That is an incredible anecdotal evidence, Primate.
There will always be places like this where we have each other's backs.
"Human tomorrow" contains surprises. Practice today.
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is (1 John 3:2 KJV).
I guess I'll copy out Plato's advice from the myth of Er as well (Republic 10.618-619). Though in Greek form, like Atlantis it was modified, according to Pythagorean metempsychosis and coming from an Armenian original (the myth of Ara, likely Arame of Urartu in the time of Shammuramat/Semiramis), with a probable old Zoroastrian morality story thrown in (the book of Arda Wiraz) due to Persian influence in Armenia. In the oldest version, Arda sees people choosing future heavenly lives based on past earthly lives instead of future earthly lives. Plato doesn't speak directly of future lives either but of "genii" (connected lives). Anyway, Plato puts in Socrates's mouth, supporting my point in a way I wasn't aware when I wrote it:
And here, my dear Glaucon, is the supreme peril of our human state; and therefore the utmost care should be taken. Let each one of us leave every other kind of knowledge and seek and follow one thing only, if peradventure he maybe able to learn and may find some one who will make him able to learn and discern between good and evil, and so to choose always and everywhere the better life as he has opportunity. He should consider the bearing of all these things which have been mentioned severally and collectively upon virtue; he should know what the effect of beauty is when combined with poverty or wealth in a particular soul, and what are the good and evil consequences of noble and humble birth, of private and public station, of strength and weakness, of cleverness and dullness, and of all the natural and acquired gifts of the soul, and the operation of them when conjoined; he will then look at the nature of the soul, and from the consideration of all these qualities he will be able to determine which is the better and which is the worse; and so he will choose, giving the name of evil to the life which will make his soul more unjust, and good to the life which will make his soul more just; all else he will disregard. For we have seen and know that this is the best choice both in life and after death. A man must take with him into the world below an adamantine faith in truth and right, that there too he may be undazzled by the desire of wealth or the other allurements of evil, lest, coming upon tyrannies and similar villanies, he do irremediable wrongs to others and suffer yet worse himself; but let him know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible, not only in this life but in all that which is to come. For this is the way of happiness.
(And while I'm at it I should mention this reference to child sacrifice for the forum's sake, also in 619: "And when he had spoken, he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children.")
Kellogg's Corn Flakes are not an external source?
The recipe came to John Kellogg in a dream. Will Kellogg began marketing them with appeals to matriarchalism and pyramidology. They were failed Adventists. It's quite the Conspiracies post but I don't think I'll write it right now.
I was giving you a suggestion for increasing good vibes and harmony among truth seekers, and you reacted this way.
I honestly only call Feds Agent Smith when I know they are paid to defend the deep state matrix.
Interesting, this side comment relates to the main point.
Also the flood of Noah and great flood were mixed up somehow as being just 1 flood. There are 2 separate floods.
In both cases you set yourself up as the standard by which true knowledge is known. Your source and authority for me being a fed is the same as your source for Noah's flood being local.
For me the standard of Truth is Truth itself: I am not capable of discerning Truth perfectly, but Truth is perfectly capable of communicating itself to me. I could be wrong, so I must trust the Truth to manifest itself for me to know whether I'm right, or whether you're paid to defend the matrix.
You've told me your standard of truth on such points as the flood includes the Urantia Book. Have you considered that the book was promoted by a cell of students led by Lena Celestial Kellogg and William Sadler that relied on the Kellogg money that came directly from deep-state-aligned efforts to convince Americans to buy a flaky corn-processing byproduct as a new "breakfast cereal"? You don't just know these folks were paid to defend the deep state matrix?
But, more important, is there an external means of testing Truth that we can both agree on? How would we know how many floods there are, or who was paying us, without an agreement to proceed? I offered you a means to finesse the question by your not raising it, which in the past has been good enough for you to work with. But instead of taking my suggestion you called me a name and your source is yourself, your knowledge. Let's see if there's something to agree on.
No, but there's not an underground movement going around to discredit the Pseudepigrapha, so most critical editions are trustworthy. If anything there's an underground movement to amplify them out of proportion; and of course to write new ones (a fanfic canon can never be closed).
You can stop it with the multiple cataclysms, those are a myth created by the deep state to continue their governance over free information. The Bible speaks of two only, flood and fire, and if people think the Bible is wrong on this they won't absorb its energy and will be fighting among themselves. Better not even to bring it up when the rest of the message is sound, it really dilutes the signal.
