I have a little elasticity. I get along with people who are very straitlaced about those things but I also get along with people who question them. As a great advocate of the primitive Christianity of James, which was more closely connected with the Essenes than people realize because Essene is from Oseh, James's word for being a Doer, I see bridges between what the creeds are attempting to convey and the concerns of antitrinitarians and upholders of original Christianity. Between James and the formal creeds we have many steps, not only Paul, then gnostic influence, then Roman hegemony, then the very significant Lapsi controversy of 251, and finally the Constantinian revisions, so it's essential to distinguish the problems at each step when we talk about the creeds.
If we were to say all doctrine must be taken from the portion of the Bible excluding Pauline Christianity, I'd be very happy to agree, and aspects of your perceived "Christian core" are naturally a bit removed from that source. First, the connection of God's nature to the words "trinity", "three", and "person" is tenuous and not very Biblical. "Dying for sins" has in America gone quite far removed from the Mosaic teaching of animals dying for sins, or from Peter's view "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18); would you accept Peter on this or are we to exclude him too? "Second coming" and "final judgment" are also poor and unbiblical summary phrases; "coming again" is Johannine (14) but doesn't mean what people think, "final judgment" is in the NLT but not the Greek, and in my experience Christians are least united about eschatology, which your core framing has several elements of. In particular Christians often fail to realize that "heaven" and "hell" are not the names of the final states, which are more rightly called new heaven-earth and fire lake.
So what I actually believe is taken from the Bible alone (which is holistic enough to permit the removal of all Pauline books and Hebrews): if you wish to excise anything else, feel free and I will compensate. (1) We are to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19). (2) Father and Son bear witness (John 8:18). (3) Spirit bears record (1 John 5:7a, 8b; excluding the disputed portion that might have been written by Tertullian). (4) A matter is established by three witnesses (Deut. 19:15; but don't infer anything the text doesn't actually state). (5) Christ suffered for sins and was put to death (1 Peter 3:18). (6) Jesus will come in like manner as the apostles saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:11). (7) The dead will be judged every man according to their works (Rev. 20:12-13). (8) Jesus was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead (Acts 10:42). (9) The Son of Man will separate all nations as sheep from goats (Matt. 25:32). (10) The goats shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (Matt. 25:46).
Ebionites and Essenes revered all these Scriptures if I'm not mistaken. Is there a problem with any of them?
(Add: I should've expressed concern also about your including Mormons (the COJCOLDS) as a denomination or as Christian, because neither Christendom nor Mormons include the other, and they don't agree on this core. Instead of a corporate trinity in unity they have a tritheist language of "three personages"; instead of dying for sin they have modeling all the godhood that we are to "become"; instead of heaven and hell they have three destinies, "celestial, telestial, and terrestrial", which don't overlay heaven and hell. But that's tangential.)
You'd be surprised at how subtly documents like Fiducia supplicans skirms heresy without falling into it. Hence preserving the Pope (and the Church) from overall fakeness and gayness ;)
What I've been trying to tell people.
All the same, it was literally produced by the Spanish Inquisition (now called the DDF), and Hippie Frank (whom I took to calling "Mario the Slummer") expressed cautious hope that things like this would improve the Inquisition's overall optics. So the awareness of others' perception is still behind the times. Vigano all the way, for me.
Jesus wrote to seven churches in 96 AD and every time he distinguished those who were doing real "church" (kyriakon, Lord's work) from the infiltrators who were doing works of satan (seven different schemes named).
What would you say the "church" should be, what does Jesus want us to be doing?
I embrace the fact that satanists are evil? What? I'm pretty good about exposing satanists here pretty consistently. You seem to refer to the fact that I don't think everyone accused of being a satanist is a satanist (we need some consistent methods on that to prevent infighting).
I evangelize everyone and I have the power to break people's blood contracts with satan (and I do). So I don't write people off quickly as unsaveable, although there are tests by which I would. You use collectivism and antichrist cultism (Hitler being your professed messiah) to abrogate the white man's responsibility to make good judgment.
I asked God about this and the answer I got is that the covenant people are always getting better and the world people are always getting worse (up to a point we haven't reached yet). The tools that the righteous have for dealing with the problem and protecting themselves are ever more sufficient for the day. The blessed trajectory will outlast the Goddamned one.
We have a few sedes here.
You may have noticed that I picked up a few free namespaces here of all kinds to ensure nobody else got them. I was first graciously given an assistance role at c/Christianity, and then created c/catholic (both of those are still going strong). Nobody posts at c/Satanism, but my general namespace strategy seems well-founded in spite of that. I also have c/FlatEarth and you are free to post and research anything there (you can even crosspost to c/Conspiracies but many of its users feel glutted on that topic); I love interacting positively with theories about state control of space data and Antarctic data.
Welcome to c/Conspiracies! You just replied to an Orthodox Christian. I wonder what you think the True Church is, maybe you agree with him. Not that I need to argue with you, but as a Protestant I try to understand all sides.
So I don't see the problem. Here I am seeking the words of Yeshu, and I have them in print in many approved and disapproved sources, and also in my heart, and I know how to reconcile them, and they are life, and I'm enjoying the seeking and finding. What we've been discussing is mostly historical points, where I'm busy focusing on what happened (because Yeshu doesn't divorce me from reality), and my reading is that you're focusing on overall messages and narratives based on "understanding Yeshu" in some way that very few do. Now fiction has power to help us understand up to a point, but truth has power too, and unadmitted fiction (deception) has no power because it loses more power overall than it gains. So whether you want your narratives to be admitted fictions or truths, I'm okay with that. But then there shouldn't be any conflict between seeking Yeshu and my making statements like "Analysis of Grosser reveals 12 modern nations Jews were expelled from as well as regions of several others".
So I appreciate your sharing, and I seek to integrate what you've said. And yet obviously Yeshu better integrated for himself all the keys he shared with others than others did, so there's a sense in which he's always beyond us, his words are always capable of more meaning than we've realized. Where's the dispute then, if any?
So cutting to the chase .... who do you trust?
What gate would you like me not to keep? AFAIK I only have one gate, and it's kept for me by Another.
The real Catholics here account freely for their own souls, you don't, so you may not be a real Catholic.
The main point is that a Catholic saw Luther in hell. And my main point is it's not magisterium. You do know how your own Church works, don't you, or do you just trust that whatever opinions you come to when you rant on the net are just fine because your priest has the job of telling you otherwise? You do know that your Church is interested in saving souls from hell, and you're doing an abysmal job of that in this discussion, right?
Luther's whole point in 1517 was that (as a raving papist) he believed the Pope had better be prepared to answer sharp questions from the laity, and the popes don't seem to have taken that fully into account yet.
Only heretics care about what churchmen say
I don't understand. You don't care about what churchmen say?
Your link says that in 1707 Francis Jerome raised a prostitute from the dead for a few seconds so she could testify that she had gone to hell, along with a vision of Maria Micheli in 1887 where she saw Luther suffering in hell (among other things). I understand the church treats these as pious opinions rather than as magisterium, namely that you are free to believe or not to believe them. I asked about magisterium.
I'm really appreciative that you took the time to write this theory of emanations, and to affirm your oneness with Bartholomew. Given your depth of study, I hope you don't mind my asking questions to see where such realization takes us.
I'm interested in knowing, is anyone else on earth right now "one from which the name of the disciple of Yeshua known as Bartholomew was derived from"? Obviously if there's only one we should pay great attention to the phenomenon, and if there's more than one we should aspire to match the phenomenon, so I'd like to know which.
stop embracing division and start embracing unity
Excellent!
