If I'm on your user profile to notate your account and I find that you're talking us down elsewhere, is it stalking to defend myself? I'm so glad it's so easy to bat away your mischaracterizations with a flyswatter.
You can appeal to the 4-member mod panel en banc by going to /send and using "c:Christianity" as recipient. I'd suggest you get clear definitions of such concepts as "shadow banning" and "god" first so as not to distract your appeal with corollary issues.
Hi, you may not have seen my comment that your own first post at c/Christianity was auto-filtered due to containing some phrasing on the list of what the forum sponsors have deemed unfitting. I don't have a quick way to determine what text it was that flagged the bot, and so I asked you to copy me the content or to post it in a comment on your latest thread there so that I could help determine the "offending" text and remedy your post, as I wanted to see your content. I can understand why this automation led you to join the chorus of "shadow banning", but I'd be happy to help get your post approved by the filter. Once we get that fixed we can also talk about your meaning for "Jews".
Hi all, at u/Christianity we routinely delete comments that describe Christianity as idolatry without providing civil, reasonable discourse. The thread referred to by OP was about one theory of canonization of Scripture, and OP was clearly accusing the first thread poster (u/Andy_Man45) as idolizing the written text above God, without providing source, argument, or civility. We do permit debate about Christianity but keep it limited to structured threads and focused discussions so as to deter uncivil, unsupported, low-effort comments.
u/Graphenium correctly points out that this is standard practice and that the c/Christianity/logs are publicly available. u/clemaneuverers correctly points out that there is no function to shadow-ban (to permit comments while not letting others see them). When comments are deleted this is obvious to all who check the thread.
We are happy to answer any further questions about the subject.
This is getting pretty evident in the modern day as new cases come readily to the minds of the other commenters. However it's not new; it can be traced from the Babylon of Ninus and Semiramis, through the deification of Pharaoh, past emperor worship in Rome and the Herodians in Israel, into the Holy Roman Empire. Political control finds that counterfeiting religion is the surest way to control the whole individual.
Your noticing that ideologies fail when people try to apply them holistically is also a function of their counterfeit status. This suggests either that there is one truth that does unify everything, or that no truth can be postulated to unify anything. However, most people recognize that full nihilism is counterproductive so they seize upon various ideologies whether or not they are complete.
Obviously I'm advertising the search for total truth and unity as better than stopping when you've partially comprehended any ideology. I'm also proposing that God as revealed in the Bible is the ultimate answer, the total truth, and the one we should continue to seek every day who will not fail to anchor us. Recognizing the incompleteness of anything proposed by mere man is an important step toward recognizing holistic truth that comes from more than man, so hold onto this nugget of truth and keep up the search.
Thanks for the informative link. Does not live up to OP title claims. Rather, it looks like someone just did a comprehensive search of all scanned data for statements about 6 million Jews prior to WWII, in any capacity whatsoever. It's a case of proving too much!
The Open Court, 1897, says nearly 6 million Jews died in 135 AD under Bar Kochba. WP says 580,000 plus "many more".
Four sources 1902-1921 refer to the hypothetical where the whole Jewish population of Russia (6 million) is at risk.
The New York Times, 1914, refers to relief for 6 million Jews in the WWI zone.
The American Hebrew, 1919, seems to refer to the same population total in Europe, including 800,000 children, and calls it a "threatened holocaust", meaning sacrificial death or martyrdom. Same total and location repeated in 1931 in Montreal. Same total in a reported (!) quote of Chaim Weizmann to the Peel Commission, 1936; same The New York Times 1938, same The Palm Beach Post 1940 and applied to Hitler in advance.
United Jewish Campaign, 1926, sets a fundraising goal of $6 million for Europe. No population is referenced, suggesting this is just a search target of "six million" and "Jews", whether relevant or not!
I won't list the several cases from 1945 by which time it would not have been unreasonable for guessers to accurately predict the final "official" number.