The best resource I have on all Jesus's teachings in the Bible is stepbible.org where you can see almost every variant that's ever been logged. The best resource I have on other information about Jesus's teachings, besides the brief secular accounts, is the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha edited by Charlesworth. Most people find that comparing those words across multiple translations, without special study notes except for neutral info about language and culture (again across multiple interpreters), is enough to undo any bias created by Scofield consulted alone.
Thanks, blessings on you two too!
Random thought: seems the chronology works better if we celebrate Palm Monday instead (four days before Jesus's death). But I could be wrong!
Get a photo, fren. Often reported by groups, rarely documented.
If it's a spiritual event, get an exorcist, they can produce good documentation for that.
First, you're using the 1611 translation and Early Modern English uses words quite different than we do.
"Happy" was unrelated to emotion but was related to fortuitous chance, for instance. Forms of "happy" and "hap" still appear 58 times, but the then-common word for what we call happiness was "blessing", forms of which appear 522 times.
"Fun" didn't exist in 1611 with the modern sense of amusement, but simply meant "hoax", so naturally doesn't appear. However (contrary to the misread in the OP title), forms of "joy" and "enjoy" appear 216 times.
"Freedom" was a very technical word still, which is why its two KJV usages relate to citizenship. Even so, forms of "free" appear 101 times and of "liberty" and "liberal" 38 times.
Forms of "laugh" appear 40 times and forms of "cry" 434, so the ratio is not as bad as depicted; and laughter was then associated with mocking and foolish mirth (as an OP quote shows) and crying with any emphatic expression, including many positive ones (2 Sam. 18:25-27), so neither the KJV nor the Hebrew context had used the Greek tragicomedy duality to contrast these. "Isaac" the father of Israel, whose name means laughter, appears 132 times. But more to the point, in the root emotions, forms of "pleasure" have 240 appearances and forms of "sadness" 13, so it's all in the word choice.
"Birth" and "death" have many forms so the simplest comparison is between the Hebrew "yalad" "bear" (500) and "muth" "die" (839). So about a 40-60 split, nothing like OP.
Forms of "friend" have 107 cases and of "enemy" 380, again not the ratio projected. But in those days when you were close to someone you called him not "freed" (the meaning of "friend"), but "brother"/"brethren" (975 cases for both biological and adoptive).
The meme also uses some of the deliberate paradox language of Ecclesiastes without getting its point (that negatives have their purpose and place), which ironically reinforces its entire tone-deaf thesis. It digs in to Lev. 19:20 without seeking to understand the cultural context, namely that when evidence indicated a rape victim fought back then she was not punished (Deut. 22:25-27, which was canonically read alongside the Levitical law), but if there was no evidence she fought back then, instead of being executed as an accomplice to adultery, due to her social position she was mercifully punished without execution. In context it is only about a bondmaid who willingly breaks and adulterates her engagement, and it deliberately stops short of making it a capital offense.
So the entire meme reeks of failure to seek context for historical documents but instead to interpret them (even their antique translations) in Modern English only, with PC overtones. This is a local peak of Amerocentric bias that refuses to accept our Lord's dictation that the Word is fully inspired in its original text. Scripture readers will be familiar enough with the Biblical use of these contrasts to need no examples be supplied, but I'll just suggest one that I find inspiring:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage .... For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another (Gal. 5:1, 13).
I know you asked them before. I do recall both of them admitting that they make mistakes and seeking to apologize when they were persuaded that they had. If a person isn't persuaded they've made a mistake, even though they submit their hearts to God constantly and don't find anything, then it's possible that asking them again with more specifics would help.
Right now you're stating these aren't the least interested in relating from humility; but how do you know that something that happened long ago is the constant state? I recall you modifying your views about people back and forth because people's states change. If it were true that such a person "couldn't" possibly change, then why would you continue talking about the possibility instead of just ignoring them and treating them as an impossible case, and protecting yourself from criticism by not ever bringing up their impossibility?
I recall them deleting content; I certainly deleted their content too. I always offer, if there's something else you want deleted, let me know. If everything that needs to have been deleted has been deleted, then there's nothing to bring up. If you think it's out there but the damage is done and unfixable, then you either decide what it would take to heal, or you conclude it'll never be fixed and you've been damaged forever (which, BTW, people don't generally accept because there's no value in being a perpetual victim).
