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.

My main account got banned years ago because a mod thought my username was antisemitic, but it had nothing to do with Jews.

Mods can't ban sitewide, only forumwide. If you've been here that long, you do realize that you can contribute to a thousand fora at scored.co with the same account, unless an admin bans you? And that I've never seen an admin ban that wasn't justified by publicly available data?

If you were banned years ago but returned here 2 months ago, you were either silent very long, or you had another account as well. Funny you don't wish to be transparent about either period, while you hold that people should have been able to approve your appeal via a simple dictionary lookup. So, while I believe your story, it also gives evidence of missing significant pieces.

Your complaints about the past sound to me like they arise from a sense of justice that hasn't fully confronted the duties of managing a free-speech site, and assumes there is a clear "never" about "those types" that others should validate as rapidly as you do.

C has always been quiet since he decided not to post constant tech updates. The admins' answers have always been the same, that there are no ownership changes, that the site continues on its original plan. I made my personal plans public here from the start, and they haven't changed significantly either, the site still accomplishes my original stated purposes. And one of the great things about it is meeting self-professed trolls like you!

u/Paleo isn't admitting any prejudice. As usual, he writes for those with reading comprehension skills. "This 'vote'" page was about a desire for a mod, not about the identity of the mod. There were maybe five candidates who proposed they could be mod, on several different pages, and it's clear the admins and Paleo based their decision on those several pages, where the vocal among the community expressed their views (and those who opted not to express their views had fair warning). The decision appears to have been made after a week or two of my and others' raising the point, but they didn't implement it for months, presumably to gauge people's reaction to u/Thisisnotanexit indicating direction.

Paleo is not a Swamp Ranger to my knowledge; he was well established here long before the Rangers were publicly announced (by Scott Lively, late 2020). Now I've said repeatedly that, when Neo1 (who doesn't want my pings) expressed a desire for a return to moderated activity, I affirmed him and pointed out here and on Meta that it seemed incongruous to have no active mod. I didn't press any agenda, I proposed a couple community questions like this one, as did others. There was sufficient consensus that moderation was preferable but insufficient consensus on who or how many it should be; so admin stepped in by having TINAE state a direction and waited to see that direction validated by the community. You could've stepped in anytime, maybe you did, and could've done anything I did, in your own idiom; it happened the way it did because of group dynamics.

(This being Conspiracies, I don't mind at all being told I conspired with others as if secretly to get things to happen. But it's not like anyone at any point had any better idea that the community was behind. They picked a good mod, she'd certainly be willing to yield some or all decisions to someone who could be a better mod, if one arose from the field.)

Paleo, to my knowledge, is a mod of 20+ communities that is trusted by admin to assist with and/or process sitewide concerns. His account has never identified as an admin account. It's been publicly stated that there are five part owners and that it's not important who; if you've been following the admin accounts, they indicate clearly their relative roles on behalf of those owners, and their closeness with ownership. TINAE stated publicly, 2 months ago, that admin had chosen her tentatively as mod, and Paleo has every right to be a channel for admin comms, including making his usual wise ban recommendations.

Now, please feel free to lay into me for speaking up on behalf of other anons that I know only by reputation. I am happy to explain things I know about, even in so much detail as to repel people. I will continue to believe that transparency is the best antidote to charges of conspiracy.

paradox

Pardon me, I meant contradiction, I have nothing against Thomas 7 because it's similar to the paradoxes Jesus taught in the gospels.

This may be an exaggeration on your part.

No, I included all generations of the first century, which would get us several million, and I take Josephus's number of a million dead in the war along with another million or two for rabbinical Jews (not just the Alexandrians), and messianic Jews peaked at a million late in the century (I'll need to dig up that cite) so they can be attributed another million over time too. But I'll grant sometimes I frame my narrative numbers a little fast for those who wish to check the math skeptically.

Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a monotheist, a Muslim.

Oh, that's a rich apologetic you've been listening to. I'll try not to be too sarcastic here, but your speed in tacking from gnostics to Muslims is not something I've witnessed before. Anyway, if Abraham was a Muslim because he was a man of "peace", he was certainly a Jew as a man of "praise" and certainly a Christian as a man of "anointing". If he wasn't one of the above, he wasn't any. They're all monotheists. Also, Abraham preserved Hebrew Scriptures (Gen. 1-11) and added to them.

