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".
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.