Yes, u/SicSemperTyrannis2 used a profanity with you and I deleted it. Do you want to keep repeating his profanity many more times than he said it? Do you need something else done before you can forgive him, or do you purpose never to forgive him?
Are you able to answer my questions? Because if you wish to be a person who has a right to complain about others forever but others don't have a right to complain about you forever, that wouldn't be the golden rule, would it? I don't think that's who you want to be, I just don't see you doing anything different from setting aside a time to complain about others about once a month with very little letup. As I said at first, I'd like to do whatever can be done to assist you with resolving the complaints so that this cycle doesn't continue.
I suspect that if you asked them politely what they meant to say, they would tell you that they didn't say the things you think you heard, and the communication might work toward clearing up.
If I were in your situation, and I thought someone had said something hellish to me, I would be very careful to be sure I heard, remembered (had a link or record), and understood completely what was meant, and to be sure I had asked about whether something else could be intended. I've sought to read all the conversations you're talking about and I'm pretty confident there was no implication about actively sending you to hell or about not seeing you as belonging to God.
I do know that it's been said that people who sin continuously are at risk, and that they've suggested that you've sinned a couple times. I hope this is an appropriate place for me to give that impression, knowing that when we talk about people saying that you might have sinned it's a sensitive issue for you. But they've said that, and perhaps there was miscommunication between what was said and what was unsaid. And as you point out, polite questioning often resolves issues and heals past wounds.
I don't think I, or they, esteem ourselves highly. Catholics don't esteem themselves saints, for instance; they reserve that name for those for whom there's evidence of sainthood after death. I think that in this conversation you're dealing with people who care about you but who don't want to be emotionally exposed to criticism that isn't intended to bring about healing. You're not dealing with people who have collectivism or hatred, you're dealing with people who have concerns (like you do) and who have challenges with understanding the behavior of others (like you do). By my putting them in the same category as you, I'm demonstrating that there are not favorites. If you, or I, or they, were to judge another person, I'd treat it the same no matter who it's from, and I'd push back if there's no evidence and hear the concern if there is evidence.
I hope that answers. You hint I might be momentarily judging without caring, and I don't intend to be, so if you can point out how I'm doing so then I can correct that. If we have the air clear between us, it looks like you would like some understanding about and concession about the past conversations you're alluding to. In my silly binary view, I'd think that either you want it healed or you want the right to keep bringing up a wound indefinitely; and in either case when it's clear what you want then it's easy to proceed forward. So let me know what I can do, and what else can be done, to help the situation.
Well, Wells and Beaty get minor roles in the development of the Khazar hypothesis, but every time that's come up I've pointed out that the Khazars were circumcised and naturalized, and then intermarried with other Jews, giving the Jewish people every right to continue the name of Jew because it was the merger of two peoples instead of two completely distinct lines. I silence people by saying that if Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then that allows Jews to claim the same right to say Americans aren't Americans (as immigration proponents like Schumer are doing).
But the Khazar hypothesis isn't the Edomite, which isn't the Babylonian, which isn't the Phoenician. And all those are the same category, partial mergers and influences. At no point do the people known in local language as Judahites lose the right to be called that, and at no point does a separate people arise who are not born into or naturalized into the Judahites but who take up the name that is not theirs. (Unless you count a handful of Gentiles in Smyrna and Philadelphia, who may have included Onkelos; but even he later converted to Judaism.) None of the theorists that have advanced any of those hypotheses have a whit of data about there being some other people than the Jews.
Another thing that shuts them up is that the Khazar hypothesis was invented by Jews, first to claim the Khazar power as their own (Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Daud) and later to minimalize their Jewish heritage to get exemptions from persecution (Isaac Levinsohn, Abraham Harkavi, Abraham Firkovitz). Now it's being thrown back at Jews to claim they all lose all heritage, which is as I say self-destructive of the accusers: Gentiles are using a Jewish-invented pilpul while denouncing the Jews and not realizing that the same logic denounces themselves too just as the Jews are accused of desiring.
