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".
Heh heh, that's another trope from the same book. The transcendent position is "no adultery", that a marriage relationship should not be adulterated. There are cultures, including in the Bible, where it has been held that the polygynous form does not adulterate any woman and is permitted. Jesus said on the related issue of divorce that questions like this come up because of hardness of human hearts, though, so the cultural permission always arises from prior faults in the culture that encourage an alternative to the monogamous standard that Jesus pointed to. Since divorce always arises from human sin but the church has recognized that it's possible to be an innocent party to a divorce, it seems to me that the point of the Bible's description of polygamy is to say it always arises from human sin but it's possible to be an innocent party to it also. As with the other issues, there are several ways to slice it, and some Christians say there are cultural cases where participation in polygamy might be innocent based on cultural understanding while others say it's always wrong, but this difference doesn't disprove objective morality. It rather reinforces my point that the simple principles ("no adultery") do permit more complicated principles to be drawn that are also transcendent (such as churches declaring a divorcee innocent if all conditions are met), and that both the simple laws and the case laws are part of the same objective system that can be apprehended sufficiently by anyone.
What's your position on when the Golden Rule can be "rightly" thwarted, and what superior "right" can be asserted that transcends it? If the only transcendence you permit is "dependent upon variables like context and situation (relativity)", then no standard can be maintained. However much you proclaim something to be true for you due to inner light, I could just say it's not true for me due to what I believe to be my inner light, and there is no meeting of minds. When that happens, the only proof is by force, which is a shoddy way to decide things. It seems we must either have agreement on something transcendent, such as the existence of Good and Truth, or we have no means to interact as humans but only as irreconcilable savages.
Though that's the literal Exodus 20 formulation, the basic principle of "no adultery" has been upheld by virtually every culture ever as foundational to societal maintenance, as shown by Westermarck's history of all forms and types of marital arrangements around the world. Cultures that have permitted adultery have found themselves overwhelmed by breakdown resulting from abusive relationships, illegitimacy (externality) of the representatives of the culture, and irresponsibility for childrearing. Most people recognize objective morality via reference to conscience, logic, facts, history, and culture.
If you don't believe in objective morality, you run into the core illogic problem of nihilism sooner or later: there is no objective standard by which objective standards can all be dismissed. Bob Dylan said you gotta serve somebody. Simplest answer is just admit you wish to pursue truth at all costs; there is never something "better than" truth because truth is isomorphic with good. But if you don't like truth and good, nothing has any meaning because meaning is recognized by its truth and without truth there is no distinction between meaning and nonmeaning. You seem to think that favoring 1800s canards is not "bias" as if their rejection of good still had some good in it; that's illogical and shows the bias. Ultimately you pick either truth or nothing. I've never seen any escape from that most basic of freewill choices.
Reality is objective. Our perception of reality is a sufficient but imperfect model of the objective. When people study math or geography, they come to broad consensus on essentials even though edge cases exist where quibbles arise, because they're merely modeling reality. The same is true of theology. The fact that consensus is imperfect doesn't make it insufficient.