Because the West forgot the Hebrew text it was built on in which miracles and wands were amoral and could be used for good or for ill. Since they could be used for ill, puritans (lowercase) rejected all such displays, giving way to materialists. Restoring mages (magi) to the Western church is an ongoing effort.
You mention "telekinesis or telecognition or remote viewing and other psychic phenomenon". "Telekinesis" usually is not movement by mind but almost always coordination of mind with some other spirit that does the movement; this can be done openly (walls of Jericho, or Dathan sinkhole), or by deception. Telecognition is mind-reading, anyone can do that. Remote viewing is vision and dream, anyone can do that. Fortune-telling is prophecy; that can be done by the spirit of the Creator who knows the future, or by other spirits who cannot know it perfectly, so that one allows for deception again.
Therefore the correct means of harnessing superpowers attributed to qi (physical effect at a distance, mind-reading, vision and dream, prophecy) is alignment with the Creator, which I believe is best done by getting to know Jesus. Paul calls these respectively miracles, discerning, knowledge and wisdom, and prophecy, among other effects (1 Cor. 12). An important instruction is to stir up (or fan into flame) the spirit within you. This is done by being around people who flow in the Holy Spirit and practicing the same in the way they do, in particular submitting your spirit and acting out what flows. (For all their flaws, evangelicals who focus on tongues have an effective entree to learning the flow, which is introduced by those with experience via encouragement of practice in just the way I describe.)
Was there a particular effect you wanted to produce? Something the Christians here could pray for? Because the materialists have partly ruined the West, and Christians are only rediscovering their mage heritage lately.
Almost entirely correct! I always just say "it's the satanists". That covers all the conspiracies you describe. Don't forget to pepper in a few Jesuits and Bilderbergers.
Okay, I randomly replied to u/Agent_86. (Using "u/" informs him where we're talking about him.)
Since you're new, I'll give you credit for not searching "Lifeway survey that suggests 1 million Jews accept Jesus as Messiah", which immediately returned the result. Note of course this is racially Jewish rather than halakhically Jewish. We do like to encourage everyone to do their own searches here when "not seeing any evidence".
defend the people who criticize jEWs
I'm equal opportunity. I affirm balanced criticism of Jews, and I give context to imbalanced criticism of Jews because its imbalance harms the stated intent of providing balanced criticism. People say I defend Jews because I attempted to pursue the mission of elite research board, i.e. getting things right. But I'll criticize anyone who deserves it.
debate them openly where everyone can see
All for it. Pick an objective thesis and start a new post and I'll tell you what I think.
are you afraid
Of nothing. People who project fear to speak may be shilling to get others to say certain words without saying them themselves.
where they nitpick to defend goys or Christians or nazis
Correct, it's not often and when so it's often colorable as self-serving. A lot of folks here don't believe the Lifeway survey that suggests 1 million Jews accept Jesus as Messiah, but since I know a couple such folks I can characterize them. When you speak of rabbinically accepted Jews who defend Christians, most of what Netanyahu says on the subject is self-serving and that is indeed representative.
The children figure? Would be 90% or higher, the brainwashing that little jEWs undergo is like that of an islamic country or North Korea.
I know the various indoctrinations including the Christian one. So (and pardon me for any hiccups in our conversation), when you speak of "the jEWs" as acting problematically, such as by tossing Trump around, that would be a case where the collective inclusion would be read to apply. Now it's not 90% of Jewish kids that are pushing Trump around, it's the Kushners and Witkoff and Netanyahu and other nameable individuals. So, as per my initial comment, I'd counsel you to watch when you use collective language and actually mean nameable individuals and organizations.
Like jEW sockpuppets
The sockpuppets we've had don't claim to be Jewish, they just rabble-rouse like community organizers and fail to contribute meaningfully. So, not really, but if people act like they're shilling for Jews then I ask if they're Jewish and they generally don't answer.
To repeat what I often say elsewhere, the Bible uses the root expression, kath holes ("all-throughout"), to refer to the church throughout all the world. I would also call it "cataholistic" if that were understandable.
enumerated voting citizenry
To prevent sockpuppets from manipulating a binding vote count, one would need to determine who is on the approved list of contributors enabled to be counted in binding votes. Nobody here seems to like that level of control, we can hardly even get a consensus on anything except accidentally.
I did ask directly.
Are you asking where shekel-sniffers nitpick? Lots of places, but I don't think that's what you're asking. For instance, the Talmud, where I like to pick on Rabbi Ulla (4th century); Tovia Singer; and Eitan Baghdadi.
Are you answering my question by saying you do mean to include 99% of Jewish children? What crime have they committed if so?
So it's unclear if Skil believes young earth or old earth and speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Another one is the meaning of supersessionism where I haven't found him to enunciate a clear position.
Yes, Skil's rants about being white-genocided without recourse are very reminiscent of those Holocaust exaggerations that have been caught from time to time. I need not remind him of this because it's well-known that I regard an irrational presentation of anti-Semitism as potential evidence of being pro-Semitic (shilling to make one's opponents look bad). The test of the evidence if if the person continues being irrational.
