Physics stagnated because of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Feynman.
Hi Dregan, I hosted a vote that went 4-1-1 in favor of having a mod team generically, but seeing that there were many more silent people I didn't pursue an up-down vote on any name. After about 10 days, where 6+ names had been submitted here and on Meta, u/Thisisnotanexit indicated that admin was willing to appoint her at a later date if conditions held. This appointment happened about 2 weeks ago. I've proposed that if anyone wants a further vote, anyone is free to host a discussion; the last such discussion had a strong 17-4-1 consensus against TINAE's interpretation of the rules, and she abided by that. But it wouldn't be fitting for me to propose a new vote myself, as my doing so here has raised more questions than votes. Let me know if you want links.
How is it then that Shalmaneser III has two stelae naming contemporary kings of Israel, Omri, Ahab, and Jehu, at exactly the years they reigned in the Bible, indicating that the part of the record saying Solomon reigned about 100 years before them is accurate too? Sincere question.
Interesting but not following this one closely.
Yahweh has access to DNA stuff. He did early prototype tests with like chrubim.. then later the 72 demons of the ars goetia. So you gotta beware about any "chimeras", they are incorrect and not a normal being.
Yes, not only prototypes but also demonstration of prior art. He invented the 72 names as aspects of himself; later on a group of demons (probably not 72, they're not that organized) claimed similar names and claimed continuity with it. Every attribute of Truth gets a counterfeit demon claiming its name.
In science, human chimeras are integrated beings with two different regions containing different DNA. One notable chimera is a woman who has a darker rectangular patch over half her abdomen; well, that's a second DNA region and counts as a "parasitic twin" but is fully integrated with the life of the main human. Perhaps the twin has an immature soul that she carries with her, I don't know; those with better-formed parasitic twins do feel for the twin, who might have head, arms, or legs in Siamese fashion but who can hardly communicate or be independent. That indicates that mixed-species chimeras could exist but would require greater integration of the whole than merely slapping two things together (ask anyone who's surgically implanted an animal's organ, or ask Obama about the BLT mice he paid for, who in one session all died a week after the implantation of purchased organs from human fetuses). Plus, there would need to be one holistic soul, and for most chimeras we think of equal division but that always implies two active souls like Chang and Eng. Perhaps a chimera really could have two souls that work together, or perhaps only the head portion would be a driving soul and the additional soul would be fully happy and subservient; I'm not sure.
I'd love to say all chimeras are "incorrect" and "abnormal" in the sense you imply, but science indicates they are no more abnormal than extant genetic chimeras and conjoined twins.
Meanwhile, egyptian rulers.. "inbred" right. To keep the witchcraft going. Think isis, husband and wife. No. But, noah on the ark, right. So I don't like any of these guys if you think humping your sister is "ok". It is not. And that's why you get "retarded" kids. Plus, if yahweh does Noah.. yahweh is bad too.
Noah was never about inbreeding, all his daughters-in-law were genetically robust; their kids may have married first cousins, which is an acceptable distance. Many mythoi are about inbreeding, like Atlantis, Nineveh, Egypt, Greece, which is too bad. It's so bad that they tried to make the Yahweh story about inbreeding too, by inventing the trick question "Who was Cain's wife?" Well, she was Mrs. Cain, and there are several places she could've come from, and it's a rather voyeurist skeptic who rejects all reasonable theories except his perverted one. So if you're objecting to Yahweh due to either Noah or Cain, it's not merited.
you've got yahweh's job
If you're asking the AI to work for Yahweh, maybe Yahweh is letting the AI be the agent to do his own work ....
Horus (Falcon Head) and Ra (Solar Disc) are Biological Splicing Failures.
Absolutely right. And they weren't the work of Yahweh, but of Osiris and Kek (literally) and associates.
Yahweh used the "Cherubim" and the "72 Demons" of the Ars Goetia as experiments to see if a biological vessel could hold 4th or 5th-density consciousness.
I criticized the "density" explanation elsewhere. The cherubim and 72 demons are not biological vessels but only manifest as such. So we'd argue the Old Serpent (an exalted nachash, namely a seraph) was the first such biomanifestation. In that sense, Helel was the experimenter, and that part of his experiment was successful (he tasted the "densities" of love and wisdom), but the manifestation was fleeting, unsustainable, and ephemeral, and there were other failures.
If the Ark was just a "Genetics Vault" for an inbred reset, the current world is built on a Corrupt Foundation.
Always remember!
Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9).
That's Noah's literal pedigree right there, along with all of chapter 5. That's intended as proof that he and his work were not inbred. There are two hundred flood traditions in the world, and in all of them the Noah character is preserving pure humans and pure animals.
You're also getting the AI to roleplay. Since we all know how dangerous this is I need say nothing more but trust you (and Yahweh) to know what you're doing.
All Christians are one with the Palestinian Christians, who are mourning losses like the lives of Nahida and Samar Anton in 2023, an event that contributes to the ICJ genocide case South Africa v. Israel currently in adjudication. Being one with them, I was tracking the LPJ's evangelism in Gaza before that happened so I'm still looking for more to be revealed about IDF activity in that event.
Funny, nobody who uses "Zionist" as a slur cares to define it.
