You should absolutely maximise all of your critical faculties in order to be able to spot nonsense and deceit and to discern good advice from bad.
He also said be wise as serpents. I agree with your statement, but also his. See my longer comment.
You brought up influencers. Their statements can be tested by truth.
On a quick review I see a little history of force such as against the Saxons by Charlemagne. This was done by kings or by mobs, not by church officials, so it would be in the category of government persecution, not of forced conversion by the Catholic Church. So we could list wrongs done by religious rulers or emperors, but I don't see the connection. We are free here to discuss and apprehend truth together, including the truth that lots of people have been bad at that in the past, but their bad example doesn't affect what the truth is.
The evidence that Jesus is one of the best-attested men of antiquity has considerately been pinned by the mod of Atheist for several years. If you'd like to discuss that in the search for truth, please proceed. You seem to accept the existence of Paul, so if you'd like to discuss differences between the two in the search for truth, that's good too, but be prepared for the idea that they don't disagree.
I claim the name "Christian" but restrict that to whomever the true Creator really is and not to whomever I think he is at any moment. The truth is greater than myself and I'm dedicated to the truth and not to myself. For me everything is on the table except that I am sold as a slave to truth. If you see differences between the true Creator and Yahweh in the search for truth, that too is good discussion.
c/Christianity has already investigated genocide passages, but going into that detail isn't useful unless we know what and why we're seeking. Since you didn't get specific, I didn't reply specifically as I did with the next passage.
Ps. 137:9 is a poem rather than a history, calling for vengeance on the occupying nation of Babylon, not in reference to any historical event in which that vengeance occurred. The author proposes the hypothetical that, due to its immorality and guilt, its conquerors will be "happy" even if babies are destroyed in the chaos of war. It is not speaking of a judicial punishment per se, it speaks of a cruelty that may happen by the judgment of individual callous soldiers, and it's not saying this happens in time of peace but it's saying the natural consequences of war are rightly determined upon Babylon by the Creator. The word translated "happy" is closer to its English equivalent "fortuitous" or to the more literal "blest", indicating that the soldier who makes that judgment is, unlike at any other time, "happening" to accord with a greater justice upon the people, and with the natural consequences upon the individual child and the family. In short, it's a brief explanation of a deep principle that has merit, and it's not at all a teaching justifying force in matters of conscience.
TLDR: Evils of religious kings, nature of Jesus, nature of Paul, nature of the Creator are all good topics we could develop. If there were a "Jesus psyop" then these would be good pillars to attack. What's interesting is that so many people who are free to study and choose truth come to find that truth in Jesus. I repeat, "Do you actually want logical, robust answers as a conspiracist would require, or is your mind made up already?" If you commit to follow the truth wherever it leads, as I do, we can have fruitful discovery together, and you may even be able to disabuse me of errors I've made.
anointing (singular)
Anointing suggests on-ointment, joining oil to flesh. Oil represents flow, flesh represents form. Jesus holds onto oil, and sets apart from non-oil.
For some reason I haven't seen you around much. Do you actually want logical, robust answers as a conspiracist would require, or is your mind made up already? We all seek truth together here. Besides your need to take u/Thisisnotanexit seriously, I'm pointing out some quick takes so you know that it's credible to recognize that the answers exist.
-
If you see several influencers turning to Christ, that would be answered by whether Christianity holds the best truth claims or not.
-
I've never seen Christian bots. Please point any out by pinging me directly.
-
c/Conspiracies has for many years allowed civil Christian and anti-Christian debate. You might rather investigate how Conspiracies was created (wasn't it absorbed from Reddit?).
-
If someone had taken over Rome to force Gentiles into worshipping Yahweh, that would be interesting and intriguing; never heard of this, so what is your evidence?
-
You're going to play Jesus not existing against Jesus teaching Gentiles to be enemies? That's illogical.
-
If we pretended Christianity used some ineffective legend about a questionably extant anti-Gentile individual to convert billions of Gentiles, that would be more miraculous than what happened.
-
The Bible says Israel is also a "goy" (nation). Most religions hold that those who don't accept their truth will perish, regardless of whether the truth community is called by a national name (like New Israel) or another name. Nothing to see there.
-
Yes, Christianity is about the destruction of all gods except whomever the true Creator is. Any truth seeker would want to know who the true Creator is and to determine if anyone else had any deity at all, and we propose that Yahweh is the best candidate and no other has any claims on deity.