If you want me to be a Muslim now because I believe "in God as the only true God", I won't argue about belief. I will, however, point out that I know what other Muslims would likely say about my profession and I'm not confident they will happily take yours either. They'll be happy to take your jizya but they won't be happy if you raise a question of conscience about it nor if you ask too many questions about the differing schools about the nature of tawhid. So I don't think "Muslim" means what you think it means.

Technically J6. The Swamp Rangers organized on 2021-01-01.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll keep repeating this: everything's running smoothly and with the increased interest levels we wanted, and all we needed was to get rid of two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden.

Note, it's an obsession with Bohr (and then Feynman) and it goes against everything Einstein stood for doggedly all his life. His last challenge, the EPR paradox, still confronts Bohr bots today. Did you see that Kenneth Branagh wanted to portray Bohr himself, the "Great Dane", in Oppenheimer? Everything is made of Bohr atoms? That's the cult level we're talking here. The movie even had to ridicule Heisenberg even though he was the real spiritist who got the model going for Bohr; typical abandonment by the movement of its early founders.

I have posted on this conspiracy previously. It was first funded by Ludwig Mond. Look into it.

This is the kind of logical paradox that has caused theological debates for 2,000 years, and we still don't have a clear answer.

If we took a little effort to compare it to the paradoxes of what gnostics actually taught, your head would be spinning so fast you'd beg for the simplicity of diverse unity.

I accept that the church (I) must back out some significant language that we've encrusted onto the Scripture. I've done that. If you want to say Jesus never said he was God and is never called "Creator in the flesh", fine. That doesn't change who he is and who he said he is, which can be stated without any such language. I believe I linked you my article written as a concession to antitrinitarians, but I don't recall you commenting.

Do you believe the maxim of the law that the testimony of two or three is one? Because the Jews all knew this, and knew the concept of corporate unity, and their problem was not with those points. Millions of Jews accepted the Christian revelation in the first century, and millions of Jews rejected it on the grounds of fear that Jesus's apostles would upend their comfy synagogue lifestyles of sin. Jesus was not tried as an idolator but as a rabblerouser ("inciter").

The Holy Trinity is the weirdest idea in human history.

Coming from a gnostic who believes that a Monad emanated fifteen male-female dyads, the last female of which birthed an evil demiurge without marital support but also without sin, that's projection. I told you that idea was Egyptian and literally comes from Kek, but you continue to take it seriously.

All you need to do is admit that the Monad is incomprehensible as a pure monism and recognize that the point of the first emanation, Logos, is to reveal something equal in every way to the Monad except where they are poles on one spectrum. If you accept that much, you believe in unity and diversity as well as, or better than, many trinitarians who don't know what they believe.

Did you want a submission statement for this 5-hour video? Thanks.

(Vast interconnectedness of all things bump.)

Mental note: I should start by compiling my slight published research on BLT mice into a fresh post and link it from here.

BLT mice were loaded with the bonemarrow, livers, and thymuses of aborted babies in the Obama admin (research ended by Trump).

BLT mice were absolutely part of the gain-of-function research on how injections would modify human DNA.

We should also link all significant 1/30 Epstein clues on earlier planning by the cabal.

There were significant foreknowledge hints (not just the Event) before a new Chinese virus was announced. Israel knew.

Today we were discussing 500 million as calculated by the Guidestones. The Deluge taught the cabal they couldn't go too high.

The ultimate purpose is counterfeit afterlife control, based on the false hope of present "control" via genocidal manipulation.

When this motive is overlaid, the connection to extraterrestrials is obvious. They offer the counterfeits.

(I exclude angels of the actual Creator, discernible by their humbly acknowledging Him. The rest I speak only of the fakes.)

No fake can be greater than the real, so everything offered by ET is nothing that humans don't already have.

ETs are found in every culture but evidence shows they know where national boundaries exist despite their being invisible.

Evidence also shows there is exactly one group unaffected by ETs, core Christians. Ufologists of several backgrounds agree.

Collective memory of exorcism ritual preserves keys to ETs. If they reject the name of Jesus in your language, they're evil.

