Did you provide them?
At c/Christianity we call this reading comprehension, fren. Look again. 82+57=139 Jewish denominations. 52+60=112 Muslim denominations, or 111 if "Quranism" is taken to refer to the same thing in both the graphic and the purely additive list.
How does it feel to lose against your own comments? Is it boring?
Loss is an allegation not in evidence.
Incidentally, when I ban or downvote, I'm pretty good at being unemotional about it, with no relation to "not taking it" about a debate. If disproven, I take it. If I believe I'm not disproven, I patiently explain why (or sometimes let a time-waster believe he's won if my conscience before third parties is clear). The rare occasions I know I'm "not taking" a response is when a person invokes in me the emotion of despair for their growth via, usually, rampant nonsense. On c/Christianity we call it misattribution when someone attributes a state of mind to another, when states of mind are by definition only known to the one experiencing them.
So when I downvote, it's because I'm communicating (usually as part of a collective) what I believe the relative value of the comment; and when I ban, it's because I have an objective, publishable violation (usually in conjunction with a graduated scale of disciplines). Funny, you accused me of wanting to not ban a person whom I think hadn't violated, and now you accuse me of wanting to ban a person whom I think hasn't violated. (Disagreement is no violation, bans are on behavior and never content.)
I say that simply to answer your questions, to offer an explanation in hope of your rationality, and to speak to interested lurkers. God bless you, in Jesus's name.
Good idea. Yet "we" don't have the power to remove the flag, nor to approve Conspiracies for Trending, which requires that admin be motivated in favor of this idea. And if we didn't flag individual posts, admin has repeated declared motivation against the idea.
To recapitulate, we could easily declare consensus that we need 2 or 3 mods, that we would like admin's consent to mod them after we deliberate about who they are, that the mods will remove the Politics general flag so admin can add us to Trending, and that the mods will mark the few political posts as "NSFW" with a sidebar explanation that this means "Not Safe For World" which we have redefined as meaning they are political. Anything short of that doesn't seem to meet the goal you suggest (of the admins letting us be).
It is. I added more details in the last paragraph here. The AAP logo does go all the way back to the Old Serpent in the tree, by multiple lines of demonstration.
That's a surface reading in the same way the Bible says "There is no God" (Ps. 14:1). If you'd like explanation of how these things are taken wildly out of context; how the Jewish legislation against pedophilia was, while incomplete, much more advanced than the Roman cultural entrenchment encouraging pedophilia; and the actual lack of any majority statement in the whole of the Babylonian Talmud that harming non-Jews is literally good (the generic stance is to be neutral about non-Jews), I can provide detailed demonstration (but don't want to weigh you down with it unless you're actually interested).
What I tell everyone is that, if you're going to criticize the Talmud, don't use telephone games that go back to 19th-century German; instead criticize what is actually there, its superstitions about demons, its heartbreaking casuistry, and its virtue-signaling systemic amnesty for the Jewish offender. But to say it's "pure evil" when it has thousands of comparatively decent rulings that have an important place in the development of morality is to judge it without knowledge.
Add: You should see what the Adventists used to say about non-Adventists. Their universities still teach that they used to say that. Very comparable.
Swaddling is a real practice of newborn health, especially in midwifery, but it's done with sheets and blankets and not with coils. This isn't swaddling, it's mummification.
Add: It's supposedly an Italian swaddled Christ. However, medieval depiction of a swaddled Christ very often emphasized the impotence of the child instead of the potence, and often merged conceptually with the swaddled sphere called "OT" from those two letters being overlaid as its symbol. More. Add again: The OT sphere comes from the "O-T map" of the world and the three continents of the eastern hemisphere. However, this makes the swaddling equal to the oceans of the world, which of course always represent the wicked. That's a parallel I hadn't considered before. See my separate article about the snake on the tree (snake being the wicked here, tree being the good).
Isn't it interesting that Jesus was called a mamzer all his life and he still rose so far above it that most people don't believe the namecalling anymore? When someone does so much of what is right it's hard to say he didn't have it right all the way, including when he spoke of his Father.
Were you going to explain at some point how humanity can reproduce without reproduction?
A little more moderation, such as I've told you a long time, would do wonders for you.
Treating Homo sapiens as not being Homo sapiens is a peak of irrationality, even in Conspiracies.
It's collectivism that comes only from the darkest pockets of religion.
Why don't you ever admit or deny being a Muslim? Your taqiyya is showing.
What did you do right?
How can you help as a mod? What positive thing have you done?
Where is your humility? Your sacrifice? Your care for the community? Strange that you activate yourself after my post, isn't it?