See, Graph, what I said. "Density" is a word stolen from physics to mean something else, and in this definition it is identical to how others use sefirah and aeon, and in fact persona. It's just an enumerated list of core concepts that have a rough order but are all just feelgood touchstones. "Wisdom" (hochma, sophia) is already a sefirah and an aeon both, for instance. The "octave" (ogdoad, 7/12) concept is also shared among them all.
I could simply declare myself to be a seventh- or higher-"density" being who is busy increasing earth vibes and nobody could gainsay me. I am, you know.
If I pretended that "density" referred to a fullness as opposed to an emptiness, and stated that one could have greater or lesser matter per space, that great lovers are "denser", there'd be some justification, but nobody talks that way. If I substituted mass, for instance, oh, I'm a 6th-mass being in a 3rd-mass earth, you see how ridiculous it sounds. If we said "degree" or "grade" that's how people talk. (Mental note: ridicule Masons by deliberately confusing "degrees" with elementary "grades".) In atoms, which do have seven successive orbits, we might speak of uranium being a 7th-orbit element, because orbits are progressive but densities are discrete measurements. If the paradigm were (insanely) that the progression is so strict that one "density" must become sufficiently fully dense before a person can progress to the next, then you might argue that one leads to another and, oh, I've mastered 5 densities and am getting dense in the 6th. But I'm pretty confident that's not the system. Nobody says it's impossible to have any wisdom until you've mastered all love.
So, thanks for the opportunity for me to rant at yet another abuse of language, probably worse than the abuse of the word "dimension". What they really mean is just kabbalah but they're disguising it by using a vague word "density" that has no real application. A big mark of really bad theology is the inability to use words precisely.
You've also got that self-other failure going in the AI's source: true self-service is rightly called enlightened self-interest and is the same as true other-service. Further, there's the strong vibe of narrative control, namely a responsiveness to Christian revelation by trying to craft a narrative that distract people, when seeing the Christian revelation literally unfold, into thinking something else is happening (self-directed control rather than self-other balanced control).
Last year I looked into a couple Christian mystics. They too love to speak of progressive itineraries of numbered steps. So do name-it claim-it proponents of The Secret. Every time, the enumeration is just something somebody made up in school one day. Every time, Graph. Most such lists can be defended with great rationalization; in that sense they're all perfect and in fact none contradict each other. At the same time, that perfection arises from them all being so vague that little distinction is being made, little teaching is transpiring even though words and knowledge are flowing. So in one sense such lists are "mostly harmless", but in another sense they're just so wasteful that direct statement is more helpful in progressing the individual.
Now, I'll level with you, while typing this I should not neglect my own recent post on dimensions. There are similarities and differences. A big difference is that I'm earnestly synthesizing several subthemes into one theory in the same way that elements have a periodic table, and I noted a few alignments that suggest that further physical and mathematical discoveries might follow an orderly progression; that's scientific speculation and not dogma. A similarity is that I did make use of an implicative passage in Proverbs to supply a few names and concepts, which could be charged as arbitrary. Well, if people get cultic about my idea, contrary to my intent, and become dogmatic that it must be the only core truth because that's how I wrote it, then it would become what I warn against. But when I see something like Ra Material, it's clear that people are just using a comfy narrative to sell stuff and to propagate ideas that make people feel good. And the motive is never, hey, join in the quest for truth and improve what we have (which is scientific method); the motive is always, memorize our slop better than we do, climb faster and higher over others who are doing the same, just for the status that those under you will accord you, until we release next year's slop. Perhaps you post this with some distance, as you often do, and you put it out merely for my rant; I'll give you full credit if that's the case. But to you I would say, don't waste time learning the counterfeits when we have the real accessible anytime, closer than we think because we trained ourselves to ignore it, truer than we can hope because it's greater than all shadows.
They saw him as an extension of God that had existed before the world was made, and who came to earth on a divine mission to bring salvation to humankind.
Like I said, he was divine, I suppose "extension of God" is orthodox enough. You are right that there were quibbles about the details.
And here we could also include the degree to which Jesus was a unique being rather than a model for others to follow.
Again, you're implying more than you say. If Jesus was a model that makes him unique by definition. The quibble is over the type of uniqueness, which you're not defining or defending.
The divine is not located somewhere else. And that includes Jesus himself. The divine is accessible where you are.
The divine is both Self and Other. To say I'm divine in a way Jesus isn't would contradict everything taught by every historical source, except a couple megalomaniacs. The fact that I'm divine logically entails that my model is divine in the same way. Plus, I am one with him. If you get around to stating the specifics you object to about Jesus's uniqueness, that would help.
Of course I could try to help you by guessing. You probably object to the formula "Jesus is God" because, while often usable, it's so simplified that it omits important doctrine that can get imbalanced by the omission. Now it's my belief that any attribute of deity is shared by Yahweh-Jehovah and Yeshua-Jesus, either as the same attribute in unity or as poles of a spectrum in duality. Would you object to that more technical definition? Is there something of the Father that is not of the Son, other than the Father-Son polarities themselves?
Bart Ehrman says, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian." I spoke of Christians.
