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".
Modern employment includes the whole range of what the Bible had as to slaves, except for the semantic issue of not calling them property anymore, which wasn't an offense in the past like it suddenly became today. Revelation adds that up to the end people will still be selling humans (human trafficking) and so the literal slavery problem is actually worse today than ever, even if we've put a dent in it of late. The problem is of course the abuse, not the semantics or the regulation. Lev. 25:44-46 (correct reference) is about employees staying with the household upon the homeowner's death, but they were either under contracts of 6 years or less, or under a (voluntary) life employee contract that was regarded the same as a business's "key man" contract today. Ex. 21:20-21 (correct reference) is not about beating nearly to death. If one beats another to death, that can be a capital crime depending on circumstances; but if one survives then the assailant is still required to pay for full restoration (verses 18-19 apply, 20-21 being a special subset of them) and is only exempt from paying him for lost time if he is an employee because the lost time is the owner's natural-consequences loss. The twisting of these verses against their culture (and their advances in the Near East compared to Hammurabi) is not moral, but the general principles as intended are moral, as I said.
I said that the context indicates that picking up sticks on Sabbath was not the only crime committed or it wouldn't have been reported that way with the deliberative process and the context of presumption.
The old Cain's wife problem has several solutions. Personally I think it's possible that, just as some animals do and as Mary reportedly did, there may have been daughters of Adam who experienced parthenogenesis and gave birth to children without cohabitation; after that, marriage to a niece is not forbidden in the incest laws (Lev. 18). But there are other solutions that have satisfied many people as well. This has been a quibble for a long time that (as I predicted) came from atheists who just want to discredit a narrative for spurious reasons.
Of course objective morality has ins and outs and context. Didn't you just say that toddlers don't get the same moral standard as others, and all cultures have recognized that by giving different moral rights and responsibilities to minors vs. adults? It's not an obviation of universality to say "all people in a certain class should behave a certain way"; obviously rape laws have different application to men and to women. When people study general principles to publish good case law, it becomes more specific, and this process is well-understood even though (as in the US) it can be abused into casuistry. Even in the original context "thou shalt not commit adultery" was a command that applied only to males because of the meaning of the verb construction; the woman was commanded not to seduce or to adulterate herself. We don't reject there being an absolute standard simply because it admits of differences in cultural status.
I told you that in the text, Num. 15:30, the sin of presumption is described as include reproach, spite, and violation, and that context connected to the historical narrative indicates the background of the narrative that need not be restated in the immediate paragraph of 32-36. The original readers had no problem discerning the intent, but our modern mode of reading things often fails to grasp the implication of context and placement. You construct "desecration" by application to picking up sticks, but I construct it by application to presumption, reproach, spite, and violation. Now it's an interesting question as to how we could decide which construction is better, but for now note that we each have a construction that agrees with our presuppositions and so it might be better to go deeper and work on those assumptions instead.
I also told you that the reconciliation of Sabbath and Lord's Day is a problem that eluded many people for very long and my own solution took 25 years, which is why I'm not going into it until we get the basics more clear.
In each of these cases, you're taking objections favored by atheists and materialists since only about the 19th century (slavery, sabbath, incest, casuistry, execution) and not realizing that those too are just another psyop that was constructed to propagate a narrative (in particular, old-earth and God-denial). These were answered very ably in the same period and the same questions and answers have continued with little newness all this time. So that's why I ask people if they want to understand.
If you want to pursue truth, then the first issue is not whether nitpicks in a holy book can be found (anyone can nitpick with or without nits); the first issue is whether truth can be known and how it can be recognized in broad outlines. I say that is done by the human spirit, the image of God in humanity, and there is evidence that we have broad agreement on not murdering, abusing, stealing, or lying (even as casuists point out that communities do have rights of capital executions for instance).