We could live in peace and harmony, even in our differences if only we would give up the conflict and embrace living in peace and harmony, rejecting those who say it's not possible; those who seek to keep us divided and want us divided.
Great; how, without conflict or division, does one distance from and create boundaries against and reject those who say peace is impossible? Healthy boundaries without division, I'll need to think about what that could mean.
To succeed in something and give birth to life, wholeness, and harmony we must first believe such a state is possible and direct our entire Body, Mind, and Soul towards achieving such a state, never looking back and embracing the old ways that bring death and division.
Those who claim to believe in God and promote the concept of the importance of having faith, saying that with God all things are possible will often say that being perfect is impossible for people to achieve and thus display their lack of faith in the basic implications of the common beliefs they hold on to, even though their sacred text calls them to such a state.
God doesn't dwell in man's reason that man builds up claiming that it's God's truth and that salvation is found through their institutions by believing this or that thing, or by having faith in this or that event.
Affirmed!
Jesus is an allegorical symbolic portrayal of what we are to become ourselves
So, does that mean that this "Christ" we are to become was also modeled uniquely by the paradigm of whatever living person contributed the most to getting the Jesus narrative transmitted, whether that person was Yeshua or Bartholomew or someone else?
It is so that one stuck in a negative cycle that leads to death will see death as life, and view life as death being convinced they see the truth
Does that mean that if a person claims that the spectrum measures only units of death and that there are no units of life, this is less true and life-affirming than the one who claims units of life and no units of death, such that there's a qualitative difference that can be agreed on regardless of whether one values life (connection to Source) or values death (disconnection from Source)?
a true non-existent type of annihilation cannot happen.
Insightful.
There exists, realities which we are unable to know
Then how do you know to say that, unless you mean we are unable to know perfectly what we can know partially?
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers.
Wouldn't we conclude then that whatever is capable of proving all truths must not be algorithmically listable (i.e. it must be infinite), a logos that transcends systematic logic? It seems to me the logos must transcend both logic and illogic (though there is a difference) for it to be monality.
Looking forward to your continued thoughts.
I don't believe the Roman Church actually teaches in the magisterium that Luther is in hell. It's not as if you go to hell for something you changed before they called you on it and that you didn't hold for 30 years afterward. That wasn't true of any heretic I know. So I believe you're going beyond the magisterium just to make yourself feel better about anathematizing me.
But guess what! If your priest told you you don't need to repent for obscenity and personal attack, according to your system you don't have to trouble your conscience about it! According to what I said, you might possibly escape as innocent with the actual penalty falling on your priest instead, but all the same it's better to lay out your conscience early and be more certain.
Luther did have the fortitude to fight for what Jesus gave us, which is why he published theses about indulgences that (the Counterreformation later admitted) were not being operated in accord with what Jesus gave us.
Leo then relied on counsel that badly summarized Luther's old teachings and excommunicated him even though hearings were inconclusive. Luther continued fighting for the church even after it kicked him out.
Now some Catholics would say Luther was wrong to pursue conscience when it told him church practices were wrong: instead he should have suppressed the internal voice and refused to trust his own eyes and ears, doing nothing but repeating what he believed to be contradictions like a good nonplayer character. I do understand the reason for this preference, and I think that God will preserve a great many people who practice it in spite of themselves. But there comes a time when authority tells you something wrong and you know 100% that you must resist it even if it goes all the way to the top (at least on earth). The centuries of infallibility debate (which continue) demonstrate that the issue of conscience isn't yet settled. I know the answer, but the Catholics suppress where the answer appears in the magisterium because they believe there is a dichotomy between unity and conscience (there isn't). Until Catholics wake up (very literally) and recognize how the Spirit speaks through conscience and always has, they will have the risk of running aground.
TLDR: If you skipped all that, again I ask you to bring your obscenity-laced tirades to your confessor.
Jesus was crucified in his 36th year. The legend of 33 arises from there being a 3-year ministry and Luke's statement "about 30", but when Luke says "about" he means "about" every time. His actual age can be validated by history and particularly recorded eclipses.
He was dead about 36 hours or so before his tomb was found empty, but in those days the expression for that was both "after three days" (not literal in English) and "on the third day" (still literal in English). They understood each other when they called 36 hours three days, but we don't, so we came up with alternate arguments to confuse things.
If world civilizations had astrotheological keystones, then they all pointed to how to recognize divinity when it manifests. However, of all the candidates described here, only one had biography written by eyewitnesses in his generation. With the evidence of archaeology and even hostile witnesses, we can be confident that something unique happened. On the principle "It takes a Jesus to invent a Jesus", the number of incongruities and novelties in the 30s AD are so unprecedented that even if some were false the person who invented them had a better narrative than any other ever invented before or since. So they are worthy of inspection even by skeptics; but the more I look the more truth I find.
I've posted a lot on this, so you can search "Chronology" at c/Christianity for many details, or I'll be happy to help with specifics based on your interest.
Not a reliable source, Sepehr is apologetic toward secret societies.
Yeah thanks.
So the real Sargon early life is that he was son of a gardener (i.e. he was a Noachite) and the unpredictable cupbearer of Ur-Zababa of Kish. Not a single match with Moses at all, but a close match to the Biblical Nimrod (whom I have more accurately as Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin). Sure enough, the much later Legend of Sargon arises in the 600s BC and combines the Mosaic elements to the older elements of oral tradition. There is the "basket of rushes", the being "cast ... into the river", the being "lifted ... out", and becoming "son [and] reared". However, the mother's motive is not legal compliance as in Exodus but the mother remaining "secret"; the rescuer is not a midwife but the male gardener, given the name Akki that probably reflects Sargon's city of Akkad. The article scoffs at Moses and acts like the legend can be safely transported back 1600 years (at the same time as Moses's legend is being fast-forwarded about 1000 years). So this is a classic bait and switch. As I pointed out, Mosaic covenant formulae date from the period 2000-1500 by comparison with suzerainty treaties, which changed form after that period, so we know that Torah materials are older than the full Legend of Sargon, but in the link we read not a whit of literary criticism of the language of the 600s versus the 2200s. Plus, as usual for the telephone game, the OP complicates matters by misgendering Akki, and also implies that infant exposure and abandonment is to be comparable to the legal compliance and familial oversight attributed to Jochebed and Miriam. Now then, messianic characteristics not attributed to astronomy:
Jesus: Anointed, annunciation, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten.
Horus: "Mary", taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Anointed, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef).
Krishna: miracles, disciples.
Dionysius: traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine, King of Kings, Only-Begotten, Alpha and Omega.
Mithra: miracles, Truth.
I think that (like Attis, who is entirely astronomical) we can dismiss Krishna and Mithra immediately as not being significant.
The video shows its source for Horus, which turns out to be Gerald Massey, Ancient Egypt vol. 2, 1907, pp. 907-914. I find that Warner Wallace reviews many of Massey's claims reliably in one place; Massey is presenting a skeptical view that attempts to tie together as many strands as possible that do not actually align (as later Egyptologists generally recognize) and that are poorly sourced. However, Massey gives:
"The Mysteries = The miracles": This first most generic line doesn't really give any correlation because the supernatural or unexplained element is present in every religion.