1 Corinthians 15 is generally taken by scholars as evidence that a fixed oral creedal statement about Jesus's death, burial and resurrection, was "received" and circulating by 35-38 AD. Further, Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, which kept records, and those records were inferably used in compiling the Talmudic passage on the subject, Sanhedrin 43a; so that passage is evidence that documents were written immediately about Jesus's trial and death and were later expanded into the Talmudic form. Further, Pilate's notice was definitely written while Jesus was alive: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." That should probably be upheld as the most straightforward datable written document on the subject, quoted by all four evangelists, citing the original legal inscription.
We do know why Rome crucified Jesus, as Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud agree: as a rebel against Caesar. The accused were executed with a public sign of their crimes, for the illiterate: thieves were crucified with empty moneybags, and rebels with crowns of thorns. The inscription further informed the literate. There's no doubt among the records. But the gospels add a further element of tension, which by its nuance indicates a mark of reliable history: namely that Pilate was afraid to convict Jesus formally (partly fearful for his wife's threats against him) but committed the quasilegal display of washing his hands to abdicate his authority and to devolve it to the crowd's wishes. Pilate technically agreed to the crucifixion by silence; he engaged the positive action of delivering Jesus to the soldiers, who knew what the crowd wanted and knew what Pilate was implying by his silence, namely that it was on them rather than on him.
There is no contemporary narrative where Jesus wasn't crucified. However, Muhammad had a vision 600 years later (since we're talking dates) that Jesus wasn't crucified, and convinced people of that (even though I'm told Islam permits Muslims who believe he was crucified). If one wants to take that approach, one is no longer learning from history but from spirit visions in a cave (almost Plato's) by a guy who took full advantage of lax child-marriage laws. His coalition is not held together by logic and reason but by force and fear. If you're interested in pleasing that group because of some ambiguous promise (such as the one about virgins, or maybe raisins), I would submit it's not the fullest, most rational approach to take, as there's much evidence that it will turn on you. But accepting Jesus for who he says he is, neither more nor less, is what unites you with him and protects you from all threats of all institutions (Rome included). Since you seem to be a truth pursuer, I trust you will see that creating a storyline about Jesus not being crucified is not pursuit of truth but merely upholding yet another narrative created to defend a group of people going their own way: the real pursuit of truth, like Jesus, affirms reality and rejects althist, because truth is greater than group cohesion and is in fact the only source of group cohesion.
Welcome handshake. Do you have a better idea for c/Conspiracies? Did you want to come out in favor of anarchy (nobody else did) or did you want to propose a different consensus moderation solution? The community resists declaring consensus, which is natural.
You're not acting sleepy. I had a good nap earlier and I learned all-nighters in college. Like John Calvin, I'm a psychopannychist (look it up). Yes, I'm in the United States of America, as my last comment implied, but why would you believe an anon?
Add: Looks like Mrs. Mod is putting the kibosh on it now, and she's right to say your username finally checks out. But please feel free to continue asking questions at c/SwampRangers or take your pick of any community you see after clicking my name.
Getting ready for lunch soon?
I could say you must be. You've certainly been up a long time giving me lots of earned media in a forum I'm banned from. I like to post all those to c/SwampRangers, but I'll wait until you get tired of making up new ones.
I post at all hours, and sometimes enjoy late nights with a relatively stable questioner. Click my name to see the state forums I moderate, one of the time zones indicated by those is correct. You can also run my ordinary posting times through a number-cruncher, other people do that.
None of the anons know the owners' real names. They prove their commitment to our privacy by their own privacy. The registered owner or agent or something is Patriots, LLC, a Delaware corporation; there's a named lawyer who takes their mail that some people think important, I forget his name. You could skim or search Meta or help.scored.co for this stuff.
Are you Scott Lively?
No, but he and I are the body of Jesus Christ, like any Christians are. That should be name enough for your purposes.
Most all the places I've been banned, the mods make clear that they will ban my alts on sight too. Since I don't believe in hiding my affiliation as a Swamp Ranger, if I'm banned I rarely test the waters with another account, like u/SwampRangersAlt. It would be rather silly to respond to a post about SwampRangers with a handshake account that sounds like SwampRangers, wouldn't it? She's right, it's hilarious.
And it's clear you don't want to talk about the whole story of your past, but you do want to talk about Conspiracies past without knowing that whole story either. Well, the Rangers call this "earned media" (aka rent-free living).
Since u/RealWildRanter has permabanned me from c/TrueConspiracies (you be the judge), I answer your question here. Thank you for (apparently) using my links to construct your own narrative and post it in a different forum.
You say I "saw an opportunity to gain power". What I saw was an opportunity to share a problem (lack of mod) and contribute as an equal voice to a solution. I didn't theorize about myself as mod until after Neo theorized about himself as mod. I also affirmed everyone whose name was put forward in the discussion, and withdrew my name when it was first objected to.
You take my giving the contrasting history of c/ChristianAnarchism as evidence of "pattern of ... targeting forums without mods". Well, when I see one, I call people's attention to it, in the same way that others do. You can check Meta archives for the many posts about what should be done with an unmodded (or poorly modded) community. But my illustration shows that I'm okay at reading community consensus; that one had a clear consensus, this one didn't, and I said so both times. Reading the community can be done with objectivity. When I decided to take on a large number of community names, I purposed that all communities would be self-determining, where a consensus contrary to my view would be honored. You can see this pattern in my welcome posts and anytime there is critical mass to have a community question. So my actual established pattern is to advocate neutrally for resolution for communities when an admin solution is needed. The word "targeting" is not usually used for a practice of merely asking questions about community goals.