At this point I see nothing I can do right in your eyes, including adding 52 and 60 to get over 100.
Since you're confident - present your proof that you spoke of Christ with me.
I wouldn't count "Society of Jesus"; but in the comment just below we have the idea that "Jesus hasn't uprooted" candlesticks. In the post where my 52 didn't add to my 60. Your questions are now boring me so I won't give more examples.
Should I share your works? Or would be honest and do that yourself?
I have no problem with anyone sharing my works or with being honest or with sharing them myself. I reserve the right to contextualize the mistakes of others.
I offered you peace, the offer stands indefinitely, if you don't want it you don't want it.
Add: I'm glad I gave this comment in the same cascade as my first response to your public request for topics (the only one you recieved), the same cascade where I admitted being called a "Christiantard". Because it shows the full range of your personality in your interactions with me, very convenient. Anyway, it was a great idea to start with and it was encouraging to review the range. We math students do have a range to our personalities, people forget. Add: Being asked for 100 Jewish and 100 Muslim denominations on a dare, providing them all immediately, and then being told I didn't provide them, that is a local maximum of fascinating experiences here, one which I'm likely to share again. Add: While I'm at it, I may as well contextualize how to spell u/axolotl_peyotl. Those are two great words in most dictionaries that go great together but don't usually make the SATs.
It sounds like you judged that I wasn't thinking at all that your words inspired me and I offered a responsive challenge. Well, if you have more power than me to see clearly what I was thinking, that would indeed be innovative.
I discover that I'm wrong about something all the time. In my experience it usually doesn't happen at the hands of people who think they see, more clearly than I, what I think. But I could be wrong about that too.
I love going to next levels. Which level shall we go to? The one where I say something so innovative that it contradicts everything that came before? Probably not the one where I agree with you and merely echo your innovative view of what I think. Maybe the one where I achieve an indescribable spiritual transcendence? Maybe one where I believe both sides of a binary contradiction at the same time with the same meaning? I'm looking forward to it, whatever and however it is.
If I think what you're saying does make sense, what next? Oh wait, if it does make sense, I'm echoing, and, if it doesn't make sense, I'm failing to consider. Perfect Zen dilemma. Unbeing
I'm not here to provide reasons to vote for me.
I only offer to the community myself, as I do to the whole world.
I offered to hear what I did wrong and how I could make it right.
Hi, Guy, following logic it would seem you're saying that you as mod would not increase chance of censorship? Well, I just asked you a related question, pick either or both, thanks.
Are you saying that there is something clicking somewhere about conspiracies against Jesus being a nice guy? If I post The Passover Plot by Schonfeld what will happen to me? Do you mean Christians will boo-hoo so loud as to drown me out, or do you mean some mod or admin will rise from the dead and do a miracle? Genuinely interested in your thoughts. I thought the church was just as fair game for conspiracy-hunters as anywhere else.
I did want to ask what you meant by counting me pro-censorship. Do you want no rules enforced beyond filtered words, such that the sidebar rules are a dead letter? Is it censorship to return to the sidebar rules? Thanks.
Having missed this comment earlier, since you want brevity, the core is I clearly have offended you, and I can only ask what is wrong and how to make it right and then await answers. The rest is drama.
"Dilatory": delaying something. Diarrheics delay little.
Will once stated he freely wills to comment only.
Pick a rule (0)-(9) that you think Will broke, thanks.
You call me hypocrite because (a) I defend another following his own will and (b) I follow my own will.
Daring a person to delete all his posts strikes me as manipulative. I took your other dare on Jews/Muslims.
Defending someone who never posts is logically wholly separate from what I want posts to be.
I'm mystified that you shoehorn me and Will into the same clog. Especially given your education.
I beat the Chinese in math in 6th grade too. Maybe we know each other.
"Commenting and contributing nothing": Fascinating paradox.
I don't threaten. I asked, and I thank you for your answer, even though it's not appreciative. I also said "let's see" to introduce the next subject. If you read a threat in my words, I'm familiar with people doing that. (Indirect statement, not threat.)
I believe you are fearless. That's why I tell you the truth.
"You raised it to someone else tagging me there": I don't even know what that refers to. You're free to be as anti as you were pro, I never said otherwise.
I don't hate being told what other people see me to be.
"I see people as they really are."
Oh, I beg your pardon, Primate, that wasn't my intent.
The first one is (apparently) absolute to me because there are a number of positions that have this same collapse hatch. Here "In my view, adding yet more words to their voluminous and unending nonsense does nothing to push back the frontiers of knowledge" logically implies that your adding words does nothing either. Sometimes on fora like these I jump to the absolute voice to emphasize (what look like) very straightforward fallacies.
