Jg5 is the owner of c/synagogueofsatan so he's being stupid. His reeee'ing over those communities is irrelevant because SR is against all those things. Apparently JG5 wishes that someone else had them.
OK. Makes sense. SwampRangers mentioned to me "she just really likes Paul". She claims to be "a follower of the Way of Jesus Christ". That's fine with me. A lot of Christians have similar beliefs. But, if I were to agree with TINAE we would both be wrong.
IMO, Paul or Saul of Taurus was not a real person. And even if it was, a marginal character at best. To me Paul is nothing more than an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism. Something that the CIA & Mossad institution at that time would make up/create. That's what they do today, psyops... and I'm certain nothing changed in 2,000 years.
Paul is saying forget all that Jesus taught, just believe this specific claim that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins and you're saved. To me this is transactional. It's about belief, not about inner transformation. If Jesus's followers after his death believe this, slam dunk, the empire has won. And the jews would be happy, after all they didn't consider Jesus the Messiah. And after reading "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky, that's exactly what I would do if I wanted to take over the movement. And neutralize the revolution. Invent a Paul who would teach exactly as he did. Good works don't matter. What matters is belief. Faith in Jesus as savior. If you believe, then you are saved. If you don't believe, then you are damned. No matter how good a person you are.
That is so limited and reductionistic, all that just for a mere overthrowing of one single worldly system. No. GOD "invented" it, and He overthrew ALL worldly systems! If what you say was true, Christianity would have died out, not spread.
is saying forget all Jesus taught
[citation needed]
it's about belief, not inner..
[False dichotomy]
neutralize
And it did no such thing because your very premises and assumptions are wrong. We have believed Jesus and Paul ever since the New Testament was written.
How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?
Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?
What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?
Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.
Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
FYI SwampRangers is the owner of c/Porno c/Yahweh and c/Satanism
He's aligned with TINAE and their goal is to control the narrative. Do not expect them to listen or bend in any way.
I have no expectation. What does TINAE stand for?
Jg5 is the owner of c/synagogueofsatan so he's being stupid. His reeee'ing over those communities is irrelevant because SR is against all those things. Apparently JG5 wishes that someone else had them.
So what? why do I care about that. I don't judge anyone, JG5 included.
Because he's apparently trying to get you to judge SR.
Thisisnotanexit
OK. Makes sense. SwampRangers mentioned to me "she just really likes Paul". She claims to be "a follower of the Way of Jesus Christ". That's fine with me. A lot of Christians have similar beliefs. But, if I were to agree with TINAE we would both be wrong.
IMO, Paul or Saul of Taurus was not a real person. And even if it was, a marginal character at best. To me Paul is nothing more than an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism. Something that the CIA & Mossad institution at that time would make up/create. That's what they do today, psyops... and I'm certain nothing changed in 2,000 years.
Paul is saying forget all that Jesus taught, just believe this specific claim that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins and you're saved. To me this is transactional. It's about belief, not about inner transformation. If Jesus's followers after his death believe this, slam dunk, the empire has won. And the jews would be happy, after all they didn't consider Jesus the Messiah. And after reading "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky, that's exactly what I would do if I wanted to take over the movement. And neutralize the revolution. Invent a Paul who would teach exactly as he did. Good works don't matter. What matters is belief. Faith in Jesus as savior. If you believe, then you are saved. If you don't believe, then you are damned. No matter how good a person you are.
It takes more faith to believe your theory than the Biblical Truth.
"I will believe this complex fake thing over a simple true thing!"
That is so limited and reductionistic, all that just for a mere overthrowing of one single worldly system. No. GOD "invented" it, and He overthrew ALL worldly systems! If what you say was true, Christianity would have died out, not spread.
[citation needed]
[False dichotomy]
And it did no such thing because your very premises and assumptions are wrong. We have believed Jesus and Paul ever since the New Testament was written.
And your theory: https://i.imgflip.com/ais3tk.jpg
How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?
Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?
What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?
Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.
Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.
Walls of spam trying to "debunk"
Crying to global mods to censor opposition
It's that simple.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
You cross the line at trying to create new rules that you don't have the right to create.