the same place under the same conditions?

I'm sorry, what?

Hentenza said:
Some more emotional fallacies.

Not even close.
In any case, the mere existence of hell doesn't doesn't militate either for or against anyone being there forever. But if we're told that those who go there are destroyed (as we obviously are), then we can be certain that anyone's stay in hell will last only until they are... destroyed. Maybe a long time, maybe an instant. No technical details are available. You say it's forever. I say it's a day and a half. Prove It Ain't (I couldn't resist.)

NxNW · 2025-10-26T19:18:26-0500

Chesterton said:
Evidence, please. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

You need evidence that they pled guilty, after you posted that same fact?

Bradskii · 2025-10-26T19:15:41-0500

Desk trauma said:
That’s been dead for decades.

I literally had to check to make sure it wasn't kosher.

bling · 2025-10-26T19:14:21-0500

Our "knowledge" of anything Spiritual comes from our having the indwelling Holy Spirit.

PloverWing · 2025-10-26T19:14:10-0500

stevevw said:
So a people commit sin and your not allowed to say its wrong.

So Christians disagree about which actions and which categories of people are sinful, and the moderators have asked us not to have this particular fight in their building.

If I ever make it to Australia, maybe we can go out for coffee and have a chat.

Bradskii · 2025-10-26T19:13:19-0500

RileyG said:
Tell me this is satire. ???

It sums up this administration when you think that it just might be true.

Colo Millz · 2025-10-26T19:13:04-0500

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Ga 4:21–27.

May there not be very many other OT passages that can be interpreted allegorically?

Is Paul's method here not an exemplar to us of proper exegesis?

Paul assumes the existence of the mystical sense (cf. § 40) in Scripture, in which events and figures of the OT are types of the NT. Taking yet another illustration from the history of Abraham, he shows that those who rely on the Law instead of faith in the Promise áre to be excluded from the inheritance; cf. Prat, op. cit., I, 221. 22. Cf. Gen 16:15; 17:15–21; 21:2, 9. 23. ‘According to the flesh’: on the one side all happened according to nature; but on the other, according to a divine promise, miraculously realized. 24. ‘Which things are allegorically interpreted’ as follows. 25. ‘(For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia)’: a supplementary confirmation of his interpretation inserted in parenthesis; for Ismael is connected with Arabia through being the ancestor of the chief Arab tribe. Arabia then denoted all the land S. and E. of Palestine. ‘She corresponds to that Jerusalem.…’ 26. i.e. the Church. 27. Cf. Is 54:1, with which the Rabbis connected Is 51:2

Dom B. Orchard, “Galatians,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe (Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 1117.

24. Which things are said by allegory; literally, ἅτινα ὲστιν ἀλληγορούμενα, which things are allegorized, i.e., the things narrated in Genesis regarding the sons and marriages of Abraham, signifying at the same time other things altogether different from themselves. By an allegory, writers on rhetoric understand a lengthened or continued metaphor. Ecclesiastical writers generally understand it to denote a figure in things, by which one thing is employed to typify or signify another of quite a different nature. “For these,” αὗται γὰρ, i.e., the marriages, or, according to others, the two wives of Abraham. “Are,” i.e., signify “the two Testaments”—viz., the New and the Old. “The one indeed from Mount Sina.” The Old Testament took its rise from Mount Sina; because, there was promulgated the Law, the observance of which was among the primary conditions of the Old Covenant. “Which bringeth forth into bondage.” The Old Testament brought forth children into the bondage of the Mosaic Law, a law of servitude, both on account of the multitude of its precepts, which neither the Jews nor their fathers could bear, as also on account of the spirit of fear which it inspired. “Which is Agar;” and this covenant is represented by Agar.

John MacEvilly, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles, vol. 1 (Dublin; New York: M. H. Gill & Son; Benziger Brothers, 1898), 390–391.

Ancient Christian interpreters practised typological and allegorical readings to uncover the spiritual meaning of biblical texts in order to deepen their understanding of God. They did not consider such readings fanciful or arbitrary because they had a different view of reality from us moderns. Ancient interpreters assumed a connection between mind and a higher order of reality. For them, sacred texts were windows to divine realities. Theologians call this the ‘sacramental’ quality of language and texts, that is, their ability to mediate transcendent, divine truths. Already in the Greek philosophical use of Homer or in rabbinic interpretation of the Bible, the text was not read in a strictly literal or historical sense. In contrast to modern literalism, texts were treated as cryptic, containing hidden spiritual insights. Even historical events were means of conveying spiritual truths.