The old argument is to say, but oh yeah, you Christians think your book is perfect in every way so a single quibble means I don't have to believe anything Christian at all. That argument has always been defended against very well, but I would separate the defense into two portions. For me, I believe it's perfect and have answered every quibble I've been presented by reference to culture, history, language, and giving the document the same benefit of doubt that every other historical document gets (i.e. not imposing my culture on someone else's). For others, I point out you don't have to believe the book is perfect to be able to judge what is moral, to find echoes of that morality across culture, and to select which cultures and religious traditions demonstrate that morality the best. And that eventually comes down to: Jesus did it best and there's no problem in seeking to do what he did and to follow what he taught.
So all those questions that you're upholding as great deceptions are really problems that very few people ever had with the texts for thousands of years among billions of readers until a severe skeptical period arose in Europe due to having such great prosperity as to give skeptics a lot of time on their hands. There was never anything to hide, there were just a new slate of objections by people who were so far from the original culture and language as to throw together what they could, frankly because they didn't like laws against adultery and the rest. But the student of truth works on the root problem first, which is to recognize that broad strokes of absolute morality exist, they come from an inspired source, and they are good foundation for making more detailed distinctions when the time comes (even though cultures clash over the distinctions and often fail to recognize differences of application).
You get to decide whether to cling to the (dogmatic) belief that a sudden motivated objector found something in the text that billions of people missed who were closer to its culture and who found it perfectly fitting; or to release your focus on Near East case law and move your focus to whether Jesus himself, as presented in the gospels, is indeed worthy of following in all aspects. Because history and tradition are unanimous that Jesus himself believed that Moses was perfectly consistent and, if you will, didn't stutter. So you might be able to pick up the pieces of Jesus's morality without reference to Moses, but it's easier if you don't feel you need to fight Moses to get at Jesus's morality. But to act like a couple higher-critic quibbles like Cain's wife are real barriers to entry of any absolute morality is so 1800.
Does this make sense or do you really present these questions because you think the existence of criticism is sufficient to forbid any progress in discerning morality? Because if you wanted to put forward a morality based on contradiction or based on some other proponent than Jesus, those have all been criticized heavily as well, so it goes back to whether objective standards of truth exist to help us judge. Either no standard exists or the standard is external, objective, and transcendent.
Oh, you think human parthenogenesis is a speculative miracle because it's never been observed scientifically in our species like it has for others? That's not an appeal to miracle. From the standpoint of the Bible literalist, he already believes in parthenogenesis and Nephilim so adding a little bit in our favor to find Cain's wife is no problem for him. From the standpoint of the skeptic, it doesn't matter what solution is proposed, theistic evolutionists believe in pre-Adamites for instance, but the issue is that he already disbelieves the Bible and is just using Cain's wife as a human shield. That's why I feel totally free to share my own literalist answers with you, to encourage you that they exist, not to say you must believe them; but from your standpoint of skepticism you need to have consistent methodology first before you even have the power to complain about Cain's wife.
Glad you understand that part so well! The Near East case law that has shining moments in Hammurabi and Moses and Solomon is indeed one of the better cultural expressions of natural law. America comes close, it has a secure Constitutional foundation but it's been more easily distracted than Moses's nation was overall.
I knew you were asking questions where you might not like my candid answers, so I was prepared for that; but I answered candidly anyway, because I can. Your logic doesn't follow though. First, the US kills for treason and that position is highly approved on this platform. However, second, the right of a people to execute traitors does not extend to corrupt tyrants who have seized the power to execute arbitrarily and capriciously. Perhaps your view of moral law as monolithic is getting in the way. When following one law you don't get to ignore other laws by claiming they are in conflict, you must (like good judges do in this country) resolve the apparent conflict and find the distinction you need. In your proposed case, the fact that a culture is anti-Christ does not give them legitimate power to restrict or punish peaceful minority religions (we call that observation "1A" here) because personal practice is not treasonous, and attempts to make personal practice tantamount to treason (Daniel in the lion's den) are themselves destructive of their own government (his attackers wound up in the same lion's den). By authorizing capital punishment, Noah's statement (whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed) emphasizes that execution must be deliberative and transparent to prevent becoming vengeful and cyclical. That precedes any tyrant's distortion.
