I just replied to him from that post, 3 months ago:
ok so this was 3 months ago, when you were getting all worked up, mentioning these videos.
Masonry's Satanic Doctrine - From Their Own Books (Original Classic) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRl-ITShKhY
The New Age Fully Exposed (UPDATED) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAQyVF7gjz0
Gods of the New Age (Original Classic) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tix1t6wUU9A
The New Age's Antichrist Connection - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtdI0CF_28
New Age Satanism Exposed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjt3MTNqr4k
Aquarius: The Age of Evil (Original Classic) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WBV-i-zRM
I'm there, calm down.. give me some time here. I put each of them on the bookmarks bar. And during meals I'd gradually check them out. Note the time in the bookmark and resume next meal.
Well.. 3 months later I'm starting to check out the last one here.. These videos were as informative about what's going on with the cabal running the world, as how you were getting all worked-up about it. Once you check out all these half dozen videos, it helps you put together lots of puzzle pieces you've been researching over the years, that you didn't understand what these cabal guys are up to.
Before this I'd have researched about some of these characters but didn't really put it all together. The new age movement there.. that's the freemason, luciferian agenda.
I looked into Manly P. Hall's stuff.. and he was talking about these things. I had heard about Blavatsky.. and Alice Bailey. How Lucifer publishing, Lucis trust, was involved with the united nations. You get guys like Aleister Crowley.. what kinds of things was he into. On and on with all these guys. How about that Freemason guy there.. Pike.
I didn't really think about these eastern religions. The religions in India. The meditating. Even the Muslims.. what was going on BEFORE Mohammed.. when they'd sacrifice stuff. Where they had this black cube. Those guys are bad too. The Jews with the ark of the covenant.. sacrificing stuff.. splashing blood on it. They're bad too. Any sacrificing there.. that's bad.
How about people who wonder, how come the immigration keeps going on, even though people here can't get a job. That's to mix in all these religions so the catholic people are minority.
Jack up inflation so those left can't afford to have kids. So, sooner than later, they'll be "out".
Then you come in with this new world order there. It's all the Luciferian agenda. And they disguise it as this New age movement with the meditating.
What do you think about all this stuff in these half dozen videos you were getting all worked up about, 3 months ago. And I was there, calm down.. give me some time. I also had other things I might have to check out before I could get around to these.
But on the last one. 12 minutes.. 2 hours long. I don't like the way these guys stretch 4:3 aspect ratio videos.. they should leave it how it was instead of stretching people's bodies and heads. Whatever.. checking out the videos. You learn a lot about what's going on out there and some "why".
I just started you with the Golden Rule. It has fungible (isomorphic) formulations in Hammurabi, Moses, Aristotle, Hillel, Jesus, and others. It doesn't need to be made transcendent, instead it is recognized as transcendent in the same way the law of gravity is recognized as a law: by common testimony and experience.
Let's also throw in the Law of Sowing and Reaping, for which we'll use a formulation from philosopher Ralph Macchio, "What goes around comes around." Karma.
And most everyone agrees murder is wrong; we are told that Noah said, whoso sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Good government.
Does the Inner Light testify that these principles are greater than your understanding of them, or were you looking for some principle that you could make or unmake by being greater than it?
I very much appreciate your taking it philosophically, but it sounds like your objections are only on the surface. True morality is one even if it has different applications for toddlers and for executions and for employments in different cases.
The difficulty becomes how one knows whether a morality comes from inner light (the image of God within oneself) and whether it is manmade (a situational rationalization that denies the big picture). And that begins by recognizing that every generic and specific question has an objective answer that can be pursued beyond oneself (our light is received and reflected, not self-generated). If we are both taking that warning and avoiding manmade dogma, we can reason together and find those principles. Also, that's the only ground from which churches can be judged.