"Meri or Nut, the mother-heaven = Mary, as Regina Coeli": We see that "Meri" is an Egyptian title meaning "beloved" applied to all kinds of gods and objects. I have separately shown, from the American Heritage Semitic index, that the Egyptian and Hebrew forms of the word for beloved are cognate with a common Akkadian root "rwm". So it being a widely used appellation in both Egyptian and Hebrew does not indicate borrowing; rather "Meri" is not unique to Isis but was selected by Massey from among many epithets for its resonance. The connection that Nut is also called beloved and represents heaven is similarly forced.
"Anup, the Precursor of Horus = John, the forerunner of Jesus the Christ"; "Anup, the Baptizer = John the Baptist": Nothing about age 30, and this is likely Anubis anointing the dead, not baptizing or forerunning. This one is regarded as totally discredited in Massey; I suppose if a dog licking the dead counts as baptism, anything goes.
"Horus the Good Shepherd, with the crook upon his shoulder - Jesus the Good Shepherd, with the lamb or kid upon his shoulder": So this one is only iconographic, not an actual title. The shepherd's crook represented kingship in Egypt even in predynastic times; I suppose that since King David was also a shepherd this might overlap, but there is no "good shepherd" text for Horus as if it's an extant concept (Wallace agrees).
"Horus as the lamb = Jesus as the lamb": Not "lamb of God". Murdock makes this merely a reference to Aries. Horus is also connected to the Fish despite his antiquity (outside of the Fish eon), indicating the uselessness of such an approach.
"Horus of twelve years = Jesus of twelve years"; "Horus made a man of thirty years in his baptism = Jesus, the man of thirty years in his baptism"; "Iu (em-hetep) the child-teacher in the temple = The Child-Jesus as teacher in the Temple": Nothing further given. Wallace finds no original source describing Horus at 12 or 30. I pointed out that there is no anticipatory baptism of Horus anywhere. A search just returns me to Massey: Here is an unwieldy selection of him first speaking of "Jesus, or Iu-em-hetep" and blithely saying immediately after discussing Jesus, "Iu-em-hetep is portrayed as the youthful sage and precocious teacher. He is the 'heir of the temple,' depicted as the teacher in the temple; the boy of twelve years who wears the skull-cap of wisdom, and sits in the seat of learning. He holds a papyrus on his knee and is in the act of unrolling it for his discourse. This is he who personated the divine Word in human form as the wise and wondrous child of whom the tales of the infancy were told." This sounds like special pleading rather than any accurate Egyptian sources (which have no skullcaps, no age 12, no unrolling scroll), and it's possible the appendix I am quoting is relying on this hallucination.
"Horus as Iusa, the exorcizer of evil spirits as the Word = Jesus, the caster out of demons with a word": There is no "Iusa" and Massey gives it as a variant of "Iu-Su", which is stringing two names together indiscriminately. Wallace states that such a word does not exist in Egypt and there is no evidence Horus exorcised demons.
"Horus the word-made-truth = Jesus the doer of the word": This title, by Massey's analogy with "word-made-flesh", is clearly not an Egyptian original. Wallace finds the alleged title "the Truth the Light" does not appear in Egyptian history. Massey may be referring back to his own prior claim by equating this Truth with the earlier Word of exorcism (but not sourcing either). And that's all we have for healing the sick, but Jesus made many other healings than exorcisms.
"Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ": Wallace points out that "krst" is not a title but means "burial" (not "anointed" ruler). Probably a false etymology.
"Horus walking the water = Jesus walking the water": No source given. Wallace denies any such passage.
"Horus the raiser of the dead = Jesus the raiser of the dead"; "Horus the raiser up of Asar = Jesus the raiser up of Lazarus": Exact same as previous. Asar is Osiris, who was raised by Isis, not Horus.
The appendix does not refer to "ministering" or "traveling", which are too generic to be taken as marks alone unless they were tied to a larger narrative. There is no reference to "betraying" by Typhon (a Greek serpentine giant overlaid onto Egyptian Set, but not noted for betrayal).
Massey's graphic on page 757 is also used in the video, taken from the temple of Luxor. It's labeled "The Annunciation, Conception, Birth, and Adoration of the Child". This appears to be the source for alleged annunciation by Taht (Thoth) and impregnation by Kneph (Nef). However, this is a known artifact constructed by Amenhotep III to depict a divine birth ca. 1400 for himself. In this legend his mother is not stated to be a virgin, she is not impregnated by a spirit but by Amun taking the form of Amenhotep's father Thutmose IV, his birth was (apparently) in a palace rather than a stable, and Massey arbitrarily selects three men out of a large group of attendants and designates them kings. So there is no special relationship of any of these events to the story of Christ. It is clear that the worship of Amenhotep and the special status of his mother followed the ordinary track of incarnation narratives already known (and anticipated in Genesis 6), but the various new turns taken in narrating the birth of Jesus are completely extraordinary.
It should suffice that a large collection of titles of Dionysius does not include "King of Kings", "Only-Begotten", or "Alpha and Omega"; that him being a traveler, minister, or miracle workers is insignificant; and that, as god of wine, there are reports of him producing wine (most notably Pausanias 6.26.2 as to Elis and Andros, which does not mention provenance from water and is 2nd century AD; also Diodoros, Pliny, Plutarch, who all wrote later than Jesus's life).
TLDR: Zeitgeist is resurrecting the failed methods and rejected interpretations of Gerald Massey with little new content in an attempt to create another stunning-looking Lincoln-Kennedy parallel that fails fact checks just as badly. Sargon's late legend postdates conservative dating of Moses, Dionysius's turning water to wine comes from several sources all after Jesus, and all the notable parallels with Horus (apart from astronomy-sourced) arise from one appendix and one illustration of Massey that are discredited for their wild imagination, free association of unrelated ideas, and horrendous sourcing practice. Disappointing that these always go the same way. One factor from Massey that can be taken appropriately in its context is Amenhotep III writing his own divine birth narrative in the 14th century BC, which is part of the flow of hero narratives that already existed among monotheists and polytheists alike but that does not anticipate any special detail of Jesus's birth.
Allow me also to say I appreciate your other postings (and your use of these transcripts). In particular my review of the Ken Ham and Eric Hovind clips indicates that they are (contrary to my other experience with them) being disappointingly presuppositional in a way that we would hope nobody pursues.
There is always a single core presupposition and it is either nihilism or truth: every other form of presupposition or denial thereof is isomorphic to, and resolves to, one of those two options (though the two options can be broken down into many good and bad subcategories). But among people who agree on nihilism, or among people who agree on truth, everything should then be evaluated by evidence. I point people to the facts that the universe testifies first of its uniquenesses and transcendence, then of its power to include more specific testimonies within it, then of our use of facts and logic to select among those testimonies and tentatively, gradually uphold those that explain material the best. This is what leads me to the belief the Bible is at least as trustworthy as other histories, and when I build on the consequences of that belief I eventually get to sufficient inerrancy: I don't start with inerrancy when my audience has doubt about it, and I don't recommend that to anyone.
At the same time, Paul of Paulogia makes at least one mistake: he regards Euclidean parallels as a definition rather than an axiom. Euclid showed, and mathematicians still emphasize, that a small set of axioms is necessary to any system of truth, or else nothing can be proven true. The parallel axiom is that, if two lines have internal adjacent transversal angles under 180 degrees, then they intersect. (Or, if they don't intersect, then the angles are 180 degrees.) His placement of this axiom suggested he realized that it would be uncertain if it were not taken as an axiom. In the 19th century, mathematicians finally asked what geometry would be if the axiom were false instead of true, and they discovered a distinct, but useful, geometry, known as non-Euclidean and hyperbolic; it has some isomorphisms with Euclidean geometry but different definitions and often different results. The current mathematical consensus is that any number of axiom sets can be selected that each have their unique universe of provable statements, but each axiom set is an incomplete model of reality in which the actual axiom is that statements either accord with reality (is true) or do not. Because Paul rightly points out that definitions don't relate to presupposition, he never gets around to his own presuppositions (such as his stated belief that he is fair); the pursuit of fairness is ultimately isomorphic to the presupposition that truth exists.
