Those are a lot of shoulds and should nots. I'm asking where do you get those from and why ought we follow this premise?
The current admin is religious? That's funny. I'd say it's pretty secular materialist and pragmatic - basically classic liberal.
Anyway, why is any of the above bad? Maybe that's how society should be ran. Where do you get your standard for how society should be?
Makes total sense.
This isn't a bad thing.
Why is anything bad at all? Can you give an argument why religion is bad and why we should be secular?
It's true. Secularism works wonders. Men can now become women, population is in decline, children get castrated for free by the state, the state promotes butt stuff and we have gmo stabbies for everyone! I love Science!
Not all killing is murder. Killing can be justified and no sane person can be a true pacifist.
Are you saying we should follow the mosaic law as written? Should we hang idolaters, blasphemers, sorcerers, adulterers, those who curse their parents, children who rebel too?
You'll have no people left bro.
"And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids for a sin offering",
You understand this is a word-concept fallacy and the word "kid" doesn't have the same meaning in hebrew, aramic, greek or any other language beside English, right?
If there's a war it will be in the Middle East to support Israel's interests (the Greater Israel project) and/or against Russia - the US is de facto fighting this war already through covert means. It has been going on since 2014.
Remember that the Anglo-American establishment policy is not to allow consolidation of power in a strong central European state - Germany and Russia. This was the reason for both World wars and the following Cold war. This policy also led to Russia invading Ukraine because they've been encircled by US military bases as part of the Pentagon's Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and PNAC.
Yeah I bet you don't because it destroys your bullshit claims. Just wave it away and cope.
You: 99% of history is fake but I trust the jew historian Flavius Josephus who wrote back in the 1st century for some reason.
Not that it matters because Josephus never claimed Judea wasn't jewish in majority. You pulled that "fact" out of your ass.
Your problem is not with me but with you lacking any good arguments to support your assertions. You just red something on the internet and thought it sounded cool and deep. You "saw past the psy op" and got to the hidden knowledge because you're super smart and aware... Conspiracy stuff is kryptonite for low to mid IQ people. They lack epistemological criteria and critical thinking skills and fall for disinfo all the time. You should reconsider being a normie, you'd still be less deluded than as a conspiratard.
First of all the word Jew is a modern term. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. Sheridan used it for the first time in his play "The Rivals". Another one of their attempts to steal the identity of the true Israelites.
Dude, read up on what word-concept fallacy is. I'm loosing IQ with your arguments. The word jew etymology comes from the hebrew yehudi which became ioudaios in greek. Over time the meaning shifted to denote not only the descendants of Judea (southern Israel) but all Israelites.
Jews are Edomites not Israelites. All Bible verses regarding Edom or Amalek apply to what today we call Jews.
What jews are today is a different question, this is goalpost moving. We're talking about biblical jews and they were descendants of Israel or Jacob. The Edomites are descendant from Jacob's brother, Esau.
After the Babylonian exile most jews lost their lineage (except for Christ). After the fall of the Temple in 70AD they lost their state and dispersed around Asia, Africa and Europe. In the 8th c. the turkic Khazarian khaganate converted to judaism becoming the only state in history to do so. Yes, the ashkenazi jews trace their origin to the khazars and DNA testing has proven this. Today's jews are not the biblical jews, correct, but they still claim they are. The correct term for them is false jews (as Revelation teaches us).
Same applies to the word "Christian", first time it was used was sometime in the second century CE. The first followers of Jesus didn't even call themselves Christians, but simply Followers. They just thought of themselves as belonging to "The Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14)
So? I fail to understand the significance of how they called themselves? Do you understand that a concept or phenomena can predate the given name for it? Christians are the followers of Christ and His Church. The Apostles were Christian. It doesn't matter what they called themselves. Did you know the name Jesus wasn't used until the 3c. and Christ was called Yeshua? So I guess Jesus didn't exist then. Is this logically sound to you?
The Israelites didn't kill Jesus. Israelites left Judea already. That's why Jesus said "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel." - Matthew 15:24
Wrong interpretation taken out of context. You failed to mention here Jesus talks to the canaanite woman. He meant He was sent to the jews/Israelites and not to the gentile nations. He doesn't differentiate between the kingdoms of Judea and Israel - both are descendent from Jacob and are equally Isrealite.
Then who were the people living in that area when Jesus was killed? Well, they were called Judeans. A Judean is one who is a resident of Judea regardless of his religion, race, or nationality. The Judean historian Flavius Josephus describes how the Idumeans (Edomites) became known as “Judeans” through a forced conversion imposed by John Hyrcanus, who was the ruler of Judea around 130 BCE.
Herod the Great, the king of Judea at the time of Jesus’ birth who ruled the territory with Roman approval, was in fact an Idumean or Edomite (a descendant of Esau).