-
Genocide calls are pretty consistent with just-war principles in any religion: they only apply to belligerent nations that have rejected truth formally and governmentally. A couple passages have been taken out of context to claim otherwise, but they're not difficult in context.
-
You allude to Ps. 137:9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy [Babylon's] little ones against the stones." Again, this refers to a nation that has abrogated its social place in seeking truth and upholding human relations. One reading is that innocent children are spared a worse fate in a war situation, another reading is that the culture has poisoned even its children into conscious participation against human morality. Without your proposing some better moral system there's no high ground for you to object to this verse; Viking poetry is far worse.
-
It sounds like you want to play a gotcha out of the God of Israel not being accepted prior to Jesus as the God of any other nation (like Armenia). Many "God so loved the world" verses could be brought to bear but you might still argue that you're not seeing what you claim to see. Therefore the question is what you intend to prove. Should I line up everyone from Dumuzid to Jupiter to determine whether they have a fair shake on being God of all the earth? I think that's exactly what Yahweh is asking us to watch happen in world history and so it wouldn't prove anything until the decisive contest that some anticipate. So it's unclear what assertion you wish to make about what could be better than Yahweh starting his group revelation via a single nation.
In short I'm not seeing useful conspiracy discussion advancing here for the most part, I'm seeing a mix of individual perceptions of some kind of brigading, a couple hackneyed objections to Christianity without any superior alternative, and a unique proposal that the Hebrew roots of Christianity must somehow invalidate it, as if the true Creator would never work by progressive revelation that passes through a people-group for a significant period. Would love to know if you're interested in discussion toward establishing truth.
"The LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God."
Greetings. Sometimes all affects one in ways one does not comprehend.
(OP just posted and deleted this one and ignored my reply as follows:)
OP is an uncritical quote miner. The alleged Herzl quote comes from an English transcription of a Hebrew video and appears only in Hebrew sources before that, going back to 2002 from a polemic book and author that can be translated as David Shalem, The Germany File. But the evidence is strongly against it originating from Herzl's pen in German. However, Raphael Patai's book says "Herzl was generally censured for having caused articles preaching nationalism to be published in the Deutsche Zeitung", so he may have been connected with the sentiment of those who actually wrote for that paper at that time ca. 1900 rather than globetrotting like Herzl.
OP also blurs the point that Ford published rather than wrote The International Jew, which was not written in his voice but was written primarily by his secretary.
OP is an uncritical quote miner. The purported Eusebius quote is not in any way his but was, in his own JPost source, attributed to Eusebius rather than put in quotation marks. This one goes back to a very credulous, imbalanced Dagobert Runes, Jew and the Cross, 1965, who in the same breath makes the mistake of converting Eusebius's 90,000 Jewish captives during the Jewish war sold to Romans for their labor, to 90,000 Christian captives during the Persian war sold to Jews for sport killing. With that much misreading it's probable that the summary about Purim was a false memory of the actual quote, separately given here, from Socrates of Constantinople, 5th century. There simply was and is no evidence of widespread simultaneous annual crucifixions in the 4th century by anybody.
Of course nobody else reported any evidence of Socrates's rumor, except if you trace the rumor a warping of generic pagan blood libels against the Jews (Damocritus in the 10th-century Suda, and Apion in Josephus, who credits Posidonius and Apollonius Molo as influencers). But the pagans would have adapted it from the original blood libel against the Christians, who would have received it because obeying Jesus's words exposed them to the charge.
In other words it appears nobody thought of inventing the blood libel until Jesus took it upon himself to talk like a cannibal, didactically, for the purpose of weeding out the skeptics. But by doing this he also set up the deeper layer: he took upon himself all the blame for cannibalism that everyone else laid against any other person, innocent or guilty; he made himself the chief of cannibals so that he could save whoever wanted to be saved. That's an incredible confirm of his mission.
OP is an uncritical quote miner. The alleged Herzl quote comes from an English transcription of a Hebrew video and appears only in Hebrew sources before that, going back to 2002 from a polemic book and author that can be translated as David Shalem, The Germany File. But the evidence is strongly against it originating from Herzl's pen in German. However, Raphael Patai's book says "Herzl was generally censured for having caused articles preaching nationalism to be published in the Deutsche Zeitung", so he may have been connected with the sentiment of those who actually wrote for that paper at that time ca. 1900 rather than globetrotting like Herzl.