I hope this helps. Since you seem to be able to see my comments, I refer back to the question: "Is it objectively true (without dependence on subjective framing) that no statements are objectively true, or is it objectively true that one or more statements are in fact objectively true?" I would think this would be an easy question to answer, given your exposure of presuppositionalism that proposes complex axiomatic schemes rather than one simple axiom of truth existing.
Yeah, this one didn't go through either; I appreciate your making the attempt though! I don't know the exact score limits, but keep making good contributions and you'll clear them in no time.
Your title is "Video Entitled: Spotting the Manipulator's Playbook. Manipulators that use tactics like those described in the video can manifest in all kinds of areas of life. Knowing how to deal with manipulators may save your sanity and keep you from being their prey." The transcript is:
0:00 Have you ever had that unsettling 0:01 realization that someone you trusted was 0:04 actually monitoring your every word, 0:06 collecting information to use against 0:08 you later? Or perhaps you've caught 0:11 someone telling a small lie only to 0:13 extract your honest opinion on something 0:15 important to them. Trust me, I'm not a 0:19 paranoid person. In fact, I used to be 0:21 incredibly trusting, at times naive, 0:24 about the lengths people will go to 0:26 advance their agenda at my expense. 0:29 There are certainly degrees of these 0:31 behaviors. Some people are clever, 0:33 cunning, and even shrewd in how they 0:36 navigate complex social and professional 0:38 environments. But when does effective 0:41 maneuvering cross that invisible line 0:43 into 0:44 manipulation? And more importantly, how 0:47 can you protect yourself without 0:49 becoming cynical and closed off to 0:51 genuine connection? I believe that all 0:54 interactions involve transfers of energy 0:56 and energy always seeks balance. Master 0:59 manipulators essentially function as 1:01 energy vampires extracting more energy 1:04 than they contribute. They create 1:06 imbalanced exchanges where you're 1:09 constantly depleted while they're 1:11 energized by gaining power, control, or 1:13 resources. You have to learn to protect 1:15 your energy. Today, I'm going to share 1:17 insights on how to spot these master 1:20 manipulators, understand their tactics, 1:23 and develop strategies to protect 1:25 yourself while maintaining your 1:27 integrity. Whether you're dealing with 1:29 these individuals in your personal life 1:31 or professional settings, by the end of 1:34 this video, you'll have clear signs to 1:36 watch for and practical tools to manage 1:39 these challenging relationships. Hi, I'm 1:41 Jenny Clark, a conscious leadership 1:43 expert who spent two decades in 1:45 executive recruiting and talent 1:46 management. Having worked with giants 1:48 like Google and Spencer Stewart, I 1:50 discovered that the secret to 1:51 transformative leadership lies in the 1:53 five dimensions of conscious leadership. 1:56 And I'm here to help you unlock your 1:57 full potential. Join me on this channel 1:59 as we embark on an honest and vulnerable 2:01 journey together to become the kind of 2:03 leader that genuinely inspires 2:05 transformation in your organization. 2:08 I've got a little career boosting secret 2:10 for you. Do you want the inside scoop on 2:12 leadership, plus some juicy tips and hot 2:14 takes that you won't hear anywhere else? 2:16 I've got a newsletter that's basically 2:18 your personal career coach in your 2:20 inbox. Just click the link in the 2:23 description to join in. Oh, and if 2:25 you're loving this content, I know you 2:27 are. Check that subscribe button. It's 2:30 like giving me a virtual fist bump, 2:33 ensuring you won't miss out on any 2:35 future videos. I remember working with a 2:37 colleague who always seemed supportive 2:39 in our one-on-one conversations. She'd 2:42 ask thoughtful questions about my 2:43 projects, offer to help, and even defend 2:46 my ideas in team meetings. I considered 2:49 her an ally in a competitive workplace. 2:52 Then came the performance review season. 2:54 As I sat across from my manager, I was 2:56 shocked to hear concerns about my work 2:59 that seemed oddly specific. concerns 3:02 that mirrored exact conversations I'd 3:04 had privately with my supportive 3:06 colleague. Information I'd shared 3:09 incompetence about challenges I was 3:11 facing had been carefully curated and 3:14 presented out of context, making me 3:17 appear incompetent rather than proactive 3:20 about addressing problems. This wasn't 3:22 simple workplace competition. It was 3:25 calculated betrayal disguised as a 3:27 friendship. The worst part, when 3:30 confronted, she expertly reframed 3:33 everything. Oh, I was just concerned 3:35 about the project timelines. I thought I 3:37 was helping by bringing attention to the 3:39 issues. Her ability to twist reality 3:42 left me questioning my own perception of 3:44 events. That experience taught me that 3:48 manipulation isn't always obvious. The 3:51 most skilled manipulators wrap their 3:53 tactics in the appearance of care, 3:55 concerned, or even helpfulness. 3:59 A few lessons. Here's how we identify 4:01 those master manipulators and protect 4:03 ourselves from these tactics. Let's 4:06 break it down into three essential 4:07 areas. Recognize the signs. First, let's Recognize the Signs 4:10 talk about the warning signs that 4:12 someone may be manipulating rather than 4:14 simply being strategic or clever. 4:16 Information collection. Manipulators are 4:19 constantly gathering information. They 4:21 ask probing questions that seem friendly 4:24 but serve their purpose of building an 4:26 arsenal against 4:28 you. Notice if someone seems unusually 4:31 interested in your vulnerabilities or 4:33 mistakes, especially if they have no 4:36 direct need to know. 4:38 Inconsistency. Pay attention to people 4:40 whose behavior changes drastically 4:42 depending on who's in the room. The 4:45 colleague who praises you in private but 4:47 undermines you in meetings isn't just 4:50 politically savvy. They're playing a 4:52 dangerous game. Emotional 4:54 reactions. Master manipulators often use 4:57 emotional responses to deflect 4:59 accountability. If you confront them 5:01 about a behavior and suddenly find 5:03 yourself comforting them instead of 5:05 addressing the issue, you've likely 5:08 encountered what psychologists call 5:10 Darvo. 5:12 deny, attack, reverse victim, and 5:17 offender. Testing boundaries. They'll 5:20 often start with a small boundary 5:22 violation to see what you'll tolerate. 5:24 Maybe they forget commitments, share 5:27 something you told them in confidence, 5:29 or take credit for a small contribution 5:31 you made. How you respond to these tests 5:34 determines how far they'll go. According 5:37 to research from the University of 5:39 Georgia, manipulative individuals 5:41 typically display a pattern of behaviors 5:43 rather than isolated incidents. It's the 5:47 consistency and intentionality behind 5:49 their actions that reveals their true 5:51 nature. Understanding their tactics. Now Understanding Their Tactics 5:55 that we can recognize potential 5:56 manipulators, let's examine their 5:58 playbook. 6:00 Triangulation. This is when a 6:01 manipulator brings in a third party to 6:03 strengthen their position against you. 6:05 They might say things like, "Everyone in 6:07 the department feels this way." Or, 6:09 "Sarah mentioned she was concerned about 6:12 your approach, too." This isolates you 6:15 and makes you question your perception. 6:18 Gaslighting. This insidious tactic 6:20 involves making you question your own 6:23 reality. That's not what I said. You're 6:25 too sensitive or that never happened are 6:29 classic gaslighting phrases that erode 6:31 your confidence in your own perceptions. 