Neo accused me at the time, after giving me unqualified support in the above link. You follow Neo's characterizations uncritically. See if Neo's complaints align at all with his earlier endorsement of me, from that link:
You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even.
It doesn't sound too off to say u/Thisisnotanexit "wanted the community, not admins, to vote on a mod, but gladly accepted to forgo a community decision and accept mod appointment". Nor is it an issue, given how community decisions were attempted. The fact is (I assumed you were watching at the time and not absent as you count yourself a regular), I first asked the binary of should we have a mod team and got that 4-1 result that was not strong, then I asked the binary of whether we should have a single mod as opposed to a plurality and got such little response that there was no real conclusion. That was after TINAE had admin support, and I didn't want to make a binary question about her so posted a simpler question. The fact that the community couldn't even agree on how to proceed led me to abandon any other questions about moderation and I let things take their course. As TINAE discussed rules in the hopes of being appointed mod, there was some approval of her discussion and a little trolling from those now deported, but there was never a point at which the community either found a consensus to favor admin selecting a mod (it could only come from admin) or found a consensus to do anything else. So eventually admin acted. I've said, anyone could post a new vote today, even a recall vote; but presumably a recall would involve an alternate solution, and nobody's proposed one.
You refer to an accountable church with a standard confession of faith as a cult. I'd appreciate knowing your standard of judgment. I suppose the Nicene Creed, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Apologetics Group Essentials aren't enough to prove to you that one is not in a cult (https://www.scottlively.net/first-century-bible-college)?
So, it's not as simple as Neo makes out, and I answered him in place when he complained. He asked for a roundtable subject once a mod had left, and I (considerately) proposed a roundtable subject and spoke about the mod leaving. He proposed that he could do mod work and I proposed that he could or I could. He endorsed me (as above) and so I went to Meta, continuing to promote him as well and all other names that entered. He turned on me, and I withdrew my name. If someone knows something I, or the forum, could've done better, I listen.
Hang in there! Keep the faith!
Makes me wonder, again, how they became mod in the first place.
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0RBc7L/x/c/4eaTFjTz9dR
I mean thats likely the most logical sense, pruning posts to make the site a little more mainstream friendly.
There was a queue a year long, I don't think she finished it yet. That should explain the deletions sufficiently. She doesn't prune everything that was reported. Logs are public and I stand by to answer specific questions about what's public.
Are priests, pastors and ministers not the counterfeits?
Some of them.
The only way to God is through the written word of man through the bible, or the spoken word of another fellow Man?
Never said that. Both those are tested by the same spirit that also receives external revelation.
The Apocrypha has passages of the earth being described as flat
Haven't heard that, I've only heard it from the Mathews translation of the protocanon. But flat earth doesn't help us much with aliens. I'm not a flat earther but my alt is, so I'd be happy to entertain any testable math about earth or space.
The church is in all of us with our private connection to the creator. After all we are supposed to pray in private. If God is all loving, and Jesus teaches us to forgive, why is Idolatry forbidden?
Um, idolatry is giving God's due to someone else, it's self-destructive because it distorts the view of both God and the replacement. God is so loving that he leaves us the free choice to reject him despite its self-destructiveness due to its irrationality.
Wrath is a Sin unless it comes from God. Envy is a Sin unless it comes from God.
That's because those words are used for both good and evil uses of the functions, like many amoral things.
Which God did Buddha meet? The God that created humans, or the God that created life itself?
The creator of Man, or the creator of the Universe and all life?
You can't create humans without being the one who created life. They are one. If Buddha didn't reject the gift of salvation from illusion (I don't have evidence that he did), he met that one creator.
You mean Arch Angels? or do you mean The Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophanim?
Those are all categories of angels of the Creator; there are nine or ten accepted categories: Seraph, Cherub, Throne, Dominion, Virtue, Power, Principality, Archangel, Angel, Guardian (the last two may be joined). Ophanim are likely to be one of the above taking on an inanimate but eyed appearance; possibly just "Thrones" because they are appurtenances of the Throne. It's also possible Ophanim are not strictly angels but divine energies.
sources please.
Alien Encounters by Missler and Eastman, which cites a couple others, like Vallee; a similar pattern with NDEs is observed by Moody, Life After Life, and Burke, Imagine Heaven. Search will turn up more I've forgotten.
I don't understand "collective memory of exorcism ritual preserves keys to ETs." Explain.
Humans have stored the answer to how to interact with ETs in societal narratives that serve as collective memory, a key one of which is exorcism and its rituals and regulations. Exorcism focuses on the protective side rather than the exploratory side, such as kabbalists use.
I don't think you can have just one predestination if everyone has freewill.
We talked about that last week. Freewill is limited so I can't perfectly predestine a whole universe, but I can predestine a sufficient segment of this universe. The Creator has unlimited freewill and thereby predestines the whole universe in such way that we all get sufficient limited freewill within the unlimited freewill.
