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".
Um, the father raised the prodigal son and gave him all his substance, so he was theistic in accord with continuing providence, not deistic. During the interim period where the son had cut himself off from his father (because demanding an early inheritance is culturally wishing death upon one's father), the father didn't intervene out of respect for the son's wishes, but the father did position himself waiting to anticipate the son's return so he wasn't inactive either; so theistic again. Thank you for playing.
Actually, he lifted his eyes toward heaven. Now there's a nice Christian debate (dunno if you're interested, being against objective morality and all) about whether God acts "first" or man acts "first", and it's not necessary to resolve because they both act together and inseparably in the lifting from misery. When you lift yourself up, God is lifting you up, and vice versa, they are identical. Theism again, but not in the persona of the earthly father but in the persona of heaven instead. (If you combine the two, which could be within the intent, lifting the eyes toward heaven is lifting the eyes toward the father's estate.)
I'm so glad the Protestants discovered private interpretation then. All the same, holding a false interpretation because you can doesn't mean it isn't false; it's still to be tested, objectively if you will (otherwise you'd have no ground to declare other interpretations false).
It's true that authorities bottlenecked Bibles for some centuries so that the masses thought Romans 13 meant Obey At All Costs. It actually says to obey "to whom tribute is due" (not to those to whom it isn't), and those "ordained of God" (not those who abrogate that ordination). I think Ephesians says "Obey in the Lord", obviously not obeying commands not given in the Lord. These teach that conscience trumps force. I'm so glad that we have continuing open-source research on original texts and their proper translation so that we've gotten past that error of authoritarianism.
Not inserted, the history shows that they were translated with extra bias and then interpreted and gatekept with additional bias. The argument "inserted" is not about those texts, but about those that your 1800s atheist friends found easiest to pick at, and you're extending "insertion" to protest whatever you don't like. Just admit you don't like it so we can get on with finding something else other than the contradiction I demonstrated at the core of your thought. It doesn't help to dance around the outskirts.
How did your parents get you to obey them? Wasn't it by showing natural consequences of good and bad behavior, i.e. reward and punishment? The child reaching for the flame gets rebuked and grabbed for safety because that punishment is better than the actual natural consequences. If a child keeps reaching for a flame many times, a parent may well decide to allow the child to experience the effects of being burned a little more closely to continue the power of natural consequences. Even adults are not always able to be reasoned with in all emergency circumstances and sometimes need natural consequences such as restraint for their own protection. Deut. 28 is about natural consequences of good and bad living. Sounds like your college professors aren't educating you in how morality actually is promulgated from one person to another via encouragement and discouragement: you're certainly failing to promulgate your own morality to us, but whatever source you're using did convince you that its dogmatic proclamations should be followed by you without question or alternative. So your sources are doubly problematic, enslaving you to their thought, and then refusing to share with you how you could enslave others. Free inquiry and objective morality is so much better.
No force in the passage at all, it's the natural consequence. You quote God's part, and man's part (the sin) is also in the fore, and I separately explained that those two flow together. People in your position should just come out and say they think the God character is tyrannical. Then we'd be able to talk about how you can propagate good morality without being truly tyrannical; and (since anyone can accuse at any time) how to disprove claims you're being tyrannical, objectively. In relativism and situationalism you have no power to escape charges of tyranny yourself.
u/guywholikesDjtof2024