6:34 Strategic 6:35 vulnerability. Some manipulators share 6:38 calculated personal information to make 6:40 you feel obligated to 6:42 reciprocate. But unlike genuine 6:45 vulnerability, theirs is carefully 6:47 curated to seem deep while actually 6:50 revealing little. The favor trap. 6:54 They'll offer help to do favors you 6:56 didn't ask for, creating a sense of 6:58 indebtedness that they can call upon 7:01 later. Remember, genuine help doesn't 7:04 come with invisible strings attached. 7:06 Social leverage. They build alliances 7:09 and create narratives about others, 7:11 positioning themselves as the helpful 7:13 source of insight or information. And 7:16 this gives them social capital that they 7:19 can spend to influence perceptions if 7:21 conflicts arise. A study published in 7:23 the journal of personality and social 7:25 psychology found that individuals who 7:28 score high on measures of 7:30 mchavellianism, a personality trait 7:32 characterized by manipulation and 7:34 exploitation of others are particularly 7:37 skilled at using these tactics while 7:39 maintaining a facade of 7:40 trustworthiness. Developing protection Developing Protection Strategies 7:43 strategies. Finally, let's discuss how 7:46 to protect yourself without becoming 7:48 paranoid or manipulative yourself. Trust 7:51 your 7:52 instincts. What uneasy feeling do you 7:55 get around certain people? Don't dismiss 7:58 it. Our intuition often picks up on 8:00 subtle inconsistencies before our 8:02 conscious mind can articulate what's 8:04 wrong. Document patterns. Keep track of 8:07 inconsistencies, promises made versus 8:10 kept, and situations where you felt 8:12 manipulated. This creates an objective 8:15 record that you can refer to when 8:16 self-doubt creeps in. Set firm 8:19 boundaries. Be clear about what 8:22 information you share, with whom, and 8:24 under what circumstances. Remember, not 8:27 everyone deserves the same level of 8:28 access to your thoughts, feelings, and 8:30 personal information. Build a trust 8:33 network. Cultivate relationships with 8:35 people who've demonstrated integrity 8:37 over time. These relationships provide 8:40 both emotional support and reality 8:43 checks when you need them. Control the 8:45 narrative. When dealing with known 8:47 manipulators, consider what information 8:49 you share more strategically. This isn't 8:52 about becoming manipulative yourself, 8:54 but rather protecting your interests in 8:56 environments where others don't play 8:58 fair. Direct communication. When 9:01 possible, address issues directly. 9:04 Phrases like, "I noticed that." Or, 9:07 "When you said X in the meeting, it 9:09 contradicted what we discussed 9:10 privately," can be powerful ways to 9:13 signal that you're aware of the 9:15 manipulation without escalating to 9:17 accusation. According to organizational 9:19 psychologist Adam Grant, the most 9:22 effective defense against manipulators 9:24 is a combination of boundary setting and 9:26 what he calls generous tit fortat. 9:30 giving people the benefit of the doubt 9:31 initially but responding protectively 9:33 when they demonstrate 9:35 untrustworthiness. So what can we take 9:37 away from this? Manipulation is real, 9:41 but it doesn't mean you need to approach 9:43 every relationship with suspicion. 9:45 Instead, focus on building your 9:47 awareness and response toolkit. When 9:50 something feels off, pause and question 9:52 what's really happening before 9:54 responding. Your boundaries reveal 9:56 people's true intentions. Those who 9:59 respect them are trustworthy. If someone 10:02 makes you doubt your reality, seek 10:04 perspective from someone you trust. And 10:07 remember to walk away from relationships 10:09 that diminish you. As Maya Angelou said, 10:13 "When someone shows you who they are, 10:16 believe them the first time." Remember, 10:19 the goal isn't to become cynical or 10:21 manipulative yourself. It's to develop 10:23 the discernment that allows you to 10:24 engage authentically with those who 10:27 deserve your trust while protecting 10:30 yourself from those who would exploit 10:32 it. I get it. Taking that first step can 10:36 feel daunting. I've been there, too. But 10:39 here's the thing. You've got strengths 10:41 you might not even realize yet. I've put 10:43 together a free career mapping framework 10:46 to help you uncover those hidden talents 10:48 and chart your own path forward. It's 10:50 not about changing everything overnight. 10:53 It's about starting to see your 10:54 potential clearly. Ready to explore the 10:59 frameworks waiting for you. Just click 11:00 the link in the description. Your future 11:03 self will thank you for taking this 11:05 small but powerful step today. 11:08 [Music]
[Continued.]
the process 8:55 of indoctrination
when you plant and 8:58 cultivate seeds in a garden they grow 8:59 into plants it's the same thing with the 9:02 process of indoctrination which relies 9:04 on the cult leader planting the seeds of 9:05 ideology into the minds of their 9:07 recruits they do so by using persuasive 9:10 speeches visions of grandeur and subtle 9:12 manipulative tactics that eventually 9:14 grow into plants of ideologies once the 9:17 seeds have grown followers start to 9:19 adopt the cult's ideas as their own 9:21 without even realizing how much their 9:23 beliefs have changed but the 9:24 indoctrination doesn't stop there 9:26 because as gardeners cult leaders need 9:29 to weed out unwanted plants followers 9:31 must abandon their ideologies and adhere 9:34 only to the group's beliefs their 9:35 personal opinions are regarded as weeds 9:37 that must be rooted out to ensure that 9:39 the cult has an ideal Garden of faithful 9:41 followers a member without any opposing 9:44 beliefs is easier to manipulate for 9:46 abusive cult leaders one good example of 9:48 this is Joseph de dambro the leader of 9:50 the solar Temple cult he utilized the 9:53 process of indoctrination by enforcing 9:55 his authority onto his members and 9:57 subjecting them to psychological manip 9:59 populations until they were loyal enough 10:01 to commit suicide and murders
10:03 exploitation of vulnerabilities
everyone 10:06 has a weakness or vulnerability that 10:08 people can exploit a vulnerable person 10:10 is like a house with a weaker lock or a 10:12 room with a busted door hinge a careful 10:15 and experienced burglar should be able 10:17 to find such vulnerabilities enter the 10:19 house and do whatever he wants that's 10:21 what happens when a cult leader exploits 10:23 a person's weaknesses weaknesses can be 10:26 anything from feelings of loneliness and 10:28 heartbreak or inse Securities but most 10:30 people lock their vulnerabilities inside 10:32 closed doors cult leaders however are 10:35 skilled enough to break these locks open 10:37 and use them to their advantage to gain 10:39 the trust of their followers when a cult 10:41 leader is inside they can rearrange the 10:43 person's beliefs and ideas just like a 10:45 burglar can rearrange the furniture in a 10:47 house he broke into before the person 10:49 realizes it the cult has already taken 10:51 advantage of their vulnerabilities to 10:53 force their ideals onto them Warren 10:55 Jeffs leader of the fundamental Church 10:57 of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 10:59 claimed Divine Authority and manipulated 11:01 the religious beliefs of his followers 11:03 ultimately using their vulnerabilities 11:05 against them to control and coers them
11:08 US versus them mentality
