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 left this comment behind earlier so I could read and answer it fully in its time.
That's your assumptions and opinions. So how do we reach meeting of the minds?
Not at all, I said there are several ways incest is not inherent to the design (naming parthenogenesis and pre-Adamites, to which you add genepool changes and I guess Ken Ham); and I chose one way. You say making it inher[en]t, I say not making it inherent; so how do we reach meeting of the minds?
Devolution of genotypes is the ordinary course, you just admitted it by reference to scientific notice of genepool damage, so it's odd you should reject science that agrees that positive macroevolution is excessively rare and is outpaced by harmful mutation by orders of at least thousands to one.
It's also odd that you propose a paradox in the case where Adam and Eve were inexplicably created and then complain that my resolution involves an unstated additional inexplicable detail, as if I don't forego objectivity when arguing special creation but do forego objectivity when arguing parthenogenesis, even though both are Christian doctrine (that I'm making special application of). That's flatly illogical.
There's only one reality and as a student of truth I am constantly learning more and making my models of reality more accurate. I concluded that recent creation is the most accurate model on scientific grounds, and concluded that incest is immoral on conscientious grounds, and recognized that there was an 1800s Cain's-wife paradox proposed, and investigated it and didn't like any of the Christian answers 100% so determined my own. If your objection is to Christianity then you could propose any subset of that modeling to be wrong: you could have a "crevo" debate where we discuss old/young models, or you could have a moral debate where we discuss if incest is ever right, or you could have an intramural Christian debate where we discuss, if the Bible is correct, how to solve Cain's wife. But you're bobbing and weaving among those by tentatively entering the Christian in-universe view and challenging it as if from within, and then patching that together with arguments that come from without as if there's no morality at all.
Let's assume that's simply a matter of inexperience in internet discussion, and give you another opportunity to state a positive proposition instead of just picking against another person's. What do you actually believe? Closest I can find is "good or bad ... depends upon the context". That's ultimately illogical as all atheists discover sooner or later and find one dodge or another: the reason is that I simply propose that "if all things are good in some contexts, then 'good or bad being independent of context' is good in some contexts", and suddenly it's false that good or bad always depends on context. It's self-defeating and inherently contradictory. So I don't mind your asking diagnostic questions as you regroup to work out that contradiction, but I do want you to come to an answer sooner or later.
If I were doing that, which is an unproven minor premise. So how do we reach meeting of the minds?
The testimony of 2 billion current Christians (Apostles' Creed) is a pretty common testimony based on historically established facts. But you really are wasting time by picking on my formulation when there are several other answers to Cain's wife and your argument doesn't apply to any of them. If I simply bounced to "You're right, it was actually pre-Adamites" (which I could do at any moment, though I won't), your time would've been wasted and you'd need to launch a new attack against pre-Adamites and I could bounce again. Bad debate method.
I don't recall bringing that up. I does come up in c/Conspiracies, but it really doesn't say anything about Christianity because it's not essential to Christianity. Why are you lasering in on certain arguments that arise as intramural debates within Christianity if you don't believe any of it? Is it that you still haven't conceived that faiths are not monolithic and that people with the same macro belief have micro differences? Is that why you act like case law destroys rather than upholds transcendent morality? What liberal university are you attending?
I don't believe I said anything about blind-on-blind violence.
Permit me to apologize on behalf of the church for failing you in something important. The church has worked so hard to publish the Bible that has failed to give first-impression readers the cultural context in which the writers had different concepts in mind than those our English words mean. It can actually be traumatic to hear "daughter of my father" (Gen. 20:12) as a child and only many years later to be told that your initial English-inspired thought was incorrect and in that cultural context the word meant "granddaughter of my father" (niece, which is not incestuous). So I recognize that others harmed you by not providing good context; they abrogated their duty to explain the actual text as they believed it. I will be happy to make up the harm to you on their behalf. Now that you understand that your initial impression was incorrect, what penalty should I pay you for the damage you suffered by not being disabused of that impression earlier? Unironically.
No, I didn't, read it again. When I first used the word "authority" I had the definition in mind, which I later gave, of "legitimate power". There is no "illegitimate authority", there is only illegitimate power. So when I first defined treason I fully intended the details that you asked for later. No subjectivity at all. (There are cases when a person does refine or retcon a definition in process, but even when that happens a gotcha in response is not always the best debate tactic. Better to note the issue silently and then only bring it up if he does it several times in a row, with a list, to show that it's an endemic logic fail.)