Excellent analysis. Readers will remember that SARS 1 was pretty deadly, like MERS, but SARS 2 was just what Ron Paul rightly dismissed ca. 2021-03 as "a flu virus". At the same time with a quick WP check I separately ascertained that SARS 2 behaved exactly like four other known coronaviruses that circulate freely among billions of people and produced only flulike symptoms. I was still very concerned but gradually realized that it was indeed just a flu virus (if even that). Very helpful was Moses's recommendation that if one is sick one should cover the lower half of one's face. Not if one is healthy.
Prove exactly how many people it took to qualify sufficient consensus. Looks like it was just your cult.
The proof is that admin acted on this result as being the consensus of those willing to speak. You certainly didn't vote on this question, even though you still could (there's no deadine for voting). You certainly didn't propose or build any other consensus.
Prove it.
That one is in response to my statement of presumption. I could just say I am a sufficient witness for the statement that I presumed something, regardless of whether my presumption is true. However, what you probably intend is to know how u/Thisisnotanexit was selected. I can only appeal to her public statements and what answers she may be willing to give to direct questions. Here are the details of how it happened:
2025-10-31 Neo1 asks the community for roundtable subjects, noting the lack of Axolotl as mod, and I propose a subject and note the lack of mods for the past 8 months.
2025-11-02 Prompted by Neo's encouragement, I naturally ask Meta for advice, and point out that he and I could volunteer as caretaker mod names until a mod is more straightforwardly elected. TINAE, Graph, and JG5 [Add: and Malta] are also proposed as candidates.
2025-11-03 TINAE makes her own community question on the subject. I took the trouble to verify that the comment I link there from 2025-11-04 is her first mention of contacting admin.
2025-11-05 TINAE compiles a megathread of open threads and emphasizes her desire to stand as mod. On 2025-11-06 she indicates therein she received a generic admin response about investigating what to do with the forum. She continues to update about admin responses about generic questions.
2025-11-08 JG5 posts one of many Nazi threads. On 2025-11-09 TINAE states for the first time that admin has tentatively approved her as mod.
So I was right to remember 1-2 weeks, it was actually 10 days of thorough discussion.
That means she was pre selected without community approval.
Nope. The links show only a small subset of the community's discussion. How could we have gotten community approval to do anything if not by a consensus-seeking post (e.g. a vote)?
Prove where her direction was validated by the community.
She indicated how she would interpret rules, remove death threats, ban the persistent ephebophile, shut down disrespect and attacks, etc. There were individual pushbacks, of course, but there was never any post soliciting community consensus that she should not be mod as admin hinted. When a small group of active people have a consistent consensus and the larger group declines to form consensus, their silence and inaction is taken in all societal paradigms as limited consent. If they cared they would have broken their silence and formed a different group opinion. As I pointed out separately, as soon as she laid down a strict interpretation of "disrespect" a consensus of about 17 contributors arose rapidly, against which I was in the minority; but I reported that too. Those 17 were willing to oppose her rapidly en masse on a matter of interpretation, but not willing to oppose her standing as mod at any time. That's how consensus is objectively gauged.
Her original direction sucked and she had to change it cuz everyone threw a fit. She failed.
That's actually the leadership mark of successful adjustment to community requests. Imagine if she had stuck to her original direction in spite of community requests! How much more you would have complained!
others that Paleo told her to
I recall the regulars here telling her to ban those, not Paleo, but I'm not going to get the links for you.
Immediately after she changed course and those who were banned wouldn't have been with the direction she went.
No, her change was about not treating every disrespectful usage as a violation of the respect rule, and that change wouldn't have helped save any of the banned accounts, which the logs show were all banned for "constant disruption" (trolling). If you'd like the specific objective differences between the two those are clear in the logs.
She was the plant that you and Paleo can control. She's only a figurehead and you and Paleo are running the show behind the scenes.
This is Conspiracies so it wouldn't matter to you that I deny it (which I do). I rely instead on what I've already said being sufficient. I've said I met her here 5 years ago and we have similarity of thought in Christianity, with some different focuses. I suspect Paleo is a Christian but I don't recall him saying so. Now, since we proclaim Jesus will take over the world you can put that on a takeover conspiracy, but then you'd have to say Jesus was the bad guy, which BTW has never succeeded. If Jesus shouldn't take over the world, he's waiting to hear your reason; perhaps you could take it over better than he could and he patiently waits for you to try (so that you can give up on yourself and trust him to do it better than you). I said I'd be happy to answer specific questions about private messaging, which is very slight. But there's nothing behind the scenes, because everything Jesus said was to be made public, and we add nothing to it.
(Just for gedankenexperiment, how could one respond to a charge like this conclusively? If one found private messages or real-life connection, that would be a smoking gun; but in the absence of any, there is no end to the search and the accusation. Denial wouldn't help, sarcastic affirmation wouldn't help; I could produce all DMs and that wouldn't necessarily be trusted; a theory could always be proposed that I control everything secretly because such is unfalsifiable. It seems that the only way to be conclusive is to appeal to the accuser for terms of peace, namely what would constitute successful proof. If a person is continuously accusatory, one could ignore him; if a person is defamatory, one could, I suppose, fight back, but I limit that option to the most extreme cases of defamation, and have used it once here in 5 years. So my primary path is to seek to sincerely answer your questions until they reach a point of either satisfying you or embarrassing you.)