Sun yyang Moon 11:10 the founder of the unification Church 11:12 taught his followers that they were the 11:14 chosen ones destined to unite the world 11:17 essentially making them think that it 11:18 was them against everyone else the US 11:21 versus them mentality is like a dividing 11:23 wall that keeps two opposing ideologies 11:26 on each side those on one end are the US 11:28 meaning meanwhile everyone who isn't on 11:30 that side is the them or the others what 11:33 cult leaders do is that they try to 11:35 distinguish their Cults as groups that 11:37 are in opposition to those who aren't 11:39 members of their order while making them 11:41 feel unique and Superior compared to 11:44 Outsiders because of this mindset 11:46 members of a cult believe that they know 11:48 better than anyone who isn't part of 11:49 their group and are in a better position 11:51 in terms of their beliefs and ideologies 11:53 the same mindset also allows them to 11:55 stick together believing that the only 11:57 ones who can understand them are their 11:59 fellow cult members this mentality can 12:01 be strong enough for members to actually 12:03 cut ties with family and friends who 12:05 don't belong to their Cults they see 12:07 themselves as the ones who are correct 12:09 and are willing to alienate or oppose 12:11 anyone who doesn't share the same 12:13 beliefs the worst part is that they're 12:15 only willing to accept information or 12:17 opinions from the inside instead of the 12:19 outside
identity Fusion
a bucket of 12:22 water has a unique identity from the 12:23 ocean but once you pour the entire 12:26 bucket into the ocean it ceases to be 12:28 unique because it loses its 12:30 distinctiveness when it merges with a 12:32 bigger body of water Cults work in the 12:34 same way by gradually fusing the 12:36 identities of their members with the 12:38 bigger identity of the entire group 12:40 forcing them to lose their 12:41 individualities shoko asahara of am 12:44 shrio used the same tactic by making his 12:47 followers believe they were all part of 12:49 the same Elite group destined to survive 12:51 a global apocalyptic event members of 12:53 that group lost their individuality and 12:55 were willing enough to commit acts of 12:57 Terror to bring about shoko's vision 12:59 people and Cults experience this when 13:01 they adopt the group's values and goals 13:03 as their own becoming Fanatics who take 13:05 on the cult's identity cult leaders are 13:07 to blame for this because they 13:09 manipulate their members by coercing or 13:11 feeding them information gradually and 13:13 subtly that convinces their followers 13:15 that there is only one universal truth 13:18 when members fuse their identities with 13:20 the entire cult they can no longer 13:21 differentiate between right and wrong 13:24 because the group's ideals dictate their 13:26 discernment this can force members to 13:28 commit illegal Acts acts all for the 13:30 sake of the cult
deception
deception is 13:33 arguably the most common denominator in 13:35 all cults because cult leaders need to 13:37 conceal the truth from their followers 13:39 to force them into blind submission for 13:42 example Keith rineer deceived women into 13:44 thinking that Nexium was a support group 13:46 but was instead an Avenue for him to 13:49 commit abuse it's similar to how a 13:51 magician hides the truth from the 13:53 audience using curtains audiences are 13:55 amazed at the seemingly Supernatural 13:57 Feats of a magician but are BL to the 13:59 fact that they are being tricked from 14:01 behind the curtain in the same way Cults 14:03 lure followers with grand promises such 14:06 as Eternal salvation and Enlightenment 14:08 but hide the fact that they have 14:09 ulterior motives that could take the 14:11 form of abuses or personal enrichment at 14:14 the expense of the followers the problem 14:16 is that cult leaders are so skilled at 14:18 hiding the truth that their followers 14:20 fall for their tricks for years or even 14:23 decades this can create an illusion that 14:25 could make it harder for cult followers 14:27 to distinguish reality from a false 14:29 image created by their leaders the 14:31 deception tactics can be subtle but can 14:33 also have powerful and lasting effects 14:35 that can trick followers into blind 14:40 [Music] 14:43 submission
Welcome to c/Conspiracies! I see from the public logs that you reposted the "14 Minute Video Exploring Cult Manipulation Techniques" from c/BewareTheirTactics and it was probably hidden here due to your account not having enough score yet. As a courtesy to readers, the video outline given is:
Every Psychology Behind Cults Explained in 14 Minutes 00:00 - Charismatic Leadership 1:13 - Groupthink and Conformity 2:07 - Psychological Manipulation Techniques 3:18 - The Role of Isolation 4:27 - The Appeal to Disenfranchised Individuals 5:28 - Identity Reconstruction 6:45 - The BITE Model 7:49 - Trauma Bonding 8:55 - The Process of Indoctrination 10:04 - Exploitation of Vulnerabilities 11:08 - Us vs. Them Mentality 12:20 - Identity Fusion 13:31 - Deception
I also like to copy out the transcript to make it easier for people to reference:
0:00 charismatic leadership
Jim Jones's 0:02 charismatic approach as a leader was one 0:04 of the reasons why he pulled a lot of 0:06 followers to the people's Temple 0:08 eventually leading to one of the biggest 0:09 Mass suicides in history killing over 0:12 900 people charismatic leadership in 0:14 Cults is like a magnet that pulls metal 0:16 shavings this process Taps into 0:19 cognitive dissonance and social identity 0:21 Theory making it difficult for followers 0:23 to question the leaders or leave the 0:24 cult due to their strong desire for 0:26 group consistency and identity instead 0:29 cult leaders use charm and persuasive 0:31 words to compel and Captivate followers 0:33 into believing their Vision this leads 0:35 to a devoted group of people dying for 0:37 their cause their words are so profound 0:40 that they can exert influence over the 0:42 lives of their supporters cult leaders 0:44 usually have magnetic personalities that 0:46 make them confident and Charming they 0:48 know how to Captivate followers using 0:50 tals that can Mesmerize their audiences 0:53 and keep them glued through the promise 0:55 of Eternal salvation and a sense of 0:57 belonging however behind that curtain of 0:59 charisma is a manipulative leader who 1:01 acts like a spider luring insects with a 1:04 Web of Lies that will eventually trap 1:06 them before they realize they're doomed 1:08 it's already too late for the followers 1:10 because their Leader's silver tongue 1:12 already traps them
group think and 1:15 Conformity
group think and Conformity 1:17 functions can be seen in how fashion 1:19 becomes a thing when you see everyone 1:21 wearing the same style of hat even if 1:22 you don't like the Hat you'll be 1:24 pressured to buy the Hat because you 1:26 want to conform to society and fit in 1:28 instead of standing out this pressure to 1:30 conform is similar to what happens in 1:32 Cults even if a particular Cults views 1:35 contradict your values you'll be 1:36 pressured to adopt the same beliefs and 1:38 behaviors you want to conform to the 1:41 same beliefs that people around you 1:42 follow because you want to conform to 1:44 the group's standards this is often 1:46 present in smaller isolated communities 1:49 even if you're not necessarily a devout 1:51 believer you want to feel accepted and 1:53 avoid conflict that's how group think 1:55 occurs people prioritize consensus and 1:58 Harmony instead of contradic the views 2:00 of certain members of the same group so 2:02 in a cult contradictions and doubts are 2:04 suppressed in favor of group think to 2:06 promote Unity
psychological manipulation 2:08 techniques
cult leaders use invisible 2:11 strings that come in the form of 2:12 psychological manipulation techniques 2:14 it's like their Master puppeteers who 2:16 make their followers dance at will and 2:18 make them do things they wouldn't 2:20 normally do had it not been for the cult 2:22 leaders manipulative tactics Charles 2:24 Manson used his psychological 2:25 manipulation techniques to gather 2:27 followers into his family he manipulated 2:30 vulnerabilities by promising them 2:31 salvation if they would trigger his 2:33 apocalyptic Visions which would Elevate 2:36 him to Messianic status other than that 2:38 cult leaders are also known for using 2:40 sneaky tactics including love bombing 2:43 where they make their followers feel 2:44 loved by giving them attention a love 2:46 bombed recruit will feel unique enough 2:48 to join the cult just like how a naive 2:51 teenager can fall for flowers and 2:53 chocolates some cult leaders use control 2:55 over basic needs to manipulate their 2:57 members psychologically others also use 2:59 use fear to their advantage it can come 3:02 in the form of punishments from the 3:03 leaders sometimes they convince their 3:05 followers of an impending doom causing 3:07 them to fall in line out of fear 3:09 psychological manipulation is the Forte 3:12 of an expert cult leader who knows the 3:14 specific techniques that can force his 3:15 followers to obey unquestionably