Legitimate power is defined by Romans 13, there being no authority except that established by God. If leaders fail spectacularly to carry out morality, they lose power by natural causes, such as revolt. If the US gives a legal command and if someone goes out of his way to take an action in protest of the command (like the "Seditious 6" did), the US has authority to try such a person for treason, and the penalty goes all the way up to death if the situation is severe enough. In all legal construction from Hammurabi to today, the state is not required to enforce a penalty, it is given as a maximum possibility. The only reason people find the Sabbath-breaker to be different from treason is that they don't think the context (presumptuous sin) was enough to justify the judicial proceeding; these are the same people who say "he was only waving a sign in a public street" as if such a person shouldn't be investigated, arrested, and punished under the existing law after his motives and history are determined. If the offender knows full well the traffic law prohibits protesting in the street and prescribes a certain limitation on maximal punishment, it's more than just pickup sticks going on.
Now, if we were to give maximal credit to the critics, let's consider whether it may be that we should discount the connection of the passage to the presumptuousness paragraph before it, and we should argue that the case (there is a law with a penalty for breaking, the person broke the law, the penalty is applied) is tyrannical. Well, swift application of good law is the opposite of tyranny, so the consideration only applies if the law itself is bad. That means you're sitting in judgment against the lawgiver as if he should've thought better of what he promulgated. A law that people (former slaves who had no rest days) should rest regularly isn't really tyrannical or evil on its face, but let's continue to pretend.
The text states that the law was given in the first three months of the first year, but the offense happened sometime between the third month of the second year and the first month of the fortieth year (no other time reference is given). So the entire community had been doing just fine resting every Sabbath for a whole year and probably many such, and then this person decides to go gather sticks against the capital law for whatever reason. He was a grown man, not a child, and we can infer that he's not ignorant of what he's doing. So you be the DA: what possible motive could such a person have for rejecting a promulgated law knowing that it was contrary to a community of millions? Starving? Rather silly when it's said they had double manna every week (Friday). It was a knowing rebellion against community authority.
Now is the community being tyrannical? Is the law bad? We can infer it was only used this once during the 40 years because it would've been appropriate to mention other cases if they'd happened. All legists recognize it was not a required penalty but a maximum penalty. Moses testifies against himself by including this vignette when he didn't have to: that implies he believed it was done rightly and needed to be repeated to illustrate the legal application. There was no communal fuss about mistreatment of the condemned (as there was in the prior two chapters about rebels dying of fire and earthquake). They did not judge him immediately, merely arrested him (implying that something about the situation led to his liberty being considered threatening, which is more likely violence than that he was some kind of political prisoner whose speech was being suppressed). They reviewed the case and obtained a revelation, attributed to God, about what to do, which is good jurisprudence whether or not one's revelation of the law comes from God. Then they decided it was a capital case, the only capital case in those 38 years.
So I can only conclude that when Moses reports the story he believes it to be an example of good law, meaning that if we are assuming it is bad law we are refusing to even understand the intent. The biased reader argues all points in agreement with bias, the neutral reader doesn't come down with a moral judgment against the text's author and recognizes the author believed the judgment correct. So the question comes back down to your judgment versus Moses's judgment. So how do we reach meeting of the minds?
If that's your answer, what prevents anyone from killing you if that's their morality? How could such a philosophy be anything other than self-destructive? Let's reason together.
So are you or not? If not why not?
Where did SR do so?
As if you don't. Also, if he does, don't see it as a bad thing.
How can objectively wrong beliefs work for anyone??
The Biblical God's approval and Authority trumps SR's, yours, and mine.
Fall for things like transgenderism, wokeism, communism, athiesm, astrology, and zodiac stuff.
Nice strawman.
Well, thank you for sticking with the conversation doggedly, because that means more for the sake of progress than the specifics do.
Let me first apologize if you thought my rhetorical flourish was too much. On the Conspiracies forum it's common to compress arguments into a suggestive close, rather than to spell the detail out, which would run like: Having closely heard all your arguments, I see a similarity of their origin in higher criticism that suggests you've gotten them mostly from the same source, and I politely point out that you're giving off the appearance of (e.g.) relying solely on a bit of college training and of not having that much more experience; and I bring that up to suggest that you might realize there are more arguments in the history of philosophy than the established group of talking points you repeatedly turn to. (If you prefer the longer and less presumptive version in general, I can seek that for you, but some people work well with the speedy rhetoric method.)
Yes! Rhetorical flourish version would be: Thank you for proving my view of Cain's wife is scientific and I'm so glad we can now move on to Joseph's wife!
The more detailed version would be to focus on the fact that (Cain's wife being an incidental) Christianity has held the virgin birth of Jesus since its foundation and that counts for something. Now, you're right about the science that recently observed parthenogenesis only yields females (or other incomplete genotypes like drones), so I don't use ordinary parthenogenesis alone to explain Mary's pregnancy. Most Christianity is content to leave it a mystery because it totally matches the incarnation doctrine that fits Jesus's character, but I wanted to investigate further, so I found certain details in Bible, history, and science.