Bs. The majority of the population were descendants of the tribe of Judah. Jesus Himself is descended from the tribe of Judah and was born in Bethlehem which was in Judea. Minorities included Samaritans and Idumeans (~10% of the population) which makes sense because they were bordering nations.
Yes, Herod was a converted Idumean, so what? The people who attempted and successfully conspired to kill Jesus were the pharisees and sadducees (all of whom were jewish) who turned the jews of Jerusalem (again in Judea) against Christ, thus fulfilling the numerous prophesies that the messiah would be betrayed and killed by His own people.
If you truly believe this you have lost the ability to think for yourself.
You see, thinking for yourself doesn't necessarily lead you to correct conclusions. Most of the time you get deluded. People usually overestimate their ability to discern truth and fall for ridiculous gnostic bs like the article above, especially when dealing with history (or thinking everything in the past was faked).
To be fair, it is mentioned in Kings that he took many pagan wives who perverted him in his old age. He was a womanizer and his wives had influence on him but yes, everything else is talmudic fanfic.
Come on dude, everything is fake but this low tier anon blog article based on word-concept fallacies is true? Jews is a synonym for Israelites - the heirs of the 12 tribes of Israel (Jacob). It's the same concept.
There were no Christians in the Bible?! Wow, dude my mind is literally blown right now!
Why does it matter when the word was used? And why does the writer appeal to the Bible when the Church predates its compilation in 3-4c? Those who recognized Christ as the anointed messiah who fulfilled the prophecies and who were received into His Church were Christian.
Lol, the ending is the best part:
No Jews & The Absurdity of Christian Anti-Semitic Horrors The genocidal hatred Christians have perennially unleashed against Jews is both horrendously evil and stupid. The theological justifications used repeatedly to excuse pogroms and worse atrocities committed against Jews are absurd. No Jews existed in Jesus’ day, and not for centuries afterward. How then could they be blamed for rejecting him or putting him to death?
The same thing goes for theological justifications fundamentalist Christians use for racist Zionism and its genocidal actions against Palestinians.
This is literally retarded stuff. "The word "jew" wasn't used at the time of Jesus so it wasn't the jews who rejected and killed Him." I've seen ADL brainrot but this takes the cake. Do you really not see the problem with this line of reasoning? Never go full retard, bro.
No. King Solomon wasn't a warlock because this goes against God's commandments. Scripture describes him as a righteous king who followed God. He's venerated as a saint and a prophet of the Church.
Yes, freemasons and talmudic jews love him too but just because they pervert what he stood for doesn't mean they are correct. This is a fallacious argument.
The Iroquois (also known as the Haudenosaunee) Confederacy is a democratic union of six nations, bound by a constitution called the Great Law of Peace, that dates back several centuries. The system has been influential for centuries.
Great. You realize they were governed by a political elite in the face of the chieftains and everyday people didn't vote for those, right? It's like having a Party at the top but without a leader or a feudal system without a king (the Scottish clans). This model is weak and it logically led to the disillusionment of that state due to inability to agree to a unified policy when the war with Britain came. You can't have a body with multiple heads (at least by having a temporary appointed leader there's still a head of state present, even if his power is contingent on the system that installed him).
After the scam claim that all monarchs rule 'by God', once enlightened to the trick, they suddenly reversed course and claimed they were ruling by leave of the people. But you'd know that if you weren't a sophmoric oxymoron.
This is the Christian worldview as presented in Scripture you moron - how is that a scam claim? Sure, monarchs were corrupted by freemasonic bs during the enlightenment and caved in. Just like in the OT, they turned away from God and lost their mandate to rule. How is that a contradiction?
Here, let me put the words into your mouth so two can play your stupid game with stupid prizes. "Installed puppets (fake controlled 'democracy' aka 'deep state' which acts like a monarchy) are bad so all democracy is bad." Back at ya, boomerang.
It doesn't work both ways because you can't point to a true democracy historically. I have demonstrated to you that your ideal democracy is a pipe dream. Even Plato knew democracy is the weakest form of government because it degenerates to chaos and rule of the passions (muh freedom and muh rights).
I read Quigley before you were born I'm guessing. Same with Billington which I schooled you on .....the lying propaganda put out by monarchists who's tit you suck. You'd be shocked to know that Clinton always claimed Quigley as his favorite author.....because the fucker was projecting the programmed future as circuit board. But you don't get that. Why was Bush Sr.'s 'favorite book' "Bonfire of the Vanities"? btw......you know.....Bush who claimed along with many if not most installed puppet dictators that he was one of you.
Lol, nice ChatGPT skills there, I totally believe you. You obviously know Quigley well because you red that he was Clinton's mentor which is literally printed on the cover of Tragedy and Hope. I'm amazed by your deep knowledge on the topic. I already told you I don't agree with neither of those guys. On the issue of monarchy vs democracy/republic they are on YOUR side, not mine. Still their writings are revelatory about how the system came to be, the ideas behind it and how it operates. And the funny thing is you support those same enlightenment ideas that have materialized as the status quo in today's system. The classic liberal and democratic ideas are everywhere at all times 24/7 - there's a giant ass masonic statue of the goddess of Liberty (Lucifer) at the gate of the US, a masonic cornerstone in front of Congress and a masonic all seeing eye on top of a pyramid on all your fake ass money and you have the nerve to bitch about royalist propaganda? Where do you get off, you illuminist weasel?