TLDR: If you choose not to follow up on these notices, it's sufficient that you have been informed that you'll do better to build on your view of moral law and recognize that it assumes class applications such as man and woman, adult and child. And you'll do better to question the quibbles that atheists wrote dogmatically in the same way you question other religions. For that, I'll leave you to Jesus's statement, love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, love neighbor as self, and on these two hang all law and commandments.
I told you there are several solutions accepted by believers in morality, and I told you you don't have to accept mine just because I find it suitable for me. If you quibble at a narrative because you believe there's no way to interpret it except for there being two people who were morally barred from creating an extended family and thus a contradiction, the burden is on you to prove that's the only way to interpret the text, because billions have had no problem with rejecting that reading. Cain's wife doesn't justify throwing out the Ten Commandments. If the theistic evolutionists are right and we're both wrong, presumably we can both be corrected; but even if you think I'm wrong it doesn't make your opinion right by default because it's not a binary argument. Now, since you ask, I do believe that (the law of entropy indicates) human powers were greater in the past and, just as other powers go extinct in e.g. past gigantism in many species, there's nothing wrong with parthenogenesis going dormant in humans (with the notable exception of Mary) but remaining present in a number of animal species. It's devolution that makes it not happen anymore. Not a miracle, it's been observed by scientists, just not recently in humans. But for you to focus on this quibble while letting others go suggests the basic methodology issue I've been describing.
I didn't change my morality. "Authority" means legitimate power, not illegitimate. Morality is not to reject community authority, but of course one should reject tyranny, and one is responsible to know the difference. As I said, leaders lose their righteous authority by themselves transgressing moral law such as by abusing their constituency. It's natural that moral law deals with issues like failures of government, and decisions that war is necessary, and it's natural that these are not always the simplest questions even though morality when grasped on a subject is itself simple. The fact that some questions have layers doesn't prohibit authority.
Now, the basic methodology issue here is that you rightly assume an objective transcendent morality just by engaging the topic. First you assume that having the discussion is better than not having it; then you assume that your view of my description is better than what you think I mean by it. Those express moral preference and the use of an external standard that you wish to hold me to. It is common in these discussions to tell the Christian that if he believes in a high standard he must be held to it; Christians should admit that, and also admit that we're not perfect and fall short of it, and that since that's always been part of our gospel it's no shame to admit it. But everyone treats standards the same: they seek to use something external and direct others to the same as what they see, even for things as simple as "you took my seat". The person who holds off from believing in the Christian's detailed (and work-in-progress) morality often doesn't realize that he also has quite a nuanced, and occasionally self-reworked, morality himself.
So it's a categorical error to say that simply because one can find open questions that appear to be zingers for Christians therefore one has no responsibility to declare any morality. Most atheists agree murder is always wrong, and lots use the Golden Rule for simplicity. If you simply said that there exist a small number of human conventions that appear to meet the high bar of being universal morals, you'd immediately position your case better: because then you wouldn't be arguing the illogical "morality is bad", but the much more debatable "my morality is better than yours". You'd be free to call out the Christians for being casuists and also pushovers, by referring them to (what are often called) simple laws of Noah instead. But if you refer people to nothing then the methodology is fatal to the argument.
It's not about what I want anyway as to what you believe. What I ask is whether you want to believe what is true. If you do, you will be guided by the cosmos into all truth, and that includes getting morality questions settled to your satisfaction and not mine. I'm just someone guessing what may help. And I think that backing away from the failed 1800s approach of throwing out the Baby with the bathwater will help you, as you instead focus on what you know to be right and wrong (as expressed by what you do and don't do). Picking on someone else taking up a hard responsibility (even if he's failing) doesn't help, but picking up what responsibility you do see makes you a brother.
See c/Satanism for more details 💡