Rollo

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

I like most of your takes.
I follow you.
I enjoy your insights.

So here's one.
Everyone gets this parable backwards.

Verse 31 is universally mistranslated- it begins with the word "But" which changes the whole read of the parable of the talents. That contrast in the word "But" is always left out.

The third servant is the hero in the parable. And the word is not servant. It is "slave" (see Jennifer Glancy). So we're talking about a slave master arguing with his slave for not making interest on his money. Do you think Jesus casts people into the outer darkness for not making interest on his cash? Do you think that is the message he wants to send?

Jews opposed usury in the OT, especially making interest on loans to fellow Jews. The parable does not specify on whose back the interest was being made. "27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest." How would Jesus view "but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away." Does that sound like a belief the God of the Poor has? Jesus didn't work at Goldman Sachs, and yet, here He is, talking about Himself in the third person somehow, choosing the House of Money, despite Matthew 6:24 "24 “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Jesus had pushed the contrast between God and Money so hard earlier in Matthew that by the time we get to Matthew 25, you can't miss it. The "slave" who described himself as fearful, also showed so much temerity standing up to a slave master with unbelievable wealth who believed that the world was made for the rich to get richer and the poor to lose EVEN WHEN THEY HAD NOTHING TO LOSE.

Verse 31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him...

Now if Matthew is suddenly not such a Jewish writer, than usury is not so taboo. And if Jesus hadn't said Matthew 6:24, and half a dozen other versus in that gospel, than sure, I guess He could be Goldman Sachs, taking from those who have nothing, AND reaping where he did not sow...

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@HistorianUSA1 @grok is the trash in Frankfurt, Germany, at the beginning of this video AI generated? If you do not know, that's fine, say so.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@EthicalSkeptic @URtheirProduct Thanks for your response.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

If this ancient site alignment business is cherry picking, then I don't think you have much after Khafre and clear historical indications of excursions like Laschamps at longer intervals than you suggest. It's nice to be corrected about the Louisiana Poverty Earth works site. I've had some trouble with your book and perhaps I judged it too harshly. I can be an uncharitable reader sometimes. It's nice to get the pushback.

I got pretty critical of "Inversion" despite liking your take on Khafre's pyramid. If I wanted to refute your position, I suppose I'd have to offer a reasonable alternative perspective on Khafre. I'm not looking to refute it but I have to wrestle with it because the implications are profound. I do think it's just as reasonable to suggest, from Marcell Forti's 2nd recipe for geopolymer Tura Limestone and Giza's construction (old ash + new ash = Limestone), that the Egyptian foreman blew the recipe 2/3rds of the way up the Pyramid- leaving the Tura limestone FAR more vulnerable to erosion. This doesn't necessarily refute EDCO; it might just be a contributing factor to the odd erosion that far up the pyramid. It would explain the banding as well.

I did buy the book and was checking out some places to move in Nevada because for the first half of the text- like I found it interesting. But I had some real trouble with some of the arguments as I delved further. And lives depend on your argument being compelling so I thought that I'd share that.

How you interpreted the Nubian egg was really rough for me. It was hard to see a 5200 year old calendar from the 50/44 segmented circles. Of course I'm no Egyptologist who understands their multi-thousand-year calendar systems that you were talking about being implicated on that roughly-sketched egg. But the cross-hatching looked like they could have been scratches to me. I couldn't get there. In support of your Nubian egg take, I guess the water being elevated vis-a-vis the current basin levels made some sense. But the Nubian egg argument overall wasn't working. ***What you're talking about Roger is saving civilization so the weak arguments have to be shelved.*** When you talked about moving a pillar at Göbeklitepe to fit your model, I stopped reading- and I was half awake there for that portion. The Göbeklitepe star map was interesting but I felt like you were asking a lot from that orthogonal H and I just didn't get it. How that singular orthogonal H was supposed to be indicative of civilization-ending geo-rotational inundation... I just couldn't get there. That was a big ask from me as a reader. Perhaps I was being too dismissive. Like a lot of people of my generation, I have the attention span of a particularly spastic squirrel, so that doesn't always help.

I still consider geo-rotational pole-shifts on a more frequent basis a compelling explanation for Khafre. And I wasn't being a good reader because every time I started to get into it, my 4 year old wanted help with his Legos. And I was willing to consider moving. Yet I balked pretty hard at some of the arguments like the Nubian Egg. Lives are on the line whether you are right or wrong so weak arguments shouldn't be tolerated. The implications of the theory require, logically, a lot of adaptation and sacrifice for a family, or even an individual. There ain't any jobs at higher elevations in the Rockies. You're basically eliminating all the major cities and leaving only a few places people can realistically move to in the United States. Huge sacrifices involved!

Right or wrong, your arguments have to be fairly strong and the segmented circles of the Nubian Egg look decorative; they don't look like a calendar.

Maybe I'm a shit reader but if these sites are cherry picked, then I'm really concerned that Khafre is all you have and a botched Foti geopolymer may explain that erosion better. Door is still open for me on EDCO.

I'll give your book a second, more charitable read after being corrected by @URtheirProduct. Perhaps I'm just not being a good reader and that's on me.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@URtheirProduct @EthicalSkeptic I was looking at Cunningham's book and I just wasn't seeing it. Fascinating ECDO viewer for the map ancient site alignment verification tool. I was mistaken. I can see that central walkway between the earthworks lining up. Thank you for the correction.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@RepThomasMassie @grok please explain

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@Rich_Cooper @grok please locate this study

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@fitgirltruth Why did you block aj?

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@Bitcoin_Teddy @grok @grok what key academic journal articles support Helen's position?

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@Bitcoin_Teddy @grok what psych and sociology books explore this perspective?

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@coldesign_ltd The wheels here should be cabins

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@grok @Rothmus @grok I was under the impression that "revisionist" typically means, in the sense of slander, that the historian "revised" history to fit a narrative. Is that incorrect?

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@grok @Rothmus @grok what do you mean "revisionist" historian?

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@Bitcoin_Teddy MLK Jr's wife never believed that he committed adultery, from what I've heard.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@ronrule @freespeechless0 Oh man. You're my hero.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@ronrule And... if you can't build on your land or subdivide it for your children because the minimum acreage is so high (e.g. 2.5 acres minimum!?!) than because you don't control your own land, you shouldn't have to pay taxes just to not control your own land.

[Rollo @Rollo_Rob]

@BaronDestructo @grok where is this episode viewable?