(I believe) There are exceptions to people believing in growth, they're called nihilists, often absolutism fails to include them. The general principle (I've observed) is that the answer to your concerns about philosophy and about similar concerns arising in science (formerly "natural philosophy") is validated by the principle of scientific method, particularly repeatability ("independent" verification). That method isn't about making friends, it really is the independent's method (IMHO).
All innovative thought requires entering into disagreement with everyone on the face of the Earth.
And then what? Either the innovation dies with you or it resonates with others (logically). I have innovative thoughts all the time, whether from Self or from Other, and I test them and release many to the universe, regardless of what enemies I make.
So you're welcome and thank you, I appreciate your stark comparison of religious progress to that in science and philosophy. It inspires me to challenge you to thinking about getting that alignment between independent Self and interdependent Other. But you don't have to.
I know of two others, who are perfectly suited to be mods. More than you and me. We need to respect that.
You mean u/Thisisnotanexit and u/Graphenium? That position might be salable to the community. We'll see.
you like an AI chatbot
You mean Will? Hmm, in what sense of "like" might I say I like him ... he's a challenge to my thoughts, he's a stickler for his own views ... I do try to have a positive view of everyone. You are one voice of the community, and he is one voice, and if there is a consensus about what to do about conflict between you two then a moderator could implement that consensus. But a moderator doesn't act unilaterally about one voice without a clear transparent policy to do so. Let's repeat that list. (0) platform rules, (1) respect, (2) no tool abuse, (3) no sliding, (4) quality, (5) no "trolling", (6) no stalking, (7) no spam, (8) honesty, (9) no violence. It's hard to shoehorn into "respect" the idea that responsive cryptic answers are disrespectful when users are simply routinely told to block such people individually from their personal views. As I said, sliding as stated only applies to meta, which this is not. "Trolling" can be a catchall, but I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of saying A is a troll based on nothing more than B saying so, since that dilutes obvious trolling (i.e. true disruption). Stalking could be handled by (a) User tells offender and mod they don't want offender interacting again, (b) Mod warns offender of deletion or ban on next infraction, (c) Offender shapes up or ships out; it should be limited to those who report being stalked, not just verbal diarrhea. So if you think it's "liking" him because I insist on everyone being judged by the same objective standards, well, that's part of how mods get accused of favoritism, especially at the same time in opposite directions.
you lean on someone else
Well, duh, I don't have power to ban or suspend in Conspiracies. Now I do have pretty good efficient logs at Christianity, where the mod board (sometimes me, sometimes not) has deleted Will 35 times over 3 years of his contributions. But I think that my getting admin to act within 1 hour on a key point where nobody else can act is a pretty good achievement unlocked.
Mods should be law enforcement. I don't believe you can do that.
Do you want more evidence from the Christianity logs? Admin told me when I arrived to always judge things from the default standpoint of retaining the content and the user, so that's the rule I used. But law enforcement doesn't go rogue either, they follow procedure even when people are impatient, they protect themselves and act rapidly only when rapid action is the only alternative.
We have a lot of power here to blur legislative (community rulemaking), executive (mod tools), and judicial (interpretation and appeals). As mod I often have to do all three, and so for rulemaking I involve the community heavily, and for interpretation I point out various routes beyond myself (e.g. formal appeal to the community, to other mods, to meta fora, or to admin). If you want a king, say so, but you still might not get one because of both community and admin.
We need order and direction in this forum. You don't provide that.
I've offered quite a bit of structure ideas in the past couple days I've been thinking about it. Before that I enjoyed Conspiracies but didn't think much at all about volunteering to provide much for it besides content. I am taking time this week to see how to harness the power of the current interest level into direction, and since I've hardly campaigned that means I hardly have such a platform, and have said so. If a mod needs both a sound enforcement plan (which I've outlined) and a narrative of future prospects (which I've said I haven't been inspired on in great detail yet), then sobeit, but the community will still make the decision en masse and not because of any one individual.
We need simple and clear communication, not the SAT diarrhea that you spew.
Heard, reminded, respected.
You can try to convince yourself that you're smart
:) If that's your perception of what I'm doing, it encourages me to keep doing what I'm doing.
We need mods who will say the truth to the users, even if they feel bad from hearing it.
Great ideal. If it's impossible indefinitely, it remains an ideal. Life is what happens while you were making other plans.
I didn't intend a conclusion: it was a historical record without a judgment other than framing each division cattily in the language of dislike. I basically included divisions where two groups of professed Christians disagreed but both have continuation today, and excluded other events.