First, God's immediate solution to sin in the Mosaic narrative is the "seed of the woman", which is odd because there was no word for egg cells even though it was natural to classify sperm cells as similar to other seed (and to classify the womb as similar to the ground). Women have no "seed". But this is given more detail a couple chapters later (Gen. 6) where it's explained that when "sons of God" take women they generate mighty men (later categorized as giants). While conservative scholars try to read this without supernaturalism, the language and context gives rise to a thriving school of Nephilim studies in which insemination of women by angelic beings is a real explanation. This is supported by many giants passages in the OT, by the book of Enoch, and by Egyptian and Greek mythoi in which there is hardly a more common theme than heroes being begotten of deified spirits and mortal women. The mysterious Jer. 31:22 about a new created order in which a woman "surrounds" a man has also been taken as a statement of the male parthenogenesis unobserved by science. Therefore when Jesus claims God as his Father and himself the one-of-a-kind Son of God, when all are agreed that he was conceived when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, when Joseph claims Jesus solely as an adopted son, this type is perfectly compatible with all kinds of anticipation of the true hero of the universe having divine origin.
Further, since there's a very broad (and mainstream) study of theophanies in which God appears in an angelic form (and not always an adult human form), and this is not minority research like the Nephilim theology is, it was well-known in 1st-century Judea that God was free to appear at any time in any form he chose; later theology recognizes all these appearances as the preincarnate Word, the one to be called Jesus. That makes it a very simple process for the very last appearance of this "angel of the Lord" to manifest as a single sperm cell in the womb of Mary. By taking onto himself the egg cell of Mary, the uncreated literally takes part in created flesh (just as he did when he ate meat later), and retains that nature forever as the flesh grows; and that's exactly what Heb. 2:14 says of taking part of flesh. Therefore the doctrine of the virgin birth, time-honored in Christianity, does indeed have sound scientific backing for the physics and theological backing for the spiritual.
I totally respect if you may be unconvinced, but I'm not writing to convince you of my belief, I'm writing to demonstrate to you that I've thought through the problem and the objection you raise does not hit its mark. You are free to continue objecting to Christianity, but it would be irrational to do so on the idea that it's automatically to be dismissed out of hand. If you want to go on believing that Christians aren't scientific, I've done my part to disabuse you. Since all theories of science admit that they are incomplete and that there are areas outside known laws, it's not unscientific to speak of things outside known laws more broadly as Christianity does. I've noted that the Big Bang Planck instant is big enough for Hawking and Hartle to stuff a whole second universe into to make their math work, so it seems reasonable that God would be there too.
The core of what you said is "good or bad ... depends upon the context". I raised a couple concerns with how that foundational proposition defeats itself and all built upon it, and haven't heard an answer back. So from my perspective I understand your points far too well, because I see their inadequacies clearly.
If that if your belief you're free to prove it anytime by ceasing to interact; your interacting indicates you don't believe there is no meeting of minds possible.
I do respect that you believe what you say; and that we all come to our beliefs not only by hearing some of them (which some might uncharitably call indoctrination) but also by building some of them from observation, logic, and analysis. I respect your ability to do that, and I merely warn of the risk of fallacious appeal to authority because I believe you capable of mitigating that risk based on my nudge.
I said your view destroys itself logically. You probably know the statement "This statement is false" is meaningless because it destroys itself if it is assigned a truth value. Epimenides the Cretan understood this by saying, sarcastically, "All Cretans are liars"; his statement is incapable of being taken literally and can only have meaning by indirection. Your position ultimately does the same with a bit more sophistication. Either you believe it's logically true, which makes it logically false (if good always depends on context, then there are contexts in which good does not depend on context); or you believe it indicates a paradox by speaking indirectly (in which case there really are things that don't depend on context but you don't state what they are). This of course has nothing to do with you being self-destructive.
Nah. If you purport to use logic you can be judged by the (external) rules of logic. If you purport to refuse all bilateral agreement you can be judged by your refusal. Whatever you choose to say, you are answerable for saying. The nature of the universe is such that everything comes down to either irresponsibility (nihilism) or responsibility (truth). I've demonstrated why that happens logically, and the same happens if you wish to use the language of paradox instead of the language of logic. It's just a law of nature, and if you think it isn't you either hear from me that it is or you hear from somewhere else in the universe that it is.
No, I said that by talking to me you must believe you have a purpose in talking to me, which cuts against your stated idea that there's no purpose in talking to me.
I respect you so much I trust you want to be shown if I think you're wrong. That's what the wise want.
Ooh, sounds like a rhetorical flourish to me. I am so libertarian that I totally affirm your freedom to believe whatever you want, including your freedom to be wrong. I simply appeal to whatever part of you wants to be told if you should happen to be wrong. The person who has closed himself off from correction is locked into a sealed fate unless he is able to open his mind again. The wise person speaks freely because if he is wrong he will learn how and where and improve himself. The fact that you close by categorizing me into a "style of Christianity" that you perceive as fading sounds like you're more interested in dismissing (ridiculing) me than in debating with agreed ground rules in the joint search for truth. But I'm always here and it's never too late in this life to apprehend more truth.