A graphic containing 34 more cites is attached. The population totals given all refer to the following categories:
- Bar Kochba deaths
- Total Jewish population
- Russian Jewish population
- Russian Jewish family count
- European Jewish population
- Jewish population represented at a global conference
- Dollar size of Jewish fund
None of them refer to any ancient Jewish prophecy. Even at the outside level of attempting to validate the claim, no source ties all the dots necessary for the minimum connection to OP claim, such as by creating the theory both that 6 million died in 135 AD and that 6 million must die again in the same source. Certainly nothing about return to promised land. One source happens to use the word "holocaust", which is unsurprising in 1919; Webster's Collegiate 1916 defines it as "A complete or thorough destruction, esp. by fire, as of many human beings." All of these are just references to a population number that will easily turn up 166 Google hits between 1869 and 1945, just like five million and seven million would. This claim is Curse of Oak Island level.
Station identification: I came to Win Communities in part to remove chaff from the variety of theories, so the wheat can be sifted out. Let's move on and get some real bread.
Etymology checks out correctly. Not often I get surprised by an etymology. Don't know enough detail to comment on the OP main point.
"'Twas brillig" is a quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, and is found in the internal poem Jabberwocky. "Brillig" is explained to Alice by Humpty Dumpty therein as being late afternoon when "broiling" for dinner begins. This 28-line poem was made into an entire Criterion Collection movie directed by Terry Gilliam.
Continuing topically despite any third-party difficulty following:
You say you do have desires but not hope. I have those desires, and hope. Jesus teaches me that all these evils will be justly judged and all actual victims will be recompensed and all righteous claims will be satisfied. My actions flow from this teaching of hope. He has shown me the one organization that is consistently fighting evil, namely, those who know his voice, those who mourn over the sin of the city (Ezekiel 8-11), those in him; I work with his body. Though you respect Christ, you seem to despair of finding his true body. Therefore the difference in our declarations of war corresponds to the difference in our stated organizational resources.
Your definition of subversives does not appear to flow from an authority or a purely informative data dump, though you are free to evidence otherwise. You see a lot arguing for niceness and optics, but I don't argue those. All the same, David's words "hate those who hate [the LORD]" (Ps. 139:21) must be handled cautiously because we aren't the sole judges of capital crimes. Even if you showed me clear-cut evidence of someone committing a child sacrifice, why, that's pretty straightforward, but I am still not to declare war on that person without offering terms of peace: much less to claim that everyone else in his race is just waiting to take his place as the taker of life. But we have no qualms about immediately engaging the enemy who is not flesh and blood and who has deceived and captivated all the nations.
God is needed and we are needed, we each do our part, in the end we win. There is good theological support for that. Yet your war doesn't make sense to me. To paraphrase your statement, you seem to have concluded that to live (within the world) is irrational, for Christ to return on time is incumbent, but if you judge that his window passes you have justified "physical revolution against the world". Is Jesus your Lord, or is he just someone who might be late for an important appointment and cannot be counted on?
Jesus intends to continue setting up a kingdom solely for people who tell the truth. It exists now in many hearts but has not yet bothered to claim that unimportant factor, land (except in small individual dedications). This better befits the kingdom's final certain land conquest. If your heart belongs to him, he has told you to occupy and labor until he comes.
However, on the other board you're being called a neo-Nazi, for apparent lack of your own identification with a named philosophy or movement. For the sake of my ability to moderate there, can you at least affirm (be numbered with) your position? Are you a Christian as determined by the classic creeds? Are you anti-Jew as determined by hatred for Jews as a race? Or do you reject titles because of association and let others guess madly?
To go hypothetical in trying to envision your position, let's say first that we imagine we're in Old Testament times and God has told us that a race needs to be exterminated. To leave the Israelites out of it, we could imagine we were Moabites fighting Emim, or Edomites fighting Horites (Deut. 2:11-12), or the like. Even if that hypothetical were to explain your war in the present day, we'd still have all the restrictions God places on war to prevent our becoming like our enemy. (Some nations conquered others so unvirtuously as to be conquered immediately themselves by the next nations.) (1) Ensure the authoritative decree has gone forth (declaration of war with cause). (2) Muster the army (not alone but organized formally). (3) Offer suzerain-vassal terms of peace (as with Gibeon). (4) Obey applicable laws except for clear conscience's sake (chain of command). Probably more. I don't see you modeling any of these "just war" principles, but some other paradigm.
