And if you look at the particular Greek word that was translated into "fulfilled" (kataluo), it is typically used in context such as "to overthrow", "to render vain", etc. The purpose of the Law of Moses was to provide a simpler law that was to be "fulfilled" (i.e. rendered out of date) with Christ's coming. This is why Christians typically do not practice circumcision, burnt offerings, the scapegoat ritual, etc. All of those were a facsimile for the Messiah and are now obsolete as Christ has already been born, performed his mortal ministry, suffered in the garden, and was crucified.
Again, incorrect. No one is saying that "Good deeds buys your way into heaven". Faith must go hand in hand with good deeds, for having real faith requires good deeds. Good deeds can also occur regardless of one's faith, but real faith requires good deeds in order to be real. A Christian seeks to emulate Christ, and the majority of direct references to Christ in the Bible reference his deeds.
Were good deeds not required, there would have been no point in Christ's ministry on Earth or his sacrifice.
Were good deeds not required, there would be no need for proselytizing.
Were good deeds not required, the parables of the talents, the olive grove, and the bridesmaids would have no meaning.
Other scriptures directly reference the requirement of good deeds. Pretty much the entirety of Matthew Ch. 5 references good deeds being required, but of particular interest are verses 16 and 19:
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
James Ch. 2 also features this theme in verses 14-26:
"14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
To say that faith does not require work is vainglorious at best and mockery of the life and purpose of Christ at worst.
And?
"I never said that they would have had a near-meltdown, I said it was likely. As in, without the primary safety measure active, they would have had to resort to secondary/tertiary systems."
So when did I say they would? Again, I said likely. Clearly you know this since you just quoted me, thereby proving my previous post correct.
Should the primary system be shut down, the likelihood of a meltdown would have increased. That is irrefutable.
You're the one getting cause and effect reversed. The passage from James quite clearly states "faith without works is dead". Meaning that faith is pointless if works do not go along with them. Christ's very ministry taught us that. He criticized the Pharisees for vain piety, AKA they professed faith but ultimately did nothing else.
You are making assumptions. You're assuming that, since boron injections fall into a very nebulous category, that it was present at the reactor. They stated that all safe shutdown equipment was operable, meaning what was present at the time. Nowhere is it stated that all safe shutdown equipment existed on site.
Even then, their presence is still irrelevant since they never were needed anyway. Water cooling had already begun and the reactors had already been shut off.
A statement from TVA made reference to the generators only being operable for a short amount of time, however that article seems to no longer exist.
https://www.tva.com/news/releases/aprjun11/storm.htm
You can extrapolate that conclusion by looking at the NRC timestamps.
"At 1701 CDT, the licensee declared a Notification of Unusual Event under Emergency Action Level 5.1U due to loss of offsite power for >15 minutes. The loss of offsite power occurred at 1635 CDT and was due to severe weather and winds in the vicinity. When offsite power was lost, all 3 units automatically scrammed. The units are currently stable in Mode 3 with their respective 4KV busses being supplied by the onsite Emergency Diesel Generators[EDG]."
"* * * UPDATE FROM BILL BAKER TO S. SANDIN AT 2153 EDT ON 4/27/11 * * *
Following the loss of offsite power only 12 of the required 100 offsite emergency sirens are operable.
The licensee will inform both state/local agencies and the NRC Resident Inspector.
Notified R2IRC (Wert) of this update."
So clearly they were not operating at proper output at 2153.
Again, you still can't answer the question. If other measures were available, why was an automatic shutdown sequence even in place anyway and why was it the first thing to activate?
Still not sure what your problem is. Did Brown's Ferry lose external power? Yes. Did the scram system activate? Yes. If external power is lost for a sufficient amount of time, could a meltdown occur? Yes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the scram system was put into place to prevent meltdowns and that, given that it was an AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATED SYSTEM, it must have been intended to be the primary meltdown preventative.
Therefore, one must conclude that, should the scram system not work for some reason, the likelihood of a meltdown must necessarily increase due to the lack of the primary meltdown preventative.
How am I wrong? Nowhere did I state that it wasn't present. You still have yet to provide any evidence that it was present, all you've done is assume that, since it is part of a broad "safe shutdown equipment" category, it must be.
How do you think boron would've been injected anyway? Likely from an electrically-driven pump perhaps? Oh wait, the backup generators were only operating for a short amount of time during the entire outage.
Not that it matters anyway since it still never came into use. Water cooling had already begun.
The automatic scram system was clearly put into place for a reason and was the first system to be activated. Clearly that means that it was intended to be the primary means of preventing a meltdown in the event of loss of outside power.
Guy, nowhere did I say they were affected by the tornado. Do you understand what "external" means?