Most, but not all, U.S. presidents are descendants of King George III, with genealogies tracing their ancestry to British royalty and other European noble houses The claim that all presidents except one are descended from King John of England is a common point in genealogy research
How is that relevant? You can call them monarchs if you like but what they rule over is not a monarchy or at least it's not a Christian monarchy but a freemasonic beast system ruled by a technocratic international elite cabal. Do you think I care that the UK has a king? Do you think I support the druid Queen or the fabian globalist Charles III just because they hold the title? If so, you don't even try to understand my position in good faith and you're just strawmanning me.
They didn't coopt the liberal democracies - they literally created them after they toppled the monarchies through their bloody freemasonic revolutions. All the revolutionaries who created the new republics were freemasons. At no point was there coopting, this was the plan all along and it was paid for by jewish and protestant banks.
When in history did a free election create the most insane tyrannical satanic government? Free elections. When. Really? I don't think so.
Hitler maybe? How about the current global technocratic regime which is still upheld by "free elections"? Stop it, you're embarrassing yourself.
The people as tyrant over their self. Babbling oxymoron. Kings are tyrants, and fake elections create falsely elected kings.
Have you heard of the concept of public opinion creation and social engineering? Read Bernays' Propaganda, Lipman's Public opinion, Le Bon's the Crowd, read about the Tavistock Institute, read about how the current system works. People can be made to vote for their own enslavement and vote in tyrants to rule over them - where have you been living the past decades?
Or as God commanded Moses to tell the Pharoah, aka 'King'...."Let my people go." Find your own people in your own tent and prepare for a losing battle.
Pharoah was bad so all kings are bad. Didn't Israel have kings after that? Oh, that doesn't count. Come on dude, this is retarded. All your arguments are ridiculous fallacies.
You need to read up on history. Go read the Billington book I mentioned. Read Quigley. None of those guys are monarchist and they support the liberal democracies you enjoy so much.
No worries. I figured it was a misunderstanding.
All one has to do to disprove the founding daddies and their democratic experiment is to go outside and take a sober look at how things are going.
It failed. You're not ruled by the people, you're ruled by a technocratic elite made of bankers, corporate CEOs and intel agents. They have control over every aspect of your society, but most of all education, media and finance. This is more than enough to pull the strings and push their agenda. This very movie and rant was produced by Hollywood which is the propaganda arm of the regime. They want you to believe in that made up story about the constitution, democracy and liberty and that it's the people running things. But Edward Bernays (one of the technocrats) said the truth way back in 1928 in the opening of his Propaganda:
THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
YHWH is not the Father, it's a name referring to the Holy Trinity. God commanded animal sacrifices in the OT but those were fulfilled with the ultimate sacrifice of the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ. No other sacrifices are adequate or needed after Christ. I don't see what's the contradiction here.
OP is a militant atheist that's why. He twists everything because of this. Had he any knowledge of the true teaching of the Church, he'd know that the God of Abraham (who is Trinity/Yahweh and not the god of judaism who is Satan/Lucifer) is the reason we don't have human sacrifices in Christian society.
At the time of Abraham people used to sacrifice their children to the pagan gods (like Baal, Molloch, Remphan/Saturn). Prior to the covenant Abraham was a pagan himself and likely participated in such rituals. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son to test his loyalty but provided him with an animal sacrifice in place of his son* which taught Abraham that He wasn't like the other deities and didn't require human sacrifice. This is God's covenant with Abraham.
*This is foreshadowing God sacrificing His own Son for us - He does what He didn't ask from Abraham proving that His love and self-sacrifice far exceeds ours.
But it isn't, so it's not actually according to the Torah.
That's called interpretation. All heretics misinterpret Scripture be it jews, muslims, papalists or protestants.
Did you just realize that jews pervert the Torah and make shit up? Almost as if Jesus called out the pharisees for the same reason and they proceeded to kill Him. Guess what the Talmud is about?
If you're an atheist you believe your life to be meaningless so why would it matter? You also don't believe in objective morality so that doesn't matter too. You're already in a death cult and are on the road to eternal nothingness.
Abrahamic
No, it's Talmudic. Big difference.
They interpret "as totafot between your eyes" to be the tefillin. Was it hard to figure that out?
But wait, I thought we're not supposed to hold unjustified beliefs? I asked you to give a justification for your belief things should be the way you say and I get "I explained the premise with examples" which is begging the question and ad homs about sky daddy?
Aren't you supposed to be the reasonable one here who deals with logic and facts and not unfounded beliefs?