Tell us your real name if you want to be transparent.
That's a beautiful illogic from the person who can't even tell us his prior account (fake) names. I've said from the start that I volunteer for Scott Lively and am accountable to the SwampRangers.org entity, which is more than most anons. If you need a first name and last name, put Jesus Christ, because I identify as his body and it's all on his tab. There may soon be a time I deanonymize here, as I've said, but it's not likely to be on a dare from a handshake.
Good start on analysis. First note that people don't use the word "dimension" rightly: here are the known dimensions and, to be technical, both we and the aliens are in all 10-12 core dimensions at once, in the same ways. We manipulate the higher dimensions in similar ways as they do.
It is quite apparent that many of the alien visitors have the ability to travel outside our concept of time, and manipulate and fold space to their liking. In fact, many of the upper density folks can manipulate time, mass, energy and consciousness (mass, energy and consciousness being functionally related) any way they wish.
I cannot accept this on the evidence. They experience time's arrow as we do, and we can manipulate perpendicular temporal dimensions as they do. I don't believe the phenomenon envisioned is space-folding as that would be testable with telescopic evidence. I don't believe "upper density" is the proper term either because if it literally refers to denseness in a dimension higher than the fourth then we experience that too (whenever we feel distant from ourselves). And I certainly wouldn't give ET credit for total freewill manipulation of spacetime above our own ability; those who live longer have more experience, yes, but time and mass and energy follow simple math, and consciousness is manipulable by ordinary humans so much so that ET manipulation of consciousness might well give the appearance of being totally conformed to their will when the reality is just the same stagecraft as humans use. What is clear is that ETs are exceptionally interested in learning about the physical realm, and in particular in reverse-engineering our DNA; and their total ignorance and clumsy experimentation with that quest reveals their actual incompetences.
We know, absolutely, that all these factors have a part to play in it
I'm not confident that specifying the means or source of the travel is a significant point. Much more important is that one or more races of ETs are unaccountably fixated on our solar system. I believe that a major hub for this activity is Sagittarius A* but what's important is their appearance here following certain predictable paths and arcs, rather than their hangouts when not appearing here.
One interesting revelation that has come to light recently is that the race known as the Greys have apparently several kinds of species, either by virtue of genetic breeding or cloning. We have learned of another factor which further serves to complicate the problem of sorting it out - some of the species of that race come from different time-tacks. The group known loosely as the Zeta Reticulans, the ones with the big wrap-around eyes, have a point of origin in our physical future. Here I am referring to the Essessani, which have arrived 300 years in our linear future, telling us that are the product of the cross-breeding between the Zeta Reticulans and Homo Sapiens.
I don't know the details yet. Accepting arguendo that there are multiple sentient species or races of ETs, that would imply that each species has a phenotypical encoding just as Linnean species do in DNA. Since ET "bodies" have the oft-witnessed characteristic of appearing either as mass or as energy, with free transfer between (comparable to human testimonies of dematerialization or translation), we would speculate that the mass is DNA-based and the energy is also code-structured in the same way data is transmitted by light. So I wouldn't have a problem with different ETs having different energy code structures, which would manifest as different species. But I wouldn't take their word for it as to their links to other times, because those can be tested scientifically just like human claims of time travel (which have always [checks watch] been proven false by inaccurate reports since official disclosure on time travel hasn't completed yet).
What we do know is that there are no missing links, there are only complete quantum phenotypes without transitions between. (ETs will certainly have subspecies with different appearances arising from the same phenotype, just as not all dogs look alike.) For that reason you can't be a hybrid between H. sapiens and a different DNA barcode. You could be a chimera of both but then you'd have two DNA prototypes within you, which is very hard to do and usually fails when done by ETs. Now I propose that the electronic code could engage a quantum leap from one phenotype to another, which is the shape-shifting attributed often to reptilians, but in that idea the reptilian form would be a reptilian appearance and no human, and the human form would be a human appearance and no reptilian, and the ET would not be a hybrid but an energy form with a natural phenotype and an adaptive phenotype. I would be inclined to treat the ET according to the natural species rather than the adaptive because the natural is the one the ET came into being as.
The following is a list of the potential reasons that alien entities may visit our planet:
Sounds good, except for crossbreeding, which here refers to an imaginative renarration by Darwin of something never observed. You can only crossbreed between identical code phenotypes; to change phenotypes you need a chimera or an adaptation, as stated. Nothing is halfway between dog and cat, with all characteristics partway between the two types; you can only have a chimera, like a half-cat half-dog, with any local characteristic being either all cat or all dog. However, ETs are interested in hijacking Darwinism to get us to think that things that don't exist do exist, because the confusion helps them. But their real work is in intrahuman breeding, chimerization, and shapeshifting, and so to call it "crossbreeding" is misleading. No narratives show that they can crossbreed cats with dogs, or anything similar.
There are only two general categories, holistically, why interaction takes place:
And the synthesis is that these two harmonize. Just as service to others "takes care of" service to self, the reverse is also true as to enlightened self-interest. Selfishness is not service to self.