Some claim vibing with "Jesus". If they can't vibe with what Jesus's body is doing their every alternative proposal is phony.

Jesus was both ET and fully human. Better than the Nephilim, because they are the counterfeit of what God revealed about Jesus.

Jesus changes individual trajectories indeed, though the course of humanity is laid out (predestination and freewill both exist).

The person meeting ET with anything other than trusting the Creator revealed by Jesus is ripe for destruction. Documented.

(1) The link shows that the real, original "star of Remphan" was the 8th-century BC "star of Chiun" (which is a pun BTW) and the most likely referent for that was the bronze Nehushtan serpent/seraph. It's possible that Solomon in his other idolatries edged Nehushtan toward its later idolatrous status, but that's quite a bit different from the legends around the star-being that, much later, associated it with hexagrams. (2) The hexagram, not seen in Israel until about 300 AD, was not associated with 666 until very recently; 666 most likely refers first to Caesar Nero and then to the Roman beast system. (3) The idea that Solomon had supernatural help in building the temple is present in the Bible and in tradition, but this would only be under Yahweh's control because it is unmistakable that the temple was designed to have no infiltration from spirits contrary to Yahweh. Solomon, for instance, calls on Sophia under the name of Hochma, but this is not the much later gnostic Sophia but only the wisdom of Yahweh as personified. (4) Solomon would have had a signet ring (perhaps passed down to Jehoiachin as the prophets suggest), but the association of this ring with the hexagram or a particular seal is much later in Arabic tradition. (5) Solomon would presumably have known about the 72 names taken to be encoded in Exodus at the Red Sea crossing; these were also taken as names of attributes of God, and only later associated with independent or malevolent spirits.

So these strands have become tied together in modern narrative, but the original case would've been quite a bit different. Without judging Solomon's character as good or bad in the whole, what would I conclude? Solomon may have promoted Nehushtan and permitted it to be associated with the name of Chiun and of Rephaim; he may have been associated with patterns of sixes (speculative), and the Holiest was certainly a golden cube; he called on Hochma and on supernatural assistance in building the temple, and may have known the 72 names regarded as spiritual conduits of such assistance; and he had a signet ring that may have taken on divine energy. Obviously he is known to have bowed down in syncretistic houses of worship constructed for idolatrous names, which is regarded as idolatry and a conflict of character taken from our distant perspective. The historical data don't give us the right to make dogmatic insistences or judgments on much more than that.

You affirm the Almighty Creator of the Garden of Eden. How can one find him without reliance upon the record kept by the covenant people of his Being?

What exactly is your Jesus agenda? The Church’s goal is to convert people to Jesus, is this what you mean? is this your agenda?

If there's an agenda, Jesus the person is it. When I interact with people, I have one goal, Jesus's goal. The word "convert" should simply mean "turn", and people being turned to God the Father is a good thing, although if you think it means turning to something else it would be a bad thing. When you say "On the contrary I would say I'm committed to seek the truth wherever it may lead", you're turned to God the Father.

If your pursuit of truth leads you to Islam, your keen grasp of issues will reveal to you the issues with Islam too, just as their are issues in the practice of (rabbinical) Judaism and Christianity. However, the original covenant, which came to be called both (messianic) Judaism and Christianity, is one, and the people are one, and this includes people outside the known covenant if they still accept its terms in their own culture (e.g. Muslims having visions of Jesus). So, just for accuracy, I'll briefly note there are answers to the issues you see in the covenant.

"Hard to pick out a definite message from the Bible": Not the experience of people who read it in pursuit of truth. The message of the Hebrew Bible is the identity of God, whose name is Lovingkindness. "Yahweh is very problematic": This objection never arose from within the covenant but only in 19th-century Germany; the text explains the core but leaves a few details to be discerned by seekers. "Why are you being persecuted all the time": This is well explained in the later Hebrew Scriptures about the first diaspora and there is no confusion about it in Judaism.