If you want to say "Father forgive them for they know not" is your overarching principle, that's fine, because any true statement of the moral law is isomorphic to any other and they all connect behind the scenes (on these two hang them all). Mercy and justice do kiss, they unite without conflict, and when you perceive a conflict it's because the principle uniting them is still to be sought. Obviously mercy is not always extended to those who know what they're doing (and in the case of the sabbathbreaker there was explicitly stated review, to ensure the offender knew what he was doing by rebelling against the newly organized community authority). And most people do want laws evenly applied including to themselves, because a good leader will admit his mistakes and take the consequences, and a bad leader will continue to deny his mistakes and create transparent rationalizations and demand mercy and permission to continue his tyranny. If the intent of the law was indeed to be read as smiting everyone every time, that would not involve mercy, but that is not the statutory construction intended; rather, it states maximum penalties that apply in the worst case and it also gives methods for mitigation for extenuating cases. We sometimes read laws uncharitably and out of context, and US law when read that way has the same difficulties because of the nature of statutory construction, but when you see the logic and the whole picture you realize it's a good system for its time and place and the principles of mercy are built in but not always evident out of context. When you start with the knowledge that the Bible was received by many as not in self-conflict, you realize that our reading of it as conflicted is not the original reading and you can then discern and test that reading for what it is (a statement of moral law that is all interconnected).
So, (1) Everyone does have a moral system by which they judge right and wrong (unless they become nihilists and deny all right and wrong, which never works). (2) All sincere attempts at defining the moral system, which does arise from inner light, are interconnected and none are contradictory. (3) Our judgments that someone's system is wrong may or may not be right judgments; at least one person is wrong and maybe both (i.e. comms error). (4) Honest testing of systems resolves all objections in time. (5) It's not necessary to reconcile the whole Bible to be able to uphold moral law, but when one is committed to upholding moral law one loses the need to join with atheists and scoffers in rejecting the Bible out of hand.
If we stick with logic and our spirits are actively discerning what is true Light and what is just our creative rationalized dogma, we will come to unity on any question.
Great questions!
Well-regulated employment is of transcendent, objective morality. We cleverly turned the word "slavery" into referring to something that is always abusive, while retaining the word "employment" (the same thing from the French) to mean regulated labor sales. In the past the concept of servitude was all one and it was well-known that it could be demonically abusive or very positively advancing depending on the employer. In this light Moses (compare Boaz) gives excellent regulatory principles.
Killing someone for deliberately rejecting community authority (treason) is of transcendent, objective morality. You refer to Num. 15:32-36, a very brief account from the compressed reference to the full 40 years of wanderings. The key context is verses 30-31, which introduce the subject by defining presumptuous (knowing) capital offenses as including spite for the promulgated laws. Since they did not know whether to judge him capitally, they kept the offender in custody until they received a revelation that the sin was capital and thus presumptuous. Obviously if someone wanted to approach the text belligerently they could assume there were no such mitigating circumstances, but that would not be the way that all historians approach all other ancient texts, ignoring the culture and implications of context.
Rejection of incest is of transcendent, objective morality. The historical notation that e.g. Ammon and Moab were tribes founded via incest is not an endorsement.
Obviously different judgment of knowing sins versus ignorant sins is of transcendent, objective morality. Who ever said that premeditated murder and accidental manslaughter should be judged the same way? Moses didn't.
Resting regularly and allowing your family and employees to rest is of transcendent, objective morality. If you do not, by the design of humanity you are destroying or burning out yourself or other people. Like Charlie Kirk, I do happen to be a seventh-day rest observer. (I've also reconciled the Christian practice of Lord's Day as complementary; that's a toughie but it's also a boring exposition for a lot of people.) As above, the capital issue is not whether someone refuses to rest (which has natural burnout consequences), but whether someone is disturbing the peace via presumptuous encouragement of rebellion to established order, and, though it's not explicitly stated in the same paragraph, presumption is the intended inference. In Ex. 31 the word for "desecrate" (defile, profane) is very strong and doesn't refer to later Pharisaic casuistry (as Jesus showed) but to promotion of impurity of the community's order. Jesus rested on the seventh day, so I do too.