There's some serious problems with these slides and claims.
I don't disagree with the core principle of these claims, but the reasoning and evidence is very shaky at frequent times. The language is overly informal and not detailed enough at times, and these guys often quote themselves as sources. Not a good look without detailed evidence to go along with it (which, again, is often lacking).
There's a lot of good information in here but you have to be careful. I don't understand why they're choosing to present these claims in such a fashion. There's plenty of perfectly valid evidence here (and elsewhere) against the clot shots but it's just presented in such a poor way that it weakens their core argument.
Sure, don't misunderstand my position as being for the clot shot. We just need to be very clear as to what this is - at first glance this could easily seem to be more useful of a source than it actually is.
It easily could be better if Dr. Kirsch's sources were provided, but sadly they weren't in this video.
This is basically an open mic session. The Speaker is Steve Kirsch, and he isn't representing the FDA here. This isn't the smoking gun you think it is, our government isn't acknowledging his statistics just by letting him speak here.
Please don't misconstrue this video to mean something that it isn't. The evidence for his claims isn't presented in his short speech, and he even marks some of his claims as statistically insignificant.
Don't go spreading this as the end all against the vax, since it's not the hard data that it could be.
Turns out the psychs are nuts themselves. wHo KnEw???
We both know those numbers are undereported by a LOT. They count deaths within the first two weeks as, "covid deaths," for starters.
Nah you absolutely can, fuck outta here with that bullshit. You can catch them in the act, not past tense.
The amount of people in this forum who will argue that The Bible is wrong while touting a holier-than-thou attitude is truly insane.
You're absolutely right. The Bible CLEARLY says the mark is given in the right hand or the forehand, and yet people just breeze right on past it. The clot shot is a precursor to the Mark of the Beast, but it is not the mark itself, as of right now.
I'm not saying not to share this, but your logic is flawed. If there IS a valid critique of a source, it needs to be sorted out before you start sharing it anywhere.
At what time?
The wall was never proposed as an unmanned operation.
And where did I disagree with any of this?
Mindlessly quoting those words is not praying from the heart, nor is it the level of a relationship that Jesus wants for us.
How many times do you think Elijah would’ve prayed had the third time not worked? As many times as was needed. If you really want a prayer answered, keep at it.
This could not be less relevant to my comment. Nowhere did I say that repetitive prayer is a bad thing. The Bible explicitly says the opposite in dozens of examples.
And yet my comment stands... Prayer is supposed to be you speaking to The Lord, and not just repeating something.
"The Lord's Prayer" as a blueprint would also imply that it's an EXAMPLE, which would be agreeing with me.
You trust Jesus more than you trust Jesus?
The Bible specifically talks about not just repeating things mindlessly.
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-to-pray.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/effective-prayer.html
These resources would be far more useful.
While I don't doubt the validity of your statements, I've personally never had problems that I would associate to that.
Ah yes please explain to me how quoting The Bible directly and showing how it has context isn't a biblical source.
Please, just try to explain how clear Bible quotes aren't Biblical.
Matthew 28 ESV:
Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it.
Matthew 28 NASB:
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb. 2And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.
Matthew 28 NKJV:
Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it.
Now I don't speak Hebrew and Greek but it seems very clear to me that your translation is not supported by the original texts. NASB is considered by most to be the best translation, but even so, it's not even supported by your KJV when put into more modern words, or even in the original KJV you've quoted.
The first Jewish day of the week was Sunday, and the two Mary's wouldn't have been doing what they were doing on the Sabbath day, PERIOD full stop.
He rose on Sunday, the first Jewish week day. It's very, very clear.
You very clearly didn't read the article.
Clearly you didn't read the link.
No, that's blatantly refuted in The Bible, and that article I linked to covers all possible options. Yours is not supported by scripture.
Where the heck do you get Saturday from? The date in question is when he was crucified, not when he rose.
https://www.gotquestions.org/three-days.html
Very clearly rose on Sunday, the day after the sabbath (or second sabbath, depending on point of view). How could you possibly get Saturday as the resurrection date?
I am judging your fold. You can absolutely do better than that.
The security camera footage was released the day of 9/11. I saw it with my own eyes on the news on the day of the event.
Your own original source claims otherwise.
The frames may still be doctored, but Chandler's evidence must also be explained away. I invite you to make your case against it.
You mean the original source that you're now in disagreement with? The original source which is entirely centered around the video and literally nothing else?
I wouldn't know, but I would STRONGLY presume not given what I watched. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.