"Why would God come down to earth, manifest himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself?" You allude to the "normal person" but you mean the normal American who is thoroughly separated from the culture in which these things were understood. Close reading of the Torah reveals the culture sufficiently to answer. "God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are separate but equal": I understand your confusion seeing as the church doctrine is that they are not separate. Again, recognizing the original culture, all kinds of things are known to be diverse unities, to be one and to be diverse at the same time and in different senses. If we are too Greek in our logic, we make assumptions from propositions without synthesizing our views with other propositions of equal value. "God is out there somewhere": You know this is not the teaching of Christianity (though it comes closer to Islam). Jesus taught the kingdom of God is within us, and the immanence of God was well-known.

If you want to pursue the works of the five pillars of Islam, you will find that as soon as you fail you are left without access to the God who comes inside "through your practice". The covenant teaches a God who provides access, by love and mercy, to those who have failed in their practice.

Good review. John Gill is correct that Remphan comes from Rephaim and Remphis and not other places. However, there's not evidence that the hexagram was introduced in Israel until around 300 AD.

I upvoted this, but note generally: Hebrews calls the real Creator of the Garden of Eden the actual demiourgos, which is why I stopped giving satan the title of demiurge; and Proverbs calls sophia (hochma) the offspring of God, so the actual sophia is not lucifer or the progenitor of satan. The whole problem with the gnostics, including one active here, is that they mix the real Demiurge and Sophia with other entities that assume those names and pretend those roles violatively.

The Talmud infers routes of appeal for criminals from the Torah that are very similar to American routes today (American capital justice is even more lenient). Compared to other legislation of its time, yes, it was more lenient to criminals than Roman law, or even later interpretations like Vlad's. But it's no justice to forbid the accused from means of appeal, just as it's no justice to allow dilatory appeal. In its context, while it can be said to be an early means by which people "hid" their crimes by creating many loopholes, the fact that the crimes were recorded is better than the Roman system of bribing your way through violations of the Twelve Tables. So on that point it's got mixed character, but it does wrestle with the subject early in a way that American jurisprudence continues to work through, namely, the balance between rights of the accused and rights of the victim.

This is overshadowed, however, by the Talmud's recognition of victim rights unlike any of the time. Based on the need for enforcement without tyranny as shown by Ezra and Nehemiah setting up a board to review unnaturalized immigrants (the divorce list), the covenant people continued to develop standards, using individual cases, where mercy could be shown. Thus some passages objected to are actually the first to recognize the rights of child victims (such as to prevent their victimization from affecting their future reputation), the rights of young adults who have lashed out thoughtlessly against their families to have the benefit of their inexperience, the rights of women to produce personal admissible evidence, and the rights of an individual participant in a riot not to be tried for the crimes of the crowd, the rights of those entrapped by cults without full knowledge of the cult's crime, and even the rights of chaste suitors to give gifts without being accused of impropriety.

Now, we could object to declaration of refusal to vow as being very easy to abuse, and document that it has been abused. The text says that (a) a person has the right to refuse to be taken as making vows and that (b) such a person has the duty to inform people of that refusal; in that it should not be problematic. However, textual and historical indications show that, even to the present day, the declaration has become a thoughtless commitment (an annual liturgy) and the duty to inform has become "revelation of method", namely an underhanded admission that one is lying, framed in such a way that the framer makes himself believe that the audience is the one deceiving itself if it doesn't understand. This is deplorable whomever does it (Christians and Muslims have their ways to do the same), but this cannot be blamed on the text.

The wicked should be punished with objective justice and should be given rights of appeal with objective mercy. Those convicted of pederasty, murder, or adultery were executed according to the text of the Torah and the Talmud (albeit the Torah on pederasty is by inference). The OP and links do not recognize the place of these documents, or of the New Testament, in the history of jurisprudence, but instead take a shallow view based on cherry-picked misquotations.

Repost:

This is an interesting one to focus on because (while the premise of this book is its own tangent) the table presents a case as if Talmudic religion is literally contrary to what real Torah faith should be (which both Judaism and Christianity aspire to). Talmud is supposedly to explicate Torah and set boundaries around it without contradicting it; like other explications, it can be casuistic at times, but this is not due to illogic. If there is a casuistry it's because it has broad support as a positive moral boundary in the original rabbinical community and afterward. So we need to find both what's misrepresented as contradictory and what's the degree to which Talmud takes improper liberties with Torah. (For instance, Jesus pointed out that "hate your enemy" was not in Torah but had gotten confused with it in the Talmudic Mishna period.)