You switch to "Hebrews", and nowadays we think of Hebrews as the same as Jews, but Abram was a Hebrew and that meant son of Eber, and there were many other (Semitic) Hebrews, which obtained the name Habiru and the title Hyksos. So tacking to "Hebrews" doesn't help. Those in Babylon had come from the kingdom of Judea and were Judeans (for which Jews is simply a short form first attested in French ca. 1000 AD where "Ju" elided "Judaeus").
You give no evidence that Jews are identified with Tyrians and Sidonians (who used those city-based names rather than tribe-based names). These peoples are kept distinct by basically everyone. You seem to accept Judges 3 about there being Canaanites but you don't seem to be comfortable with the implication that the Israelites were there distinguished from them, or that Judahites were then a key tribe of Israelites (Judg. 1:1-20).
No, it doesn't sound familiar for there to be Carthaginian converts after their utter defeat by Rome in 146 BC because there was no Carthage anymore. If you'd said Punic converts, which is what the remaining people were called, I wouldn't call it out as an obvious invention, but I still see no evidence that Punic people converted to Second Temple Judaism at large.
So you're not carrying the water. To the idea "Jews descend from Phoenicians" I answered Jews descend from Judah (b. 1793 BC) and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jews aren't Israelite" I answered Judah's father was Israel and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jerusalem was in Ebla tablets 3000 BC" I answered there's no evidence of Jerusalem before 1900 BC nor of Ebla tablets before 2500 BC and you didn't respond. Now you throw in some Khazar hypothesis i.e. "Jews aren't Ioudaios", where I've answered that nobody who says that has put forward any proof that modern Jews aren't the same people; and you say "Jews descend from Tyrians and Sidonians", but I answer that Tyre and Sidon were on the boundaries of Asher, not Judah (Josh. 19:28-29), and were never taken by Asher (Judg. 1:31). Do you have any claims that aren't batting .000?
The word "plagiarized" is common for use without edit or attribution; now that you've apologized I'll drop the charge. Yes, I do use Wikipedia to supplement my memory, and when fitting I quote them rather than summarize them. My memory was that Ebla was postdiluvian and so there wouldn't be any tablets before ca. 2500 BC for that reason either, but the fact that Wikipedia agrees isn't a problem.
However, you don't add any data about alleged Egyptian statues or Ebla tablets. But thank you for pointing out that Constantin Tsutras and Salim Khalaf say exactly the same thing. Ordinarily I'd say that one plagiarized from the other because neither give dates or sources, but since I don't know which I'll give them both a pass.
You seem to attribute some relationship between me and Jews other than the fact that I do worship one Jew, Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I believe the whole Bible is accurate and Judah (b. 1793 BC) is the son of Israel, making all Jews Israelites. I know there are recent skeptics disagreeing but I've investigated all their claims and found them valueless.
I see no evidence that Tsutras's book is worth investing in as I'm not interested in "esoteric interpretations beyond the literal and historical accepted meanings" when the literal historical isn't accepted in the first place. He seems to be a Noachite who thinks he's transcended Christianity.
The point is that Jerusalem being originally a Canaanite city, just as the Bible states, is no evidence that Jews aren't Israelites, an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. The default evidence of the Bible stands unchallenged. If you want free reading, consider that the majority of the Ten Plagues are historically attested in the year 1540-1539, exactly the year the Biblical chronology points to.
Thanks for asking, I saw your asking this in c/Christianity first and replied there.
We have no data on the experiences of people who don't come back so it's complete speculation. We do have data on coma dreams; a quick check shows that they are compatible with NDE evidence, although some comas leave permanent neural damage and few reported NDEs do, despite their short-term lethality.
Some have speculated that the physical death process informs neuronic overstimulus that explains NDEs, and my point is that many aspects of NDEs don't fit that at all. Many skeptical of NDEs were confronted by the evidence of their own, or their patients', experience and could not gainsay its inexplicability.
Well, your link sure doesn't show a consensus of any kind. It shows haggling about rules, which is now mostly stabilized.
The link I gave you is the compilation. You can click the links to view all comments to see the individual votes.
The fact that a community exists with rules is a default consensus by its founding members that carries over to members who joined later such that overturning those rules requires a large, clear, new discussion.
I encourage anyone interested to do as I have, post a binary (yes-no) question for discussion and analyze the votes. There was one question proposed about alternate moderation and, it not being binary, my recollection is that every contributor had a different idea from every other.
You have today to find the best one. If your default option is that there are no good options, that's nihilism and most people don't actually wish to continue with that default. But whatever inspires you to purpose today will indicate your path tomorrow.