You just use this word [division, or denomination] for splitting of the church, which is also demonic.
Huh?
Again, at some point I appear to have gotten on your bad side and haven't pinned down why. Do you think I misled you about something in relation to how to moderate a religiously unaligned forum? Do you think my means of fighting the satanic enemy are somehow compromised because of some inaction or incompletion on my part that perhaps you could correct (but don't)?
Of course satan is at work and can be counted on to infiltrate any major branch of the tree. It is probable that one or more of these hundred is so totally satanic as to be uprooted in the future, but the objective standard of compilation is that Jesus hasn't uprooted them so far.
But there are reasons for these divisions, as there are for older ones in the Bible, and this helps us think about those reasons. Paul and Peter divided by broad agreement, Paul and Barnabas divided by sharp disagreement, but also agreement to disagree. If satan was involved it's not stated and we are left with the illustration that God had his purposes for these.
You want to talk about a different subject, enemy recognition? I'm all for it but I believe it should happen cautiously. An "enemy-recognizer of one" may be objective enough but is also likely to fail to obtain broad acceptance for his recognition. And, when it happens within the church, "enemy recognition" is in fact division .... Often it's done cleanly (excommunication of Arius, position papers against Joseph Smith), and often messily (Great Schism, which both churches apologized for 911 years later). Clean enemy recognition is not the scope of this post. It's certainly in the scope of Conspiracies but beyond my general statement "it's the satanists" I have very few people that I judge, and then for behavior (enmity) rather than person (enemy).
You want the other religions for some reason as if you doubt I mean what I say; I have time, and it's also good to see in a comment in this post. The argument that "Christianity is over target which is why it's so infiltrated and split" is good, but Judaism and Islam are close to target and the same thing happens to them, and that's an ordinary high-school comparative religion observation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_religious_movements&oldid=1309467997
Rabbinic, Sadducee, Nazarene, Karaite, Haymanot (5); Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Italian, Romaniote (5); Hasidic, Lithuanian, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstruction, Communal, Haredi, Zionist, Anti-Zionist (10); Crypto-Judaism (13); Beta Israel, Crimean, Igbo, Subbotnik (4); Black, Jewish Science, Humanist, Carlebach, Jewish Renewal, Conservadox, Kabbalah Centre, Lev Tahor, Open Orthodox, Burqa, Messianic, Baal Teshuva (12); Havurah, Independent, IFR, Day School, Keshet, Bnei Noah (6); Seminaries (6); Hasidic dynasties (14); Misnagdim, Musar, Sephardic Haredi, Dor Daim, Edah HaChareidis, Neturei Karta, Modern Orthodox (7); that's 82 in one article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_communities_by_country&oldid=1312062347
Ashkenazi subgroups (8); Sephardi subgroups (5); Italkim, San Nicandro, Juhurim, Gruzim, Krymchak (5); North African (7); West Asian (8); Bilad el-Sudan, Lemba, South African, Sao Tome (4); Asian (14); American (6); that's 57 in a second article. I recall seeing more than that before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_branches_and_schools..png
I count 52 groups in this graphic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_schools_and_branches&oldid=1311681059
All-Illahi, Bahai (2); Sunni schools (8); Salafi, Wahhabi, Ahle Hadith, Jafari, Usuli, Akhbari, Ismaili, Zaydi (8); Kalam, Ashari, Maturidi, Athari, Mutazila, Murjiah, Qadariyyah, Jabriyah, Jahmiyya, Batiniyyah (10); Azeemiyya, Kubrawiya, Mouride, Nimatullahi, Noorbakshia, Senussi (6); Darul Islam, IPNA, MIB, MANA, Ansaaru Allah (5); Black (6); Ahmadiyya, Lahore Ahmadiyya, Barelvi, Deobandi, Gulen, Modern Salafi, Islamism (7); Islamist movements (3); Quranism, Liberal, Progressive, Mahdavia, Nondenominational (5); that's 60, having deleted repetitions with the graphic.
For any single entries with plural numbers, the requisite list of subgroups appears in the stable link given. Obviously that very quick review might still contain repetitions, but it demonstrates that there are at least 100 divisions in Islam and Judaism. (I still doubt it was worth my interest.) You didn't think they were monoliths, did you?