the 3:18 role of isolation
a cult leader 3:20 isolation tactics work like an island 3:22 that strands cult members in a secluded 3:24 and isolated area with nowhere else to 3:27 go they trap supporters in a proverbial 3:29 Fortress to Shield them from any 3:31 influences from the outside world making 3:33 it harder for them to see the opinions 3:35 of those who aren't part of their 3:36 organization when a member is physically 3:38 mentally and emotionally isolated within 3:41 a cult opposing opinions and differing 3:43 views regarding some issues will be 3:45 challenging to come by their only 3:47 opinions come from their leaders and 3:48 fellow members forcing them to have only 3:51 one world view so if the only 3:53 information that the members know about 3:54 a specific topic is the one that their 3:56 leaders feed them they are more likely 3:58 to stay loyal to the group believing 4:00 that the Cults ideology is the only 4:02 truth moreover isolation tactics also 4:05 give the members a sense of exclusivity 4:07 that makes them feel special it's like 4:09 the cult gives them the impression that 4:10 they are in an ivory Tower but are in 4:13 reality trapped in a jail cell of 4:15 manipulation Jim Jones famously employed 4:18 such tactics on his followers especially 4:20 after he moved them to his Jonestown 4:22 compound physically and mentally 4:24 isolating them from the rest of society
4:26 the appeal to disenfranchised 4:28 individuals
David Berg's children of God 4:31 grew because he targeted youth members 4:33 of countercultural movements during the 4:35 60s and 70s he appealed to their 4:37 disenfranchisement from society to 4:39 create a cult with loyal followers a 4:41 cult leader who tries to appeal to 4:43 disenfranchised individuals attacks 4:45 their feelings of loneliness and 4:46 helplessness they look for people who 4:48 have lost faith in society or have 4:50 become disenfranchised from the everyday 4:52 workings of the world it's like how 4:54 Rebel groups look for recruits with the 4:56 same hatred for the government from 4:58 there the cult leader gives the recruits 4:59 a place to feel like they belong they 5:01 make them feel understood and at home 5:04 making them feel that the cult is the 5:05 only place where they can be themselves 5:07 someone who has a sense of belonging is 5:09 more likely to stay loyal to the person 5:11 who gave it to them in this case it's 5:13 the cult leader in short Cults prey on 5:15 vulnerable people who are still 5:17 searching for meaning in their lives 5:18 Cults lure them with the promise of love 5:21 family and acceptance only for them to 5:23 end up getting manipulated into doing 5:25 all sorts of crazy things for the sake 5:27 of belonging
identity reconstruction 5:30
identity reconstruction was another 5:32 tactic that Charles Manson used to 5:33 create a cult of loyal followers willing 5:35 to kill for him he reshaped their sense 5:37 of self and instilled allegiance to his 5:40 Twisted beliefs when a cult leader uses 5:42 identity reconstruction they reshape and 5:44 twist the beliefs and sense of identity 5:46 of their recruits according to the Cults 5:48 beliefs and Norms it's like you're 5:50 playing with Lego bricks to create a 5:52 house but someone comes in and uses the 5:54 same bricks to rearrange them to create 5:56 an entirely different structure the new 5:58 structure is still made made out of the 6:00 same Lego bricks but is no longer 6:02 recognizable from the old one in the 6:04 same way cult leaders simply use a 6:06 person's values to reconstruct a new 6:08 person that adheres to their beliefs for 6:10 example if a person feels lost in 6:12 society because he has no place in the 6:14 modern world the cult leader uses that 6:16 vulnerability to reconstruct a new 6:18 identity that hates Society cult members 6:20 who have identities tied to the cult 6:22 itself are more likely to commit extreme 6:25 acts to protect their sense of identity 6:27 and beliefs the process can be subtle 6:29 yet coercive allowing leaders to use 6:31 different ways to break their members 6:33 personalities and sense of individuality 6:35 to force them to adhere to their beliefs 6:38 before a member knows it they have lost 6:40 touch with their former selves and have 6:42 become receptive to the group's ideology
6:44 the bite model
the bite model is used to 6:47 understand Cults and is divided into 6:49 four categories Behavior information 6:52 thought and emotional control it is a 6:54 cult leaders recipe book for a dish to 6:56 gain obedient and loyal followers 6:58 Behavior control is the instructions 7:00 given by a recipe Cults dictate what you 7:02 can and cannot do and when you can and 7:05 cannot do specific actions they regulate 7:08 your actions and limit the things that 7:09 you can do information control acts as 7:12 the ingredients you use in a recipe 7:13 Cults feed you information according to 7:15 their beliefs similar to how a recipe 7:18 excludes all other ingredients from a 7:19 dish thought control meanwhile acts as 7:22 the recipe's flavors in the sense that 7:24 Cults shape how people think through 7:26 rituals and messages they steadily 7:28 change people's Thinking by adding 7:30 subtle yet strong spices to change the 7:33 flavor of the recipe finally emotional 7:35 control is similar to how a recipe is 7:37 presented to a diner Cults use your 7:40 emotions to make you feel guilty about 7:41 leaving the group just like a master 7:43 chef uses a beautiful presentation to 7:46 make you feel guilty if you don't like 7:47 the flavors
trauma bonding
the old 7:50 saying goes misery finds company trauma 7:53 is a powerful tool that can help Bond 7:55 people like superglue whenever people 7:57 have gone through the same miserable and 7:58 rough experience expences in life they 8:00 tend to find company and people who have 8:02 also gone through the same experiences 8:04 Cults use trauma bonding to attract and 8:06 keep members of their organizations it's 8:08 like saying hey we know what we've been 8:10 through so we can help you these Cults 8:12 also create environments where members 8:14 depend on one another for their safety 8:16 and sense of belonging as the members 8:18 stay in the cult longer the leaders 8:20 psychologically emotionally and 8:22 physically abuse their members but 8:24 trauma bonding allows the members to 8:26 stay inside the cult in the hopes that 8:28 they can do better to gain their leader 8:30 approval and hopefully stop the abuse as 8:32 they've already grown too attached to 8:34 their abuser Keith reneer the founder of 8:36 Nexium abused the female members of his 8:38 cult but because of trauma bonding the 8:41 members stayed for years and even 8:43 recruited new members to please reneer 8:45 and pass the cycle of abuse onto the new 8:47 members it became a pyramid scheme where 8:49 the ones who Recruit new members get 8:51 better benefits prompting them to stay 8:53 instead of leaving the cult
[Continued.]
And now I've been permabanned from BewareTheirTactics for "Mod Discretion" (a new forum that I didn't know about until then). And the logs are not public.
SeekerOfTheWay there writes about me, "I'm sorry. There's a specific user (Swamp) that's been unhealthily fixated on me lately, and I'm trying to safeguard and give myself the ability to keep him at bay and head off any drama or grief he tries to give me."