The world is bad and getting worse, but the true church is good and getting better. This year I have been activated as Swamp Rangers has been formed to assist in conducting the necessary battles (see our fledgling website) and the Lord rapidly set me up personally as moderator of a virtual Christian community. Before that time, although it might appear I was doing "nothing" by contrast, I was following the Lord's orders in engaging my fights at fit times as well. I have defended truth a long time and am in the thick where my online work can have effects IRL (to say nothing of what I do IRL apart from the net).
Your closing hint seems to relate to some such revolution and your disappointment that there is no organized body to carry it out. I say that the organized body that Christ set up is sufficient to overturn the world once again, in just the way needed for our day, despite our many infiltrators and subversives. But we are so well-armed spiritually that we need not hide the details of this kind of revolution: we spread the truth into human hearts and win them eternally for our kingdom, not worrying about the temporary vicissitudes of dust particles like earth. Nothing the enemy can do is competent to destroy our supply lines on earth nor our heavenly provisions, so the enemy's planting of innumerable flags doesn't affect us. Christ's first band of followers wanted physical revolution too, and he said, "Not yet". There will be a time when he conquers all his enemies at once, and it will suffice. (If you can find a better offer, take it!) If you despair that there is no hope including in your own resolution, consider that the hope I have in Jesus really is the best offer, rather than something recently invented that we counteroffer to him.
In your followup, you seem to act as if certain past offenses still need reconciliation. I can stipulate that point generally stated, but can also tell you the reconciliation and reparation is in Christ and no other. He'll make it all up to us. If some sinned, he will punish them, we need not harp on their crime to remind him. We certainly don't get to attribute those past sins to our fellow citizens, that gets very lonely. To live in America with its about 2% Jewish population and to look at them with "they have to be removed" in the constant subtext is the very genocide you accuse them of in words like "They are taught to destroy all nations". The two views you state are contradictory under the Golden Rule.
The KJV Bible does not use the phrases "merchant(s) of sin" or "killer(s) of Christ" so you'll need to get your batting average up a bit. I do find John 19:16, "So he delivered him over to them [the soldiers] to be crucified." Of course I have added the late contextual antecedent from verse 23, "The soldiers had crucified Jesus". As we follow the Lord, we also trust his word to have the plain meaning and not read into it contrary to its ordinary human authors' intent.
To be at war with sin is not to be at war with a people, for the reasons stated. We don't generally get to determine the point when another person is to be judged. (I gave theoretical possibility to the idea that we might assist in this judgment if the numbered criteria of just war were met.) I won't bat away the Bible's statements about genocide but I will use its own context to explain it and will hold everyone to that context.
I'm thankful for your openness on many points. If your position is "of course I follow the creeds", then we can build on that unity and grow into all truth. If you propose another Christianity than that of the creeds (which begin with 1 Cor. 15:3-8), then we might still be able to build on some agreed truth foundation. You do seem to understand that forums use different paradigms than yours about info war against constant subversion, indicating the need to interact with other paradigms. I have obtained permission to assist in moderating c/Christianity under a full Christian paradigm, as far as I know. In that situation, everything is disclosed and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do, and so there is no need to take rash individual actions against potential subversives because we team up within the body to identify and contain them. But until I know where your definitions come from I don't have power to join your fight.
Good, let's pursue truth and prove disinformation wrong. I understand what it's like to need to repeat a bunch of points without always wanting to refer back to sources every time, and sometimes I misword things and get corrected, so I can understand your summary paragraph in that respect. However, from my modest experience with Talmud, it mostly looks like exaggerated forms of the extant statements and so improvement is possible. On the one cite I recently tested, as I pointed out the source does not say "his own", it is obviously a legend rather than a doctrinal teaching, and here you have swapped excrement with semen. So I would need to review the other statements in that light. Similarly, your source that suggests the possibility that some Jews in history have engaged in child sacrifice does not compare this to the child sacrifice of every other race of people for balance.