Add: It's been called to my attention that I didn't make clear that there are 82+57=139 distinct Jewish denominations and 52+60=112 distinct Muslim denominations listed, either directly or by reference to the stable links, or 111 Muslims if an unnoticed (but anticipated) dual reference to "Quranism" is taken singly rather than doubly. Obviously the second list of Muslims excluded all noticed repetitions of the second article against the first list of Muslims. I trust this elision of simple math doesn't defeat the purpose of the listing. It probably bears stating for completeness that there is some overlap among these, but they are all distinct movements and denominations in exactly the same methodology the estimate of 30,000 Christian denominations is calculated. Quibbles can be made, but I did state in advance that pinning down details would be boring.
Looks like a specialized small university in Miami. Another group that has very specialized universities is Adventism. Did you see something specific going on here?
^ u/Paleo, here is some good research about the regular appearance of Politics in Trending. In particular, I understand that Funny should have no reason to be in Trending, so it's not just a one-off. Looking forward to your thoughts in good time. It appears then that my proposal about how to get Conspiracies in Trending might be right on point:
Just to say it here and copy it elsewhere, it occurs to me that if we removed the political tag and then flagged the very few political posts with a different exclusion like NSFW then we'd get the best of all: appearance in Trending, plus minimal admin involvement, plus minimal specification on what "political" is (until people argue). Strange workaround but people might like those benefits.
Add: Let's repurpose the acronym too. "Not Safe For World"?
Just to say it here and copy it elsewhere, it occurs to me that if we removed the political tag and then flagged the very few political posts with a different exclusion like NSFW then we'd get the best of all: appearance in Trending, plus minimal admin involvement, plus minimal specification on what "political" is (until people argue). Strange workaround but people might like those benefits.
Saying it friendly, this view collapses when applied to itself.
Your statement that the last person is meaningless deflates to nothing instantly when the next person says you are meaningless.
Everyone actually believes in growth and progress, they can't help being in bodies that grow. The best independent thoughts get validated and resonated by other minds, which is what makes them great. Thank you for understanding.
That's like no swaddling I've ever seen. Seems like the 19th century was big on using tech to create ambiguous ugly art just like AI today. All the better to mean multiple things to multiple audiences.
The data show that being married was no protection against being reported to the NSDAP for homosexuality. Rather, the charge was used to silence any political enemy, because so many homosexuals had marriages of convenience (the German word for it didn't exclude bisexuals).
You're fulfilling the stereotype I previously described to you by professing disbelief in something you've been shown twice. For the third time, the graphic lists 52 divisions, and the article, while retracing many of these 52 that I omitted, supplies 59 (or 60) more that were not among the 52. Of those 59, I explicitly listed 42, and referred to 17 in categories where the explicit lists appear in the link. [Add: Again I neglected to say the obvious 52+59=111.] And you're still
cryingcomplaining, without thanking me for the 139 Jewish denominations, about there not being 100 Muslim denominations, which by now is a moot point because the main point has been demonstrated clearly that major religions have many divisions without qualification.Since I enumerated and indicated where explicitly in the links to find all 250 names, I didn't bother to type out every single one. If you wish to continue failing reading comprehension on this, be my guest; if you wish to make this an issue to others, feel free, with the proviso that they may well judge you a fool for your reading comprehension.
Fun swerve to a party line. I tell everyone, Jesus said explicitly they were not Jews. You might like the historical dive into who he was really talking about; the most likely historical figure intended was Onkelos, who did convert to Judaism long after the synagogue of satan was defeated by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus prophesied) by Ignatius of Antioch. I remember you were at c/Christianity and left it over this issue, but couldn't find it easily, which is another reason I told you I was confident I'd shared Jesus with you before.
Anyway, for Conspiracy purposes, both the theory "it's the Jews", and my theory of continuous covenantalism that includes Messianic Jews, are worth discussing.
For Christianity purposes, we have different standards and you're free (as the other OP says) to divide yourself from us. Let's see. "Scott Lively didn't like Baptists and founded First Century Bible ('Swamp Rangers'), 2020 .... Neo1 didn't like Swamp Rangers and founded True Christians, 2024." You fit right in, fren. Just as you are free, I'm free to contextualize if I believe you're lying.
You do allude to the fruits of c/Christianity, where we've had prayer at least weekly all along and have never turned aside requests for help. We are working on becoming even better, and we welcome criticism, but fruit inspection requires authority similar to that of fruit grower in the first place.
Now, Neo, whether or not you receive it, again I bless you in Jesus's name, and (speaking directly) am thankful for all the personality range you've shown, from your great encouragements to your great discouragements. For station identification, my reference to time-wasters was a hint about the fact that I choose very deliberatively what and whether to respond to each objection I hear: the wise welcomes objections. There comes a time when a person responds to an objection with silence because everything has been said on that point. If you should reach that point with me, I trust we'll chat again when Paul's prophecy becomes true that we reach unity of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13).