1. Sanhedrin 54b-55a does not say "If one committed sodomy with a child of less than nine years, no guilt is incurred." It begins by quoting Lev. 18:22, the passage which it supposedly rejects, and continues: "With regard to what do disagree? Rav holds any that applies to one who engages in intercourse applies to one who engages in intercourse, and any that does not apply to one who engages in intercourse does not apply to one who engages in intercourse. And Shmuel holds: It is written: As with a woman. It is taught in accordance with of Rav: A male aged nine years and one day, ... liable." Also: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." Unlike rape, homosexuality is being defined only as an adult state, and so the difference is that someone nine or under is regarded only as a victim of forbidden intercourse, which is treated separately under rape law as per Deut. 22:22-27, but someone over nine is also regarded as (at minimum) a passive sodomite. (Shmuel, the minority, wanted to count the child a sodomite if over three.) So the quote mistakenly infers that, because it is not tried as capital sodomy, there is no other punishment for the rapist, which is false. There is no statement about guilt not being incurred, there is only the silence about liability for adult sodomy.

2. Sanhedrin 64a does not say unqualified that "He who gives of his seed to Molech incurs no punishment." Actual text: "One who gives of his offspring to Molekh is not liable unless he hands over to the Molekh and passes through the fire. He handed over to the Molekh but did not pass through the fire, he passed through the fire but did not hand over to the Molekh, he is not liable, unless he hands over to the Molekh and passes through the fire." This is a straightforward definition of the crime (cited from Lev. 20:3-4 in 64b) having two parts, consent and injury. If one part is missing (the child was not committed to the fire despite parental intent to, or the child was committed to the fire despite parental intent against), the parent has not committed the crime. In the first case the parent has not crossed the threshold of injury, in the second case someone else crossed the threshold and can be tried as a kidnapper. To treat this simple legal definition as if a permission by cutting the text short is inappropriate. The Talmud doesn't condone generic "giving to Molekh" by defining a point at which the court takes action; if someone had ill intent but stopped short of the criminal boundary that person would still be both considered liable to heaven and triable for capital idolatry in other ways.

3. Sanhedrin 66a is accurately quoted: "One who curses his father or his mother is not liable unless he curses them with the name .... When he blasphemes the name he shall be put to death. Why the verse state The name? Taught concerning one who curses his father or his mother, that he is not liable unless he curses them with the name." The explanation of this dictum cites Lev. 24:16, which states twice the blasphemer of the name shall be executed. Menahem ruled that the repetition should be meaningful, and that therefore Moses is explicitly teaching that besides cursing God directly, it is also a capital crime to blaspheme the name indirectly; and so he ruled that the indirect form must be stated for the purpose of qualifying, or narrowing, or defining, the meaning of Ex. 21:17, cursing parents. This is clearly intended for the purpose of mercy, to make a capital crime harder to commit, especially one that has specific temptation for young adults. Should we object that the merciful application of a capital code, using a valid technicality, nullifies the code? I don't think so, since otherwise we'd be arguing that a teenager is at risk of execution for any single untoward statement that can be ruled a curse in a very broad way rather than the narrowly fenced way described here.

4. Sanhedrin 101a is accurately quoted: "One may whisper incantations of snakes and scorpions on Shabbat .... One may not consult the words of demons on Shabbat. Rabbi Yosei says: Even during the week, prohibited .... Demons of oil and demons of eggs, it is permitted to consult them; but due to that they deceive." The word for consulting is the same as in Deut. 18:10-11; the Talmudic word for demon here is first H7700 (meaning "shade" as in Deut. 32:17), and second H8269 twice meaning "prince", while in Deut. 18 it is H178 meaning a "murmurer". The type of incantation considered is the recitation of either a Bible verse or another formula to invoke healing power. Therefore the idea is that, though enforcement against demonism was very strict, certain practices were considered too minor (and probably widespread) to make significant issues, and these included speaking a formula over a snakebite on Sabbath (due to the emergency) and asking questions of the "princes" of eggs and oil (folk augury). The rabbis argued that the matters were merely "bad ideas" rather than enforceable. One of the known weaknesses of the Talmud is its frequent dependence on folk spiritism, so here the question is whether the exemption of minor lapses from capital crimes of idolatry was worth pursuing for the peace of those who practiced them. This question should not be answered from within our culture, but should be considered in light of the prevalence of the practice in its origin culture as indicated by the Talmud and other sources.