OP also blurs the point that Ford published rather than wrote The International Jew, which was not written in his voice but was written primarily by his secretary.
You mean the American chairwoman of the same tiny mysterious cult that Ann Soetoro promoted in Indonesia and whose founder, the Pak, looks amazingly like a recent White House occupant?
Nah, I don't think that was her in the video, for some reason you never saw her face.
My whole existence is in the Mind of the Eternal. Everything else is counterfeit.
The interesting thing about this one is that the document is extant from the 16th century but seems to have accurate, noncoincidental brief descriptions of all popes since then. A couple descriptions could be regarded as vague or gamed, but the overall hit count appears slightly significant. Francis corresponds to the description "Peter the Roman" taken as the last-days pope, and this has been anticipated a long time. However if Francis is ruled an antipope the next one will be Peter the Roman instead! The game goes on.
The former cataclysms are a lie to muddy the waters about there being exactly one global cataclysm. All the evidence for plural cataclysm comes from captive science.
The moon and earth coalesced separately at the same time.
Jesus always mediates between others and God, so even when he takes the nature of (say) white hats he also has a unique access to God that others don't have. This is the often-unappreciated key to the difference between Jesus and everyone else.
Nibiru is not made of physical material like the moon is, its orbit is more complex than described.
I have no problem with the intelligent races described but the mechanism between them is not captive-science evolution but conscious design. There are perfect and imperfect ways to mix races, and what we see is mostly the imperfect. Thus I suspect there may be perfect sasquatches but they are in the minority of reports.
Yes, the deep state is self-divided and our unity transcends and defeats that. However, here I'm called to the sword to cut away mistakes. I trust that my notes above will be helpful in keeping the narrative most cogent.
You mean World War 0, because it was declared in 1910 at Jekyll Island and isn't over yet. This war's D-Day was the 20th.
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore .... He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father .... To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
https://scored.co/search?query=rva&community=christianity&sort=old
I deign to share because I love you all. The greatest unlimitation is to be both limited and unlimited.
This one is totally bogus and previously debunked here. It's an individual making stuff up because he realized that's what the IRS does; for instance, he seized upon the bankruptcy of a boring, small private corporation that had some ambiguous name like "the United States Corporation" (I think it was a client of Prentice-Hall) and claimed it was actually the bankruptcy of the whole government. Not history at all.
The history being made that is closest to this intent in terms of real remedy is Ron Paul's being tapped to audit the Fed.
I did it from memory. Here's the WP version. If you have no standards for testing claims of superhuman origin, you won't have a defense against either human or superhuman deception:
William S. Sadler and his wife Lena Sadler, physicians in Chicago and well known in the community, are said to have been approached as early as 1911 by a neighbor who was concerned because she would occasionally find her husband in a deep sleep and breathing abnormally.[11][12] She reported that she was unable to wake him at these times. The Sadlers came to observe the episodes, and over time, the individual produced verbal communications that claimed to be from "student visitor" spiritual beings.[13][12] This changed sometime in early 1925[13] with a "voluminous handwritten document," which from then on became the regular method of purported communication.[13][14] The individual was never identified publicly but has been described as "a hard-boiled business man, member of the board of trade and stock exchange."[12]
I'd rather read Remembrance of Things Past and the Internal Revenue Code. I decided that after the ToC and about four pages of worse sci-fi than the Moronic book.
It was written by automatic handwriting and compiled and circulated by a group of spiritualists. That is, one of them had a patient who just kept writing and writing without awareness of the content, and they made it into a book. The content basically takes everything in the Bible and reinterprets and inverts it to make it a vast network of secret powerz that control millions of universes. In other words, it was written by spiritual entities unknown for the very purpose of casting doubt upon the classical Christian understanding of the Bible. Its only reason for interest is its audacious narcissism.
This one was invalid, because it was just a database search for "six million" and "Jews" in the same proximity and turned up all kinds of false positives. When compared against "five million" and "seven million" the results were not statistically significant. Not one of fifty clippings can be viewed as prophetic. Keep researching though!
"He is that hero" is Larry the Cucumber's motto as superhero Larry-Boy.