Zimmermann, Jens. Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (pp. 84-85). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

Chesterton · 2025-10-26T19:12:58-0500

Bradskii said:
Maybe you're unaware of a lot of posts that have argued that hey, it really isn't much of a deal. Just knocking down a car port or a couple of walls. Because, you know, Trump said the new structure wouldn't impact any of the existing buildings. Then, when pictures are posted of the complete East Wing having been demolished it's then that it becomes that nothing burger.

What are the options? Admit that Trump lied yet again? I swear, if you asked a lot of people if the new structure was acceptable if it didn't impact any existing building, as he said it wouldn't, then you'd be hard pressed to get a definite answer because we all know he lies and those peopledon't want to go on record disagreeing with anything he does.

Frankly, I find that quite pathetic. But we see it constantly.

I've posted at least three responses to this. I'll give you one, other than that I'm done with it.

Post #19 -

"Shirley you know he was talking about the main house? Because in July the White House said they were going "to replace the current East Wing", and Trump yesterday posted "Completely separate from the White House itself, the East Wing is being fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!"

But if you still think he's lying you can bump this thread when he destroys the White House and I'll apologize to you."

Hentenza · 2025-10-26T19:10:05-0500

Aaron112 said:
Genesis 1 - 3 is good enough. Perfect. Light . Want to argue/debate? Listen to YHVH.

Is not good enough. That merely claims that God proclaimed it but not that He required it. No one between genesis and exodus kept the Jewish Sabbath because there was no mosaic law until Moses.

Aaron112 said:
Fear no evil ?
Rather , do not fear man who can kill the body but cannot do more -
fear YHVH who can destroy both body and soul.

Irrelevant and unresponsive.

Richard T · 2025-10-26T19:08:34-0500

Wondering if Trump only loves certain Americans? That if you oppose him he wants to purge you to the fullest extent of his powers. Here he shows that he opposes free speech. He shuns others including the staff and players of both ball clubs, who after looking at some names in their organizations have many from red states.
I sure would hate to be presenting Trump's case to the Supreme Court arguing that Trump's tariff powers are so important that he can't be overridden. This 10% extra because of an ad in and of itself is enough to show that the only emergency is in Trump's personal life, and is not national. Surely the court can see Trump's justification is baloney. If the judges allow all tariff changes that will be embarrassing. Better to toss the case on a technicality than offer another political decision that is void of law and common sense.

Chesterton · 2025-10-26T19:08:13-0500

NxNW said:
What I said was true, though.

Evidence, please. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Bradskii · 2025-10-26T19:08:07-0500

Chesterton said:
Heck, I think there's at least three CF threads about re-doing the east wing of the White House, which is a complete nothing burger...

Maybe you're unaware of a lot of posts that have argued that hey, it really isn't much of a deal. Just knocking down a car port or a couple of walls. Because, you know, Trump said the new structure wouldn't impact any of the existing buildings. Then, when pictures are posted of the complete East Wing having been demolished it's then that it becomes that nothing burger.

What are the options? Admit that Trump lied yet again? I swear, if you asked a lot of people if the new structure was acceptable if it didn't impact any existing building, as he said it wouldn't, then you'd be hard pressed to get a definite answer because we all know he lies and those peopledon't want to go on record disagreeing with anything he does.

Frankly, I find that quite pathetic. But we see it constantly.

Jipsah · 2025-10-26T19:04:17-0500

Hentenza said:
And yet you cant prove otherwise.

Sorry matey, but "Prove it ain't!" doesn't work. It's not contigent on anyone to prove that the earth isn't flat, or that whales don't speak French at the bottom of the sea. You have the burden of proving your salient points. Otherwise I'm going to require you to address me as "Your Majesty" until you can prove that I'm not Rightwise KIng of All England.

Hentenza said:
Nah. You might want to self examine. I speak of the reality of hell which has been the core teaching of the church since the beginning.

Not arguing the existence of hell, or at least I'm not. "Fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell". Try not to wander away.

Hentenza said:
You, on the other hand, promote a diluted version of eternal punishment.

And you clamor in favor of an invented version of eternal punishment that can't be supported by Scripture.

Hentenza said:
This would benefit the adversary not the Christian.