5. Yevamot 59b does not say "Women having intercourse with a beast can marry a priest, the act is but a mere wound." Actual text: "Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyya said: Had intercourse with an animal, fit for the priesthood. This is also taught: Had intercourse with one who is not a man, although stoning, fit for the priesthood. When Rav Dimi came he said: An incident, a certain girl in Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village dog sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi permitted her to the priesthood." This personal ruling is that it's anecdotally possible that intercourse with a male animal may not be intentional (later argument may apply this to demons as well). Stoning is still stated to apply if the act is intentional and forewarned against. This does not condone bestiality but cites a legal case where it was ruled unintentional; the quote makes it sound as if intentional bestiality was permitted, which is contradicted by the reference to stoning.

6. Avodah Zarah 62b does not say: "A harlot's hire is permitted, for what the woman has received is legally a gift." Actual text: "And in the corresponding payment, permitted. As it is taught: Gave but did not engage in intercourse with her ... permitted her payment. Since he did not engage in intercourse with her, it is merely a gift that he has given her." The text alludes to prostitute wages not being permitted as an offering (Deut. 23:19), and gives the general rule that if a person has not consummated an act of prostitution then an animal in payment would constitute a gift. The discussion into 63a raises various dilemmas such as whether the man intends to consummate the act much later than giving a gift, which might be offered in the meantime, and concludes that different rabbinical case laws are contradictory but "shall stand" as an unresolved dilemma. Does the discussion condone prostitution? No, that is judged elsewhere under Deut. 22:21, as the separable question is limited to when an offered animal is judged to be wages of prostitution.

7. Sanhedrin 65a does not say unqualified that "One can revile the Divine Name if mentally applying it to some other object." Actual text: "A blasphemer, what action is there? The twisting of his lips is an action .... Is liable only for a matter that involves an action .... And Rabbi Yohanan, what is different? ... A blasphemer is different, since is in the heart." Here Yohanan is the minority view, who believes that blasphemy should not be charged because it is essentially a heart matter (continuing into 65b). The majority view is that a blasphemer is liable for the action of speaking. The quote mistakenly enlarges on Yohanan's minority opinion as if final.

8. Nedarim 23b does not say unqualified that "One may declare: Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null." Actual text: "One who desires his vows not be upheld the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void .... If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, his vow has no substance. He did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow. Rav Huna bar Hinnana intended to teach at lecture. Rava said to him: tanna conceals it in order that not treat vows lightly, and you teach it at lecture?" That is, including 23a, this practice was regulated such that a person who wishes a vow to apply to his "invalidation" context must explicitly state the context at the time of the vow, proving its invalidity and performativeness to the listener. The haggadah that follows shows that vows are to be treated seriously, and so the idea of intending the new year to be a clean slate should not be taught casuistically as an excuse to deceive later. The person who makes a separate annulment and then later vows without informing the audience of that annulment is condemned by the development of the discussion. Thus the context mitigates the then-current practice.

9. Sanhedrin 78a does not say unqualified that "If ten men smote a man with ten staves and he died, they are exempt from punishment." Actual text: "The Sages taught: Ten people struck with ten sticks and he died, whether simultaneously, whether one after the other, they are exempt .... Rather, in there is sufficient to kill, and another comes and kills him; that is liable." The ruling is disputed, and then the majority judgment is made that when the blows are sufficient to kill but the first did not finish the job, there is still liability under Lev. 24:17. Thus the sentence quoted is out of its context. It remains that if a man was struck simultaneously and it cannot be determined who killed him, it is not regarded as capital, but the men are still liable to his estate under tort law for having injured him.