Again describing a whole race as "killers of Christ and the merchants of sin" refers to established facts so tenuously and vaguely that the term may just as well apply to all men. Jews handed him over, Gentiles hung him up, but he laid down his life of his own accord. I mongered in sin and killed Christ. Basic Christianity is that he died for your sins too.
You saw my distancing in the phrase "responsibly reported". I am responsible to the American government insofar as they do not betray my conscience, but I see faults in every institution and in every people-group other than the adopted people of the invisible body of Christ.
As an established body, God delivers us our declaration of war against the devil and his angels in Genesis 3. He also claims all Eve's seed as being on his side of the war unless they defect. My allusions were to say that we do not have such a declaration of war by an established authority against the Jewish people at large and you seem to be at war alone rather than identifying an allegiance as I have. If you are allied with Christ, I do not see him declaring war against his own people, but declaring that they will miss out until the day they welcome him back (the hope on which Romans 9-11 is built). Millions of Jews over the years have in fact welcomed him back, though they are often disowned by their countrymen.
If there were an ideology of destroying others, of course that ideology must be destroyed (rather than any people). Your paragraph reads similarly to exaggerations of the evils within Islam or Christianity and as such calls not for killing but for truth. If the truth is that one people-group is committed to genocide, we don't fight that by committing to their genocide.
Going to post this halfway through and come back to it. Thanks.
Permit me to slightly redirect this thread to thank you for your consideration at c/Christianity and to express a sincere interest in understanding your situation, in a neutral location. (If there's good conversation we can always start a new thread here once we can frame the topic.)
See, I've always understood that discrimination has two sides: the good is to recognize that generic easily ascertained factors about people trend with generic less obvious characteristics; and the bad is to assume that the trend is probative. So I can make likely demographic judgments about a person based on face, skin, hair, manner, etc., but I also keep such judgments tentative and open to correction.
So the first thing I don't understand is statements like the above because they charge every man, woman, and child of a certain race with being a threat, and even when you use the word "most" you cite criminality that does not appear to match with responsibly reported statistics.
My first-level understanding is that one believes a state of war exists and so exaggeration, misinformation, and tactics of all kinds are permitted. But then human history suggests that should involve responsible claims by an extant community that it has been attacked and considers another community to be the attackers, who thereby are not worthy of ordinary human consideration. If that's the case, don't you think there should be calm reference back to the formal determination by the community, rather than generic lashing out by individuals? It's hard to fight a war alone.
Even with a sustained effort to be sympathetic to your position, I find it difficult to speak to you as if you identify with a sustainable position or a positive moral outlook. Perhaps you or others have been hurt and your online character reflects that. Certainly though you must have hope and desire for some benefit in life as well. If it were merely desire for a human community shielded against certain negative behaviors, wouldn't you seek positive interaction with others who might contribute (such as a Christianity community that seeks only the principles of the real man Jesus and rejects ties to any other human director)? But perhaps your hope and desire have other manifestations too.
I guess the TLDR question is: What brings you to make such frequent claims that are regarded so negatively by others (such that you see Stasi elements in your respondents)? I've seen your lists of evidence links but generally they don't resonate with me because, even if admitted arguendo, they just go to "the world is bad" without pointing to what we and God are doing about it. Perhaps you mean to imply that everyone should be prepared in life (and in forums) for long complaints without resolution and that is everyone's equal right to pursue. Even if so, I believe that in Jesus there is hope and every answer.
Thanks for clarifying, as in this forum it's important to keep cautious. Usually acceptance of Moses and acceptance of early well-established multiple sects are regarded as conflicted, so I didn't anticipate that you held both.
If people used to live much longer, and committed important texts to tablets, it would be understandable for original documentary history to be less fluid than the freedom to paraphrase that we see later. Paraphrases used to be trustworthy too for related reasons. A chain of transmission (genealogy) provided authority and indicated originality, in Sumer and Egypt as well. But what's amazing is that we see so little textual variation during the centuries that Hebrew speakers became Aramaic speakers, and that implies not just clever bloodline politics but supernatural preservation as well. Nowadays breakdown of language and disrespect for authority are sold together.