Really? How?

sjastro · 2025-10-26T19:03:40-0500

David Hine7 said:
Lamaitre was not using the universe expansion (first reported by Isaiah Ch. 40, and later by Hubble) as a challenge to God. Lamaitre claimed he was studying God's Creation (which is what non currupted PROPER non corrupted science is about) so that point you make is an invalid accusation of the integrity of Lamaitre as a worker for God.. .

So you are making up fairy tales, Lemaitre was very careful in differentiating his faith from science knowing very well God is unfalsifiable in science.
This is clearly evident as his “primeval atom” hypothesis for the birth of the universe was based on the early days of quantum mechanics not on studying God's creation.

The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory - Nature

SIR ARTHUR EDDINGTON1 states that, philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to him. I would rather be inclined to think that the present state of quantum theory suggests a beginning of the world very different from the present order of Nature...

www.nature.com

truthuprootsevil · 2025-10-26T19:01:16-0500

Valletta said:
Of course illegal immigration, like crime and poverty and all kinds of things has taken place over many administrations. But NEVER in such numbers, and NEVER with an attempt to cover-up the situation from the American people, lying to the American people while saying the border was safe, secure, and closed. In fact the Biden administration was secretly flying in people! Your speculation into the heart of Trump is just speculation. I think Obama's programs greatly hurt the nation, but I don't hate him.

Never in such numbers, the number of people on earth is constantly increasing so the numbers 20 years ago would be less than the 10 years ago and the numbers 10 years ago would be less than the numbers now.

I never said or implied that "you" hated former president Obama. You think his programs hurt the nation well there are millions who disagree, just as there are millions who agree with you of the over 300 million here in this country.

Obama was given the name deporter -in- chief. Are a few that will say Bush deported more, but since the majority seems to agree that Obama deported more, Trump is determined to beat that 3 million in 8-year term number, regardless, which is not only mine opinion but the opinion of many others. Did Obama's deportation program hurt America?

stevevw · 2025-10-26T18:56:56-0500

PloverWing said:
I'll try to keep my answer within CF's rules.

Yes. The [Anglican] Church in Wales allows the church to bless same-sex civil unions, as does the Church of England. The Scottish Episcopal Church allows the church to conduct same-sex marriages, as does the Episcopal Church in the US. Thus, you may indeed find same-sex couples in Anglican congregations in these countries.

This is what we cannot discuss on CF. I think I can say, as a matter of historical fact, that theologians in the churches listed above wrestled thoughtfully with this question, and that they do have reasons for the decisions they made. You may or may not agree with their reasons. The web sites of some of these churches describe their theological reasoning.

So a people commit sin and your not allowed to say its wrong. Very strange. Almost creating a situation where sin is being accommodated.

Aaron112 · 2025-10-26T18:50:54-0500

Bro.T said:
there’s no middle ground in the case, either you follow God (Jesus) or Satan. It’s written in Revelation 12: 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Once a person realize they have been deceive that’s when the true change can come in.

Yes, the whole world is deceived. Posters, readers, members, priests, pastors, teachers, kings (that commit <spiritual> fornication routinely), students, children, teens...... many may be called as written; likewise as written few are chosen (for eternal life). Even forums and churches are not neutral nor safe ground, no one to trust!

Bradskii · 2025-10-26T18:47:58-0500

RileyG said:
Right. Since he respects freedom of speech.

Whoa, let's back the truck up a little here.

Pentagon names new press corps from far-right outlets after reporter walkout

Spokesperson calls journalists who refused to agree to new rules ‘self-righteous media who chose to self-deport’

www.theguardian.com

'The (Pentagon) journalists who turned in their press credentials earlier this month did so after the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, introduced a policy that required that they agree not to obtain unauthorized material...'

Trump has said that they couldn't print anything unless it was authorised. And this doesn't mean classified information. They were told that they could only report what the Pentagon wanted them to report. That is in direct contradiction to the First amendment. It's a restriction on the freedom of the press.

Aaron112 · 2025-10-26T18:44:08-0500

Hentenza said:
And yet you cant post a verse prior to Moses that shows anyone keeping the Jewish sabbath.

Genesis 1 - 3 is good enough. Perfect. Light . Want to argue/debate? Listen to YHVH.

Fear no evil ?
Rather , do not fear man who can kill the body but cannot do more -
fear YHVH who can destroy both body and soul.

Richard T · 2025-10-26T18:43:40-0500

bèlla said:
I’d forgotten that and I’m glad it helped! Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll check him out.

~bella

That divorce book was very detailed on all scripture concerning divorce. I learned a lot about God and scripture in ways that I never would have thought of.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page