However, the rest concerns me because as a Catholic he is responsible to know the first illustration is from Revelation and the second, the challenging of orthodoxies, is dangerous. He may well think that the present pope needs to be depoped and so the Catholic teaching that the white rider is "good" applies; but that's a danger of the Catholic dogmatic eschatology that is a secondary contributing factor. The bigger problem is that slipping these things into speeches is exactly what the Bushies used to do on behalf of the then-NWO.
So that raises it to orange alert for me, eyes on. It must be that a greater beast awaits this one being slain, and it may even be that it succeeds very rapidly on the heels, and syncretism is one mark of that (exactly what Hussein used to do). Trump's profession has been better than the Bushes', but not as good as the Pauls'. So chalk him up as Cyrus or Nebuchadrezzar for now, someone who can turn nations but who can also be turned, ultimately for God's overarching purposes. Stack, load, prep, testify, network, and above all pray.
It's too bad that there is so much truth here and yet it too has to contain the poison packagings of moneymaking because people think that's the way to propagate truth.
The fact that the book purports to report a channeling experience indicates that the content need not be sold, because information is free.
The real Secret or Revelation is one that anyone can achieve without needing a particular packaging. It is achieved by contact with Ultimate Being (God) without mediation. If you stumble upon it via a mediator, that may work for a time but you will wean yourself at a later time. I typically stick to selecting from free sources because they know there is no need to rely on market forces. The enemy's trap, when he can't poison the mediator, is to flood the free market with garbage so that the pearls cannot easily be found. Yet the seeker of truth always gathers all the pearls he needs.
Urkel-free posters are as valuable as Indian-head pennies.
Usually, admitting guilt, asking what to do, and accepting your answer, is all taking responsibility. I didn't spend 3 months, I read it and commented at the time, I've now linked my answer, I didn't remember it precisely without your first link. Let me know what else you need.
Okay, since you define no remedy that can be accomplished online, that's what you get. Thank you for receiving my apology and expressing your concerns. Let me know anytime I can help with anything else.
Well, thank you for this fresh meat and I hope u/Thisisnotanexit doesn't mind my stepping in first, as we agree on a lot but not perfectly.
If you start with natural law, that rapidly leads to necessity for capital punishment for the incorrigible, and then to the possibility of just war against the incorrigibly belligerent society. If you have a problem with the idea of defending your nation with force when attacked, that's probably a separate discussion because most moral codes allow protection of the innocent.
The question turns to when to judge that a nation is sufficiently belligerent (hardened), and the degree of collateral risk against noncombatants. This is also a very detailed moral dilemma but is closer to the objection you are staking out. It seems that you're not objecting to the principle that nations have the right to judge that war against one of their number is better for all, and to judge who is included in that war; you're objecting to the loose application of this principle as many read it into the Bible. If we could never declare war against an attacking nation or determine for ourselves who constitutes combatants or what collateral risk is acceptable, that would be quite a difficult pacifism to walk.
It's my experience that the Biblical accounts indicate principles in this moral minefield that are at least as good as those of any other comparative system: this requires reading them in their context the same way as any other historical document, of course.
Your first passage, 1 Sam. 15:2-3, states the rationale directly, that Amalek had attacked Israel without cause (Ex. 17:8). In context Amalek "smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary", so grave an attack against a people on pilgrimage as to require continuous remembrance (Ex. 17:14-16, Deut. 25:17-19). They hadn't changed any later, as cited by the independent witness of Balaam, who also judged the people worthy of death (Num. 24:20); this is unlike the Kenites, who had been among Amalek but accepted terms of peace with Israel, 1 Sam. 15:6. Now, as with Egyptian justifications for its many wars, you could object that the history is wrong or exaggerated, but we don't have an objection that there are times when a nation should be judged for crimes against humanity, and attacking the feeble among a wearied people en masse is one such crime.
In those days it was also argued that one who attacks the weak (i.e. including the children) deserves to have one's own children attacked; the fact that we are (often) more sensitive nowadays is a further moral development, but still isn't an objection against the morality as it had developed that far. The fact is that the adults were all judged worthy of death by Samuel and Saul, and for the children in this case death was judged more merciful than alternatives (including their remaining alive to revive the rebellious nation). I believe that anyone seeking morality should be able to accept that the Creator, through the Cosmos, allows many unexplained deaths of children or "innocents" through many secondary causes, and that if we're not atheists we trust that there is a good reason for this. So it's not impossible for the Creator to communicate that a certain nation is so far gone that its children are better off spared from growing up in that nation, due to the secondary cause of war. Since that's possible, I don't have a problem with the theory that it may have happened on a couple occasions. When genocide occurs for any reason, I trust that the Creator knows who are truly dying in innocence and who are dying for their sins, and judges rightly.