Certainly Moses and others used primary sources in compiling their material. Christianity claims that at certain times in history, recognized by the authors and their audience, the composite writing of a single author (or close group) was so inspired by God's thought as to be an authoritative community document indefinitely. Again, amazingly, by the rebirth of the language of Hebrew from the dead, I am able to enjoy these 4000-year-old documents as they were intended, in my modern thought; yet I still need extensive footnotes and glossary to read Shakespeare as he intended me to. There must be something about the thoughts of these authors that, overall, transcends Shakespeare.
So I return to: Question everything! Hold fast to what is good. Reject what is rotten. Every mainstream has its utility and its error in differing quantities. Every hidden reflection too. We judge not on suppression or politics or defamation or convenience, but on our ever-growing experience of Truth.
When we're talking origin of universe or origin of sentience we mean processes not now occurring, so there's not much right to use scientific uniformitarianism to assume it happened slow or fast. If other lines of evidence are correct, nuclear processes have slowed down, a supposition that resolves some discrepancies. There are a few very tactile yardsticks, like ice cores and tree rings and polonium halos, that give good history, but most others are just guesses thrown backwards through time without evidence that they hit any targets. When you're looking at 6k versus 100k (one order of magnitude, possibility of reconciliation) you don't need to argue like you do between 100k and 20 billion (five orders of magnitude, two different camps represented).
When we look at these guesses we find in particular that carbon-dating is highly varied even for identical samples and so I don't place much stock in 130k as more valid than another guess, while being wholly credulous that several lines of evidence do show human-dinosaur interaction at some point (the other forums seem to love St. George and the Dragon). Worldwide flood fits well with evidence of continental drift so long as we don't argue about timeframe of drift, and asteroid impact (plus underground water caverns now largely defunct) also fits well with that theory. Here I think the date of 12k ties to astronomical evidence from Egypt rather than ice cores, which give younger dates.
Most important is to get the strands of data right in solid narratives (Creator, Flood, giants), while seeking which sources give the most truthful narratives and using ordinary rules of comparing testimonies to judge which best match the data.
As a newcomer (Swamp Rangers founded 1/1/21), I'm not the person to ask about Q. I'm aware of the possibility of deceit therein while I lean toward trust; but in either case the course that I am taking works best, namely, networking and sharing truth.
Why in c/Conspiracies would you take it as certain that humans emerged .3mya? That assertion comes from a group of scientists making inferences differently than the last group of scientists. We're better off to say very little is certain that far back than to propose a narrative with great certainty, unless our narrative is taken on trust from people believed trustworthy. The point is that Yahweh has evidence of trustworthiness; Pleiadians are not trustworthy.
I'm not aware of ancient cultural narratives where the flood truly precedes the garden. I'm aware that people who hated the garden coming first inserted more echoic floods in before then, without historical or documentary evidence, and then in the echo chamber various faulty supports continued being inserted. I did say compare combatants' views and decide who is trusted.
My research has shown, and I believe, that all parts of the Torah are correct and were written as one and that the JEDP hypothesis (4-author merger) is the fiction. The primary evidence giving rise to JEDP is better explained by the fact that the compiler (Moshe ben Amram) advisedly used oral traditions and that in many cases he attributed those traditions to their original older content creators. It is not well-explained by a cabal of anon voices creating and modifying a Moshe. If you can start a new JEDP thread in any applicable forum (ad: c/Christianity) I'd be interested in interacting with the data again; at the moment I have occasional leisure to handle many puzzle pieces I receive.
Given that assumption, corollaries are obvious. El instructed his followers to leave no idols, passim, e.g. Exodus 20:3-4 (ad: see c/Christianity sidebar). Evidence that followers left this instruction for whore cults is also passim; I don't think we need to list all temple prostitute and Asherah references in the Tanakh.