Funny mix of pretended and real etymologies, Eustace. "Cannibal" is a version of the 16th-century Carib [or Kali'na] people's name for themselves, so it's a Native American word. Many spellings and languages are attested and may have originally been "karipona". We could argue that Natives came from Asians who would have known of Hamite Canaan and of baalim under the simple meaning of human lords, but such a literalist theory would require backup and would need to explain how Kna'an and Ba'al were combined and became karipona* in Guiana, which has no sense. [If we were to supply a Semitic root arbitrarily for the Guianan, we might propose qari'-panah*, which can be translated "chosen head", which would one-up Eustace quite a bit in terms of historical fit.] The fact, that Nimrod, whom I've tracked to be the same as Naram-Sin, engaged rituals that probably included cannibalism, is no evidence that it was so named at that time.
I'm seeing no real evidence for the "seventy deities" besides a late strained Jewish interpretation of Deut. 32:8, which is not about El but about Elyon (since we're making distinctions). The deities have no names unless the Table of Nations starting with Shem, Ham, and Japheth is taken as their names.
Astara or Ostara ... became the patron god of the Nazi movement in Germany.
Oh, that's fun and I should know it if true. Yes, it looks like Jorg Lanz published Ostara magazine about this god, that Hitler read it in his youth, and that Lanz is on my broad list of contributors to Nazi philosophy; but calling this connection "the patron god" ("the") presses the issue too far. Ostara is indeed merged with Ashtoreth in European convergent etymology, meaning that it had the ordinary positive connotations of east, Austria, (sun) rising, and merged those inseparably with the Semitic connotations of Ashtoreth, Asherah poles, and some say Stur (Saturn), a process long before 1000 AD.
"Purple" does not appear to be the original meaning of the "phoenix" words, but a derivative based on association with the extant Canaanite people. The original may be Egyptian "fnhw", "carpenters", found at Karnak; or, in Linear B, "ponikijo", "palm".
Other statements are accurate or not worth disputing.
I distinctly saw her *Running JOYFULLY FREE thru a slightly UPward seemingly eternal Wildflower meadow ... kind of like this https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/12i3ubUQNV/daybyday-in-paradiseyes-gods-cou/c and mom was finally at PEACE.
Very good. That agrees with category 6 above as described by Burke.
This is described by what I give as category 3 of NDEs, as detailed thoroughly by Burke. Other reports vary.
The Jews agree that Jerusalem was not originally their city but was Canaanite until conquered in the late 11th century BC. This gives no evidence that Jews and Phoenicians were the same people.
The third-mill citations you give don't pan out as Jerusalem doesn't seem to go back before the 19th century BC. It's entirely possible there exists one older "Egyptian statue" and/or "[Ebla] tablet" but they don't come up and there are no Ebla tablets before ca. 2500 BC. Instead, I see I don't even have to ask for your source because you plagiarized Phoenicia.org, written by Salim Khalaf without further sourcing. So let's drop the partisan rhetoric and stick to elite research, thanks.
Neither the Jews’s religion nor their DNA traces back to the OT Israelites, but rather to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians.
Source?
What I see is that Phoenicia (including Carthage) had similar ancestry in Canaan to the Israelites' through Abraham, but that would make them brother nations and not descendants. One hint is that Phoenicians have some Jewish heritage rather than the other way around.
Oh, I guess I didn't read it as a threat because it was indirect.
To speak indirectly about it, a lot of people think that they should be free to drop all kinds of intentional hints indirectly but that when they infer a nuance from someone else's indirection then that other person should be punished for the nuance that they received. I would certainly hope that's not you.
To speak directly, when you say "make coherent statements" you're not saying the comment is incoherent but you are implying (connecting it to rule 1) that you think it's potentially worthy of discipline; and when u/Thisisnotanexit says "this is spammy harassey stuff" she is saying the comment is potentially spam or harassment and implying thereby that she thinks it's potentially worthy of discipline. Both statements are equally indirect.
So I applaud your desire for justice and equal treatment and would encourage you to continue calling out things that look imbalanced to you. Over time the discussion will help us all come to agreement on proper balance. But so far I haven't been persuaded by your case.
Incidentally, the solution to symmetry breaking is that the antimatter is trapped in blackhole event horizons.
Who you gonna call?