The point is that, based on the NRC report, the diesel backups would not have been sufficient due to only being active for a short time and due to fluid leakage (hard for generators to properly function if they're leaking, right?). You can hypothesize on and on about the scram system not working, but the fact remains. It worked. Do you have evidence that boron injection was available or functioning? No? Then you have no point.
- Tornado knocked out external power supply.
- Automatic scram system activated, shutting down reactors.
- No near-meltdown occurred because the reactors were shut down before one could take place.
The NRC report I linked earlier even cites that backup power was only operational for a brief part of the outage and that one of the generators was leaking oil, so clearly the backups were not going to be the solution. It was classified as an Unusual Event, the lowest emergency classification. The type of reactor was irrelevant.
That is distinctly incorrect.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202%3A14-26&version=NKJV;NLT
This by far. Lax US policy towards illegal immigrants serves as a relief valve for the Mexican underclass. Why fight corruption in your home country when you can just cross the border and be accepted in a better country (who ironically is also supposedly filled with turbo-Nazis).
I'm a troll because you can't answer a pretty simple question?
Obviously the shutdown sequence exists to prevent the reaction from continuing upon the loss of external power. Why do you want to prevent the reaction from continuing if external power is lost? You aren't able to moderate it since you won't be able to raise or lower the control rods.
It's like you're a fucking illiterate. No one's saying that nuclear power is bad. This is specifically referencing the Brown's Ferry reactor and that the 2011 incident was not a near-meltdown like TuckerCarlsonsTie claimed. It could have been had the power not shut down, but the power was shut down, so nothing beyond that occurred.
Them automatically doing it really isn't relevant. Clearly the automatic system is in place to prevent a melt down. No shit they were never close to melting down since they were shut down once external power was cut. Like I said, had the reactor shutdown not happened, they likely would have melted down.
No shit, pretty sure I already said that.
"Had they not shut the reactor down, they likely would have had a near-meltdown due to the loss of outside power preventing them from moderating the fuel rods."
So you pretty much refuted you previous statement. If "they would have been fine" as you stated before, they'd have had no need to shut the reactors down.
Why have an automatic shutdown program that activates once external power is cut that shuts down the entire process?
What do you think a "test of readiness" is for?
It's almost like those are systems deliberately put in place to prevent problems i.e. meltdowns.
Which firings are you referring to, specifically? As in, names and ranks.
Clearly they aren't researching or are extrapolating wild tangents off of otherwise simple concepts. Military officers have never been commissioned directly by the President except in a few very unique circumstances, typically high-ranking generals (i.e. Grant during the War Between the States). Again, do you seriously believe Obama (or any explicit or implicit representative) looked through every single prospective commission before considering them? Do you think he looked at every would-be butter bar from every college ROTC program and hand-picked them or had someone do it for him?
Don't forget, much of the apparatus of US government is (mostly) apolitical. They don't really care who's in charge so long as their little corner of the world is relatively untouched. If anything, DC being mostly Democrat has more to do with the fact that Democrats tend to favor preserving/expanding government, which makes the average government worker vote in their favor because their job is less at risk (despite many being pointless administrative posts).
The "officers" referred to in the Appointments Clause typically refer to civilian officers like the Board of Governors of the Post Office, Secretary of Defense, FBI Director, Attorney General, etc.
HCQ doesn't protect you from getting it. Unless you lived inside an impermeable barrier, you can still contract any pathogen through their usual transmission vectors. What matters is whether your immune system can destroy the virus before it reproduces enough to overwhelm you.
This is why we have asymptomatic people who test positive and why asymptomatic transmission is so rare. The tests detects antibodies, viral RNA, or antigens on the surface of infected cells. However, you aren't experiencing symptoms because the virus has not been able to reproduce in sufficient numbers to cause problems (either due to incubation periods before reproduction or a strong immune system destroying them faster than they can reproduce).
Look at most of the people who have died. Old and already sick with conditions that routinely feature high on the causes of death in the US. The usual candidates for death with any respiratory illness involved. The problem is that on March 24, 2020, the CDC changed their methodology for tallying cause of death specifically and exclusively for COVID-19 and thus violated Federal oversight regulations. That was when deaths started to "skyrocket" in the US.
https://jdfor2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/adf864_165a103206974fdbb14ada6bf8af1541.pdf
And yet you're looking at a specific verse attempting to claim that good works are not necessary, despite multiple verses that Christians take to be the very words of Christ stating the opposite.
Nevermind that, since Isaiah is a highly allegorical book filled with figurative language, "righteousnesses" may not literally mean "good works", but could very easily also be a reference vain piety (i.e. the Pharisees).