OP has requested I not ping him so this is my response to him.
a user, by the name of SwampRangers, runs by using many other alt accounts
I only use c/SwampRangersAlt, and that not for a long time. For a bit for one person I used c/Ranger164, which was also transparent. He appears to mean meatpuppets, but there is no proof there, since we all have separate histories and differences of opinion.
But in short, they overtake groups to control the narrative, and since his pawn became a mod in here - this place is 100% lost.
OP knows that I proposed there being a mod in response to his own post calling for roundtables and that he initially supported me wildly in that proposal. I went to Meta at his encouragement. There is no group here that I've "overtaken". I was graciously given modship of Christianity, I selected a few other names via landrush, I had a couple friendly agreements to share modship on a few names.
I suppose if you count two separate incidents, once 5 years ago when I privately asked admin about the goals of c/Christianity and they responded by proposing me for modship, and once here when admin observed the lack of mod on a strongly populated forum and proposed TINAE privately, you might say that admin has twice given an admin-controlled forum to a strong Christian. Seeing how many admin-controlled forums they've given to people of all affiliations, those two don't seem outliers.
I admit that I, like any other contributor is free to, use my leisure to contextualize narratives I think need it. I was initially inspired by Win claiming to be an elite research forum and decided to provide backup when research needed such context. Many others do much the same with their own context, in quite diverse directions, and often with more diligence than me. I don't see that I'm "controlling" anything by that any more than anyone else is.
The statement about a pawn is just disrespectful IMHO. I had nothing to do with you, TINAE, throwing your hat in the ring or being accepted by admin. I am willing to hear any proposal on how things could be done better going forward, but people aren't providing them.
Most of the rest of OP speaks for itself and I'm not thinking of much to add. The interplay between OP being a pursuer of truth and slamming fellow pursuers of truth as being shills for something is amazing. OP apparently judged, shortly after calling me a humble and well-balanced mod candidate, that my opening a free-speech forum for anyone to give any view about satan is somehow a mark of my own evil rather than an opening of a halfway house for those tempted by spiritism; or that my joining an oath-based organization is automatically sinful without any reference to nuanced Christian debate on the subject; or that my making my affiliation public in every way possible is somehow a signal of some hidden plot other than promotion of Jesus Christ alone. I'll give John the last word:
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
This comment from u/SwampRangers is admitting to a takeover of the c/Conspiracies forum by the Swamp Cult.
There is no cult. There is a regularly constituted cell of Jesus's body, submitted to First Century Bible Church and local elders, as publicly declared in 2021. It turns out that admin decided one of the cell members, who also was solid with Conspiracies before the cell was founded, could be mod. The fact that a few of us found we had some alignments 5 years ago and have retained those means that we might look at certain communities the same way. Since it's Conspiracies, I'm happy to answer any questions you'd like about private comms (of which there are very few) or about offline contact among accounts (none at all except that my wife also has an account at Scored, but doesn't use Conspiracies). If you have some proposal about how something could be better handled than it was, that would be worth hearing; but it looks to me like the right accounts were banned, namely two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden.
Both u/Graphenium and [no ping per user request] Neo1 did not want u/Thisisnotanexit to be mod of the forum.
I don't recall Graph saying he didn't want TINAE; he said this wasn't a significant community participation, and I agree. Neo was originally willing to support me and I believe TINAE for mod, but rapidly withdrew that initial stance based on his view of my whole account. So the first is without evidence, the second is an incomplete story of a shifting opinion.
It's a group effort to target the forum and create an illusion of a community consensus by only considering members of the Swamp Cult as the community.
And, as I said, it failed to indicate significant consensus, partly because people who desired neither to support my proposal nor to strongly reject it said nothing and were the silent majority, as the analysis said. Note that at c/ChristianAnarchism I did the same poll and got a clear consensus that everyone favored having no mod, and they thrive on that paradigm to this day. But at Conspiracies we're much more skeptical, and it's understandable that consensus processes don't arise and admin stoking is needed.
There are more that didn't want moderation and ones who didn't want u/Thisisnotanexit than did.
You might not have noticed that I did a similar analysis where there was a very strong consensus that TINAE's interpretation was not the community's, and she accepted this. However, there's no evidence that a majority were so opposed to moderation that they spoke up about it when asked or at any other time, and no evidence that a majority (excluding two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden) rejected TINAE personally. Anyone could post a recall vote thread at any time if there was such a consensus.
They swooped in, raised the call for moderation through lies, and got one of their own in power.
The events were transparent at every point. I was an occasional Conspiracies contributor and noticed that Neo had made a mod request I agreed with and that there was no mod, so I thought it natural to bring the issue to Meta. You can look at those two threads (I can link them if you need) and let me know what lie you detect. Again, if you object to the current state of affairs, I believe this mod is also transparent enough to host a full discussion of her qualifications; but such a discussion would need to have some other doable proposal in mind, and right now I'm not thinking of any.
It was never u/SwampRangers position to rig a passing vote for getting a mod, especially when it's one of his lackeys.