According to JEDP (which doesn't say "power hungry") the caste did not root at the beginning but well after 1000 BC, so your idea contradicts the hypothesis. The Biblical narrative speaks of regular rise and fall among competing religious practices and how each in turn took political power and undid the work of another and planted its own seeds. No early anti-Elohim Yahwism that then insidiously maintained its grip over centuries.
When you look at who's doing good and who's doing evil, it's amazing that the doing of good survives at all. While on occasion this can be connected with superior political maneuvers, like those attributed to Mordecai, the fact of its survival and exponential growth indicates there is a superior spirit at work, and there is more to good than just the antithesis of evil. No need to take the whole Torah at once (it's preached every weekend) if you start by committing to align yourself only with good, truth, and right. Then it becomes obvious that there is one Creator and it's safe to call him Yahweh (the Self-Existent).
I liked that much more than OP!
You're aware false etymologies abound, especially in proto-Semitic. Cannabis is Greek but cannibal is Carib and no backlink is likely. However, relationship of Greek kannabis to Hebrew kaneh bosm (your spelling) is not immediately discountable and so has a potential ring of truth. Kaneh gave rise to exceedingly many English words including can and cane. The fact that kaneh bosm appears as "aromatic cane" in Exodus 30:23 gives another mark of legitimacy for the etymology, but it does not mean that this plant is identical to modern hemp, as common generic words like "apple" and "pome" end up referring to many different species.
The name of the tabernacle is "mishkan", relating to "Shekhina", but the focus of Shekhina is more often light than smoke.
Reading accounts written as history, yet trying both to discount their plain meaning and to interpret metaphysical meanings from elsewhere, is to commit two sins against the texts. Again, the question is which side is the truth and which side is stealing from the truth.
Evil is a trait that arises in the minds of all civilizations and eras. Make sure you're not it!
Very true! As we frame our truth narratives, we neither glorify evil nor discount it. We are to uphold all truth and reject evil at every turn. Question everything.
Since you ask twice, his message included: (1) "I AM, who I say I am"; (2) "In three days I will raise this temple up"; (3) "The Son of Man will be crucified and will rise on the third day"; (4) "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto myself"; (5) "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; (6) "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part with me .... Unless I wash your feet, you have no part with me"; (7) "Receive the Holy Spirit". Verbum sat.
u/MuslimMAGA has pointed out IIRC that the Quranic text that founds this assertion uses an ambiguous statement implying that the crucifixion was not as it appeared, and that if Muslims do not take the mainstream interpretation that he didn't die, and instead accept that he did die on the cross and come back, that is acceptable within their broad faith.
Denial of this, possibly the most well-attested capital punishment in ancient history, is only important because of the consequence that resurrection has for our lives, the moral choice it calls us to. Would so much work go to disproving that an ancient execution happened just for a LARP?
"Slightly different" is not the same as "EXTREMELY controversial ... inspired by Apollonius of Tyana, a Gnostic philosopher ... just a man." If you're going to proclaim another Jesus, admit it and don't back-pedal.
The name he went by in his common language of Aramaic was "Yeshua". Having shared that name with many others of that era, his most common surname would have been the Nazarene, e.g. "Hanotzri". The spirit world knows, from our context, what we mean when we use any name or symbol, and also whether we believe it or doubt it. Evidence shows the English name "Jesus" has spiritual power when referred to the mainstream Catholic/Protestant God-Man concept. There is also evidence that it means nothing in spirituality when referred to Apollonius. Let's follow the evidence and use "Jesus" only to refer to who he really was.
Many points are mistaken. Ashearah (not the most accurate spelling, Asherah is closer) was, as I implied in reply to OP, a porn star who culturally appropriated the facade and worship of the various gods (elohim) of the day. Her followers left lots of evidence of their perversions, while followers of Yahweh were instructed to leave none; thus archaeologists discount the latter and act as if the former were fully representative.
Her worship was rejected multiple times; Elijah came after Solomon, but Samuel came before. Redates don't accord with new evidences placing David right at 1000 BC. Your take on Shekinah is very close but you'll note that that concept is essentially positive so should be allied with other positive views of elohim.