This is really the height of rent-free earned media and I'm enjoying every minute. Oddly enough, via the Streisand Effect, he is creating more drama than if he had agreed to an interaction ban and stopped talking about me; he even has his first contributor expressing the thought that he, Seeker, would ban the asker for asking about inclusions. Some people are at places where they cannot be told.
Now I could short-circuit must of this presentation with a simple observation, and maybe it will spare the more detailed review:
If the ancients interpreted the stars as a divinity's narrative, that doesn't disprove any selected narrative as the film implies it should. Rather, if a pattern existed then it was placed there by the cosmos, and any narrative that matches the pattern has a claim on divinity, a claim that can be sufficiently proven or disproven by accord with facts. If one could narrate the alignment without it actually happening, that is disproof; if one could arrange the alignment to happen, that is not much proof; and if nobody arranged the alignment that contributes toward sufficient proof. By referring claims back to the stars rather than to paganism, the video gives the Cosmos (God) first rights over the meaning of the symbols.
That short-circuits research into whether any past claim was true, because even if the claims were totally true historically they don't prove any divine claimant copied from another (which would be used to invalidate a later claim), they prove that all claims have a common heavenly source. Usually it's claimed that Jesus copied from pagans and is invalidated, but when the film makes it that Jesus and pagans both copied from the stars it brings it back to what God put in place already.
If Sirius means east star and Light, if it aligns on December 24-25, if Orion means three kings, if Virgo means virgin mother and wheated (Bethlehem), if the solstice means Sunday worship and 3-day burial (22-24) and resurrection and Savior, if Crux means crucifixion (e.g. ankh), if the Zodiac means followers and 12, if sunrise means ascension to heaven and coming again in clouds and Son of God, if rays mean crown of thorns, if Taurus means rejection of the (golden) Bull ca. 2000, if Pisces means use of Fish symbol ca. 1, if Aquarius means the Passover waterbearing Man, then none of those (20) symbols are uniquely pagan or Christian, and every religion that incorporates those symbols is merely echoing an archetypal pattern already God-given. If narratives are invented or arranged to fit, there is no problem if deception isn't used; if historical facts align without direct human arrangement, it may be a valid divine communication based on a valid archetype. In the same way, all Biblical references to eras of Bull, Ram, Fish, and Man are not pagan or Christian in origin but are merely responsive to the spring sign of the age.
Well, that covers all the data up until the plagiarism charges start, out of the blue as it were. TLDR: The truth is, when one claims an aspect of one narrative aligns with astronomy, it does not prove or disprove that narrative one bit, nor prove or disprove any other related narrative. The ordinary, previous argument "the pagans had it first" is totally upended by the argument "the stars had it first". If for instance the pagans had created the ankh deliberately and only to symbolize some evil or demon or abusive power, that would be a bad thing to counterfeit, but if the ankh merely means the alignment of Sol and Crux then it is neutral and might well refer to something put there by the Christian God.
Thus even if Luxor 1500 BC depicts Horus as born of Virgo at the winter solstice and adored by the Three Kings of Orion, that being a literary narrative drawn from the stars doesn't mean that if it were to happen for real it would be pagan. It means that if God chooses to work this way it'd be consistent and the Egyptians would merely have been correctly anticipating; and if God never chooses to work this way it's only a literary device. (To the degree that the Egyptians claim Horus did those things historically when there was no evidence he did, that would be deception, but that is something added to the system rather than an attempt to discern from God's stars what God might do.)
The idea that Noah is plagiarized is taken from the idea that Gilgamesh is very old (2600 BC, but Sumerian dating before about 2000 is very sketchy) and Noah is very new (thanks 1800s higher critics, who yet in spite of themselves have demonstrated that covenant structure indicates Moses relied on earlier sources prior to 2000 himself). In reality, Noah has as good a claim as any on being closest to the original. I haven't looked into the parallels between Sargon and Moses, but I doubt I'll be surprised when I do; I recall the actual Sargon myth going quite differently. He also cites Manou, Minos, and Mises, and promotes their similarity, but a quick check shows that Mises is largely invented recently. It is said to come from Voltaire by "D. M. Murdock", but the name is not in his Philosophical Dictionary and "Murdock" doesn't give a further specification, so it appears a fresh fabrication (Google shows no results for the alleged Voltaire quote before 2012). The relationship to Manou and Minos is uncompelling; I think we can dismiss Manou as having nothing in common but lawgiver beginning with M, and Minos as later than known manuscripts of Moses.
The relationship between the (second table) Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead is well-known and played up in The Abolition of Man. The fact that Moses and the Egyptians came up with very similar laws (aka the laws of Noah) does not prove they are pagan, in fact it tends toward indicating they are moral absolutes. Similarly, Egypt allegedly had "baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth, death and resurrection, crucifixion, the Ark of the Covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover". Well, not really, but the general concept indicated by all these names was common to religious growth in all societies, and it would be natural for religions as developed as Egyptian and Christian to have comments on all these.
Justin rightly gets the last word. The fact that Jesus had attributes in common with mythological divinities does not disprove Jesus but rather proves that his attributes were common knowledge. What proves Jesus's divinity is the historical evidence that these things happened, which didn't happen historically to Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysius, Mithra, Jovians, or Perseus. None of those others was attested to be a historical person who had several named historical biographers in his own generation. All of those others are narratives only, never presented as more than a cinematic universe. And it's no wonder that enemies of truth would try to create narratives from the stars that anticipate what might happen historically.
Since 20 of the points of agreement are stated to be astronomical in origin, the short-circuit works to dispel the larger half of the claim. There are 19 points remaining of similarity between Jesus and other archetypes: Anointed, annunciation, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten. The very few similarities of Moses to Sargon also remain. ("Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal midwife.") However, given the film's apparent partnership with Murdock the Moses denier, it's likely these claims are also highly inflated. It's rather tiresome to research a huge number of claims of December 25 and the like to find that they are all false, but sometimes I exert myself. The one claim I selected to check here, "Mises of Egypt", seems to have been invented in 2012, so I have no fears about the remainder.
Continuing my regular reporting to c/Conspiracies, OP made a new statement about Christians being "welcome" which I initially read as welcoming me to operate within the rules. However, a brief exchange by modmail indicates this is not the intent, and that there's a disconnect between the idea that Christians are (all) welcome and the continuing idea that Christians can be permabanned at mod discretion without recourse. I see these as essentially contradictory, but Seeker is not aware of how the perception of contradiction hurts his cause.
On the ban modmail "You can no longer post in TheNarrowWay." I wrote: "Thank you for your new rules comment. Any chance you can unban me from c/TheNarrowWay, so that I can seek to ask supportive questions about The Way and Original Christianity, please?"
Seeker wrote from his own account "TheNarrowWay Ban Appeal Inquiry": "I didn't make any new rules comment(s). Ban remains as is. Appeal denied. No further or future appeals please." (Incidentally, Seeker, if you wish to keep the reply as coming from the same modmail account instead of from your personal account, just reply from the individual message page in the modmail tool.)
So it appears that I, and any others who have been banned by this account, will remain so even as Christians are "welcome".
TLDR: How long can Seeker practice all the extremist, absolutist, censorian, manipulative control tropes while pretending also that he is fighting them? When will he realize what everyone else does, that he is being just as abusive as those who have abused him, or more so, and that he has need of external assistance for reconciliation, not just feeling good about Self, but also having right relations with Other, as determined by Other and not just by Self? Omphaloskeptics become ouroboroi.