So the chart presents a consistency that is unusual for those who miscite the Talmud: in each case there is an objection that the Talmudic judgment is too lenient compared to the apparent strictness of the Mosaic law in its brevity. Rows 3-4 are actually valid summaries of the Talmudic context, while others quote accurately but fail to consult the context. Here are the lenient judgments: 1. Sodomy of a boy nine or under is tried only as capital rape and not also as sodomy. 2. Giving a child to Molekh is defined only as including intent and application of fire, though other actions can be tried as generic idolatry. 3. Cursing parents is regarded by a technicality as limited to cursing by the explicit name of God and not capital otherwise. 4. Speaking a formula over a venomous bite on Sabbath, and performing augury on oil and eggs, are regarded as too minor to rise to capital idolatry. 5. Because it's possible for a male animal to rape a girl, as once happened, it is assumed (absent further evidence) that such an event is unintentional and not punished as either capital or prejudicial. 6. A man's gift to a woman is not ruled as prostitution if he doesn't have intercourse with her; if he does, there are unresolved and conflicting judgments about what circumstances might exempt the payment from being capital evidence, such as the gift long preceding the sex act. 7. The idea that verbal blasphemy might not be intentional in the heart is an overruled minority opinion from Yohanan. 8. The practice of asking forgiveness in advance if one should unintentionally break a future vow must be regulated by stating it again at the time a vow is made, i.e., by making clear to the audience that it is not to be taken as a vow. 9. The act of a group is not applied to the law about a single murderer if it is simultaneous (tort law would apply instead), but if there is a sequence of blows then it is capital.

In all cases the Talmud is the merciful text and the Torah if taken alone becomes the judgmental text by contrast! In all nine cases the rabbis are considering defenses that permit them not to apply capital charges (though in at least rows 1-2 they are cases where other capital charges would apply). And this is exactly the position Jesus took with the woman caught in adultery: he knew the crime was capital but he showed the way to extend her mercy by shaming her accusers (who had broken the law about bringing the male forward as well). The point of the Mosaic law was to demonstrate the gravity of sin by its capital charges so that we would learn to hate sin; it was never to create a gotcha environment. Just as in American law, the many defenses available against capital crimes allow us to sift until we are only executing those who have demonstrated for years they have no interest in learning to do right. We too try never to err in our use of capital punishment. Thus the conclusion that the Talmud is sinful in itself or contrary to legitimately merciful exposition of Mosaic law is not sustained by the chart given. We could criticize the Talmud for its irreverent jokes, its insular protectiveness against outsiders, or its extensive demonology and folk spiritism, but its legal judgments have not been evidenced anywhere as constituting permissions to obvious sins.

These contain a number of easily debunked theses. For instance, in the table of alleged "contrasting religions" between Torah law and Talmud law in "Esau-Edom", actual review shows the Talmud was more lenient and merciful than the plain text of the Torah (unless its corresponding passages about mercy are applied to balance the plain commands); but the text treats the Talmud as the abusive and unjust version when the two actually harmonize on the points listed. Talmud misquotes generically are hoax #2 on my list. Since it appears my explanation of this table has been deleted from ConPro, I'll repeat it below.

Speaking to the thumbnail only and not to the 5.5 hours, these are not admissions that the Jews "are not" Israelites. The first quote is correct but is just the first shocker sentence of a long article in which it's pointed out that Jew, Israelite, and Hebrew, "strictly speaking", have different definitions and contexts; it's not an admission, just an attention-getting distinction. The second quote isn't really accurate, as the primary name being Jews (from Judeans/Judahites) didn't affect the fact that secondary names fluctuated in popularity. The third quote is patently false, as I've documented; it's a telephone-game version of quotes that actually appear in the encyclopedia with far different meaning. Details, hoax #6.

Funturistic, none of these indicate foreknowledge or narrative control. They are just random citations of two common terms, "six million" and "Jews", in close proximity. The people who compiled these took any such reference, including even one to $6,000,000; their cites "proved too much". When the stats were run with different numbers, it turned out three million had a higher correlation than six million. So this is statistically meaningless. There was nobody prophesying six million Jews would be killed in eastern Europe. Details, hoax #3.

FYI archon (ruler) is from Greek archein (reign); arcane (secret) is from Latin arca (ark, chest), no relation.

the holy serpent Yahweh

But don't you reject this interpretation, Dot? Why speak of it favorably?

Thank you for not pinging me with your accusation. I don't know what you think I'm doing to "manipulate votes" that anyone else is prohibited from doing, or what past you're referring to. Accusations without ping and without evidence and without specifics that can be pinned down by the accused amount to chilling speech, especially from a banning mod.