The question is: which traditions include the true worship of the only el worthy of it, given that truth exists and deception tries to counterfeit it to claim its virtue for itself? There are elohim but there is "One Elohim", so the concept of el is not limited to one entity only. You must discern the true el for yourself, the evidence suffices for each moment, and more is available for the next moment.
Ok, i like this.
Question everything! Deceivers maraud. Don't sidetrack but get right with right.
Do you believe in one central creator that then deviates into different gods or?
Everyone knows there's one central creator and one plan. Anything worthy of worship is an expression of that one (e.g. Shekhina). Anything that conflicts with that one plan is not worthy of worship.
How do zionists/jews differ from jesuits?
Like many nations, many orgs each compete for power with different axes. The real God only has one army and we only need one.
Where does the name jesuit stem from?
Jesuit stolen from Jesus, from Yehoshua from "Yahweh is Salvation" from "I Am Self-Existent Salvation".
What was the point of saying Jesus was the son of God?
He said this because he is one with God and illustrated that with the parable of sonship. To realize Jesus was the perfect expression of good (like the Ten Commandments, among words) accords with the plan. To claim he never said this and that deceivers put it there for control is to risk being controlled by the claimants. Jesus wants only volunteers, all others want to control by force and pressure.
What message was he trying to spread?
Jesus doesn't try, he does. The primary message his followers spread is the message he intended to spread. Don't judge by the fringe but by those who show lives changed from dark to light.
Have you seen the when the survivors of atlantis wake up series?
Atlantis only tells us about one army allied against humanity, not any other armies who use the Atlantis narrative to control us. Think for yourself.
Are you familiar with the megalithic structures world wide?
Ditto. Evidence of an enemy army. Ensure you've joined the one army of truth.
Have you seen architecture in Japan that looks exactly like stuff you'd see in Europe?
Ditto. Genesis and Enoch both give sufficient detail with differing audiences and purposes.
Who is this parasitic force she refers to in the movie series?
Don't know but don't care. If spirit-only beings are parasitic on spirit-body creations, the physical must have something they want. The battle over the physical is the spiritual battle. We have tools to remove parasites.
What is your thought on hollow earth?
There's some things under there but not contrary to physics and not the exaggeration that ridicules. See Krakatoa by Simon Winchester and the simultaneous rise of terrorists among Islam.
Have you read the hidden hand? The law of one? - I assume these to be manipulated but still contain some truths
Have you read The Invisible Hand by R.C. Sproul after he survived a trainwreck? Hate evil, love good.
Thank you for sharing information
Your mind is open. Reject poisons and digest only what feeds you.
This is Howard Roark's enthalpy, an excellent start. Creativity can literally flow through you. Given good and evil, though, both types of entities can flow through you and, as OP hinted, the Ten Commandments (see sidebar at c/Christianity) guide us how to prevent the latter. We don't open ourselves up to all experience and then allow ourselves to be corrupted by masqueraded evil; that just makes us more victims. Rather, seek the one who is good, the only Creator, before whom no gods but Himself will stand.
I heard that Architect too. That cyclical narrative is about as silly as Millennarian Dispensationalism. The only thing we needed to click was the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. That was so powerful that people who wanted to discount it came up with the idea that it had happened a few times before and they were all failures.
OP rightly rejects much lore. He then embraces at least an equal amount of lore that should also be rejected, and because it is more-hidden it is more difficult to perceive the equality and reject it. If God and Satan exist, don't reject one of Satan's armies by joining another. God only has one army, large and diversely united, and we only need one.
Question everything; question questioning everything. The only way to surrender ego is to trust the Cosmos to be the work of a being who is also capable and trustworthy to guide you (no demiurge, no emergence). If we keep our god limited we can control him, but if we realize he controls Self and Other and reveals good and evil for righteous causes we can yield control, which is all he wanted. Not a thread in a tapestry but a lively fish filtering itself through living water.
For some reason prior to my tenure there, "blogspot" had been an auto-banned word on c/Christianity. Since I have not seen any abuse of that site in all this time, I have exercised my discretion and it is no longer a banned word. Please feel free to repost. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.