The cattle are a separate issue, as the victor in a just war has the right to dedicate its spoils to its god rather than use it for other purposes. Saul's issue was that he agreed with the dedication and then didn't follow through. Samuel called this out publicly and said that Yahweh had said "It repenteth me" about it, which means not that he changed his mind but that Saul's kingship had turned away (repented) from him. Yahweh didn't leave Saul in that sense, Saul left.
Now you ask if this is a good, all-loving God. That's a moral question that I'll just allude to briefly. God being Love cannot mean rewarding the evil: sooner or later Love draws a line and allows justice and judgment. The complex transactions of God in the Bible demonstrate a very developed sense of how to draw those lines, and when I compare it to other systems I find it superior. Many who speak of omnibeneficence haven't thought through what it would actually mean as an attribute of deity.
Deut. 7:1-6 is similarly a judgment against various Canaanite tribes for their evil practices, well-documented in the Late Bronze Age archaeology. One reference to these evils, aside from idolatry itself being connected to many shrine immoralities, is that they bring diseases (7:15), including sexual; another reference is the Deut. 2 giants, several nations of which had already been dispossessed by other Semitic tribes, which was regarded as a judgment against their sexual immorality (Gen. 6), a judgment in which Israel had much precedent from which to participate. This is not about genocide against every other nation, but is surgically selected; the rules of just war require offering terms of peace, allowing coexistence. Also, Moses gives laws of war by which captives can be spared and naturalized, which apply in all these cases (Amalek being a specific exception).
Now, if a national god was in fact the true Creator it would be natural to affirm that all nations should come to know him; but this aspect is claimed by several gods, so we need not choose a priori, as it remains for them to continue competing in history as we study truth claims to determine which of them is correct.
You then regard Christianity as some kind of Jewish plot ("parasitisation") to subvert all these nations. Well, again, American Christianity today is great at hearing all competing truth claims and allowing discussion, so if this were true then the way it exists today as upholding rights of conscience is one of the best vehicles in which to discover any errors! I'm happy to discuss faults of Jews and Christians, but that is a separate matter from whether the true Creator is actually on Jesus's side and speaking truth through him.
Ps. 110:5-6 is of course warlike, though you have an exaggerated paraphrase and in the KJV it reads more rightly and generically as "He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries." If a king is unable to defeat enemies and wound heads when called for, yeah, that wouldn't be my Savior forever. It doesn't come close to implying that every Gentile will be killed. I don't see a problem with the psalm itself, or other multifaceted Messianic literature, unless racism is attributed to Jesus contrary to the historical record.
Is. 49:23 could be taken as Gentiles serving Israel, but the same passage (6) says "It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." Salvation and light to the Gentiles alongside Israel, where both are given to the Messiah "servant", means that all are equally serving the Messiah as the true representative of what Israel or any nation was supposed to be. I'm a love-slave of Jesus, sold to him unless truth should be otherwise. So I don't have a problem with the idea that all nations, including Israel, serve him in his kingdom, as he's proved his worthiness for it. I know that it's been said Talmudists take this triumphalistically, but that hasn't been demonstrated and doesn't inform the idea that they have any power to do so via Christianity apart from Jesus.
Micah 7:16-17 isn't really even an applicable passage, it comes in the midst of shepherding, compassion, and pardon (14, 18-19) for all who have the faith of Abraham (20), which precedes that one grandson Israel. Generic charges against the nations generally refer to whether they accept God's offer of peace or remain belligerent against him (hmm, returning theme), not to race.
TLDR: It takes eyes to distinguish advocacy for child murder from a wartime accepted risk of collateral death to children. The Bible gives hundreds of examples of moral decisionmaking and the couple times it discusses collateral damage appear to me to be some of the best guidance on the subject, compared to any other analyst. Child murderers write in a completely different way. Your difficulty blurring the two indicates you have some other objection, possibly founded in some other (European?) religious code that you haven't shared with us. By all means, teach us Odin and Yggdrasil if that has a better morality, but don't deconstruct one morality disingenuously without setting up something better in its place.