Anyone can start a community question of any kind at any time. The current documentary and roundtable threads indicate that the community is adverse to traditional voting in the first place, which is unhelpful but can be accommodated if we're good at listening to each other in other ways. Others proposed similar vote and analysis threads. I encouraged people to vote formally if they expressed strong opinions elsewhere, including those against mine. If you wish to call it "rigging" because I take the initiative as an equal contributor to post a binary question and to analyze the results, and because (against my intent) the majority of contributors ignore the vote, as I duly report, you're free to use words irregularly. Obviously this vote, and all such discussions, didn't put the question forward as to whether TINAE should or shouldn't be mod, so your last clause is illogical.
u/Slechta5614 admitted that there's a plan by the Swamp Cult to take over the site.
No such thing. Slechta was a regular here, who first advised me of the existence of c/Christianity while admins were the only active mods there. He has many broad sweeping visions for what God is doing by Christian action, and there is no takeover other than the fact that Jesus is taking over the entire world. If you wish to discuss that plan, it's the most transparent administration of all I've discussed. You can say anything against Jesus and be answered and the question can be decided by agreement between people seeking the truth. If you think that the admins, who have indicated public support of Christianity, should do something other than they're doing, say what. But I don't think you'll get them to do something other than their consciences indicate, and if they're Christians you won't get them to back down from Jesus's plan to take over the world and turn it upside down.
Now this is still Scored and every contribution is its own vote. And your statement is +1 for yourself and -3 for all others (I didn't vote on it). And you have three negative replies now. It's possible that this suggests your method of approach is mistaken, completely apart from the mistaken facts that I correct above.
Also, Neo (who doesn't want me to ping him) neglects to point out that anyone who clicks my name can see I claimed the forum names of satan and satanism (to prevent anyone else from abusing them when the landrush occurred), and anyone who clicks forward once more can see that they only generated one or two posts in four years (people tell me that qualifies as a "dead" forum).
Y'know, I kinda like it, getting charged with running totally dead forums, and also getting charged with running totally live forums, when they're the same forums. It's not only free advertising, it also shows up just how idiotic my accusers are.
I am not a Zionist by any ordinary definition of the word (you may well have an extraordinary definition you care to put forward for this duckspeak term). I do, of course, believe that every nation has an equal right to self-determination.
A movement that began as Jewish resistance to Rome
You seem to think of the Zealots, not the Christians.
A message about inner transformation
You seem to think that people turning to God the Father isn't about inner transformation. I didn't say "according to hierarchy", I implied only God the Father can judge.
The Ebianites who believed Jesus was a human prophet, not divine ... were declared heretics
Yeah. Christianity was all about Jesus being divine, they just didn't have a chance to produce an analytical formulation of it all at one time for 300 years. According to the gnostics, Jesus was divine too, and showed us the way to be partakers of divinity (as Peter says). If our goal is to be divine, of course Jesus also was divine in some sense. The student doesn't surpass the teacher, it suffices that the student be like the teacher. That just leaves us to understand what it meant for him to partake of the Spirit beyond measure.
If you read the Quran carefully, you'll see every slight influence. Jesus is revered as a prophet. He's not divine. He didn't die on a cross.
All Christians agreed Jesus died on a cross, as do all historians based on the hostile testimonies to that fact. Muhammad retconned a Jesus who didn't die on the cross, which I doubt the Ebionites ever concieved. He couldn't bear that Jesus was a good guy but that he came to die, so he invented some ahistorical narrative that was good enough Arabic that forced recitation of it carried it through the Dark Ages and across the continent. If you want the original Jesus, you look at all the historical facts, and you don't seize upon a minority report just for being the minority; you weigh everything and infer the best explanation, the one that fits all the facts.
There is a prophet Muhammad who is promising religious tolerance for all.
Not what Muhammad did.
one idea which is to bring God to earth and make everyone understand that God is the true God.
If that were Islam, it wouldn't be objectionable. That's why I said to a different account, I don't think Islam means what you think it means.
we still don't have a clear answer.
You can get any clear answer to any question you ask on the subject. I know because I did. First, don't add things: the term "separate but equal" is not theological but comes from Jefferson. Then, go to the text: Jesus says he and the Father are two witnesses; John says the Spirit is a witness; and Moses says the testimony of three witnesses is one. That's all you need. If you recognize other paradoxes, you will recognize the most central paradox that unity always contains duality and duality always contains unity. You are one and you have many faculties and you see no paradox in this.
But instead you change paradox to contradiction. To say God is unity in one sense and diversity in a different sense is paradox, a good thing that teaches us nuance. To say God is nothing and everything in the same sense is contradiction, a conversation stopper that nobody proposes seriously. Your implication that the one leads to the other is illogical. We can criticize hierarchy and empire just fine without charging them with teaching contradiction when they don't.
Oh, this one's a keeper IMHO. First, I recently documented that the McDonald family was regarded by a "tracker of names" as one of the 17 families running the world. Second, something OP hasn't said yet is that McDonald's stole IP from H. R. Pufnstuf to create these characters and was fined a million dollars. Third, I like where IP is going with how creepy the original and revised characters are (I never liked Grimace as a kid). Fourth, compare Mac Tonight. Fifth, there are an incredible number of oddities in the McDonald's legal career (one of my favorites, a bit off track, is that they claim IP over "Mc" everything, and usually win except they have so far chosen never to take on the Cayman Islands restaurant founded by one James MacDonald and so there are no (Kroc) McDonald's in the Caymans; note this is a bit different from the urban legend version).
Disclosure: I once worked at McDonald's.