I'm not sure I'd compare his standoffishness to those Jerusalem Jews who called for Jesus's death. He does get along a bit with whitists and with sycophants, and there are probably points where we generally agree; but he is aggressive to root out what he disagrees with and to ridicule it dramatically, possibly for his own psyche's sake.
Incidentally, if you're interested in a number of Biblical points about covenant history, my views are unique and incisive.
Thanks for the Trotsky background. Have you seen the work Edward House did to direct the funding in the 1910s, as in The Creature from Jekyll Island? That would be fun if you had a take on it.
Yup, Americans had an imprinted view that if we let other religions than Christianity run free then they would see the truth and repent. The balance between the validity and the exploitability of this position has been our burden ever since.
The answer and address was "Yes, and irrelevant, because" etc. I do try to respond.
I gave an implied question and you didn't respond to it. Directly: Do you mean to include all (or 99% of) men, women, and children?
Interesting but a bit impractical based on timing, plus we have a regular supply of presumptive sockpuppets. Plus IMHO the regulars aren't enamored of an enumerated voting citizenry. Anyone can propose community questions anytime, so you're free to ask the community to comment more directly on your proposal.
(This implies a narrative where the earth is less than 6,000 years old. Others have called this oft-repeated narrative his fanfic.)
This is just the first one that is easy to reference, let me know if you need more. Now we could claim u/TallestSkil doesn't actually believe his fanfic, but he doesn't deny that he believes it either. He doesn't make clear that he certainly believes in the billions either; so I don't know what he believes. He throws all kinds of garbage out upon us without concern and declines to resolve the issues or commit to a position. He seems to be a Christian but he's not one who easily gets along with others who follow Christ alone.
Anyway, if you haven't been exposed to his unique style, now you have, and you've gotten a fair warning about it. Use good judgment.
Propose changes for the community's review.
Yes, and irrelevant, because lots of folks here nitpick and most don't get accused of being Jews on that account.
What I ask people about, re collectivism, is whether they mean to include all (or 99% of) men, women, and children. One take is "the children are guilty because of their indoctrination", one take is "the children aren't guilty but it's okay to charge 'the Jews' even though that includes the children". I think my approach, Name The Jew For Real, works better than either. It's funny how often people criticize the (imaginary) collective, I respond by criticizing individuals, and the interlocutor refuses to agree or take anything up or change anything. Perhaps you're not that type.
"Free Speech zone"
The rules come from several years back and at least two mods esteemed by all who are now missing and who our present active mod aspires to emulate. They reflect a community desire that personal attacks be rejected across the board. TINAE decided that those few contributors who like to attack and be attacked with equal rights can be accommodated with a warning tag to indicate to the other contributors that the ordinary rules aren't in effect.
Most "free speech zones", however, are laughable exceptions to censorship of topics. No topics are forbidden here.
Jews were here long before America was founded. The Revolutionary War was essentially funded by Hayim Solomon with the help of Robert Morris. The Masonic networks were in full operation. The question is how much good and evil can be done in the system and in particular which predominates in the people at large.
Welcome to c/Conspiracies! u/Thisisnotanexit will be along shortly to see if your link can be approved as being from a newcomer.
No, right now I'm rereading John Burke, Imagine Heaven, what should be the new definitive NDE book after Moody.
Oh, not to complain about your modship, but I don't think he was attacking me, he's relying upon his fallacious interpretation of my past comments that he failed to process correctly last time. IMHO.
Unevidenced complaints against my character fail because they are unevidenced. Evidenced complaints against my character fail because the full evidence acquits me, by God's grace. Win-win.
Ask him for evidence. [The one time he dared to produce a lot of evidence, three of his sources were all literally Hebrew University. But oh look, that link of his was taken down from SearchVoat and unarchived so he'll have to find a new one if he wants to keep quoting the U. To start, the three sources were: Mail, "Huge drop in sperm count could lead to human EXTINCTION: Study reveals 60% drop in fertility since 1970 - driven by the unhealthy Western lifestyle." Guardian, "The infertility crisis is beyond doubt. Now scientists must find the cause." News Target, "CONFIRMED: Sperm count in Western men is HALF what it should be; what is happening to the average American man?"]
If you think I deny Christ, then when I affirm his mission (even as he defines it to you) then you should thank me for stepping in the right direction. If you have no evangel for those who affirm Christ's mission, what evangel do you have?
SwampRangers.com has always admitted to being a membership organization.
Your inability to acknowledge a difference between what is thought and what is said continues, which was my initial point.
Now, perhaps you recognize that the laws of physics as we know them are incomplete and perhaps you recognize that those deeper laws that God has preset, such as the ones he uses for "miracles" and "resurrections", are also part of the laws of physics, but your inability to acknowledge difference between thought and word suggests you don't recognize this either.
If you recognize that the laws as known are incomplete, you'd have no problem with variable lightspeed; but if you believe constant lightspeed is the whole of the law then you'd be surprised, as I said. Of course when we discussed it you hemmed and hawed, sometimes going with millions and sometimes with billions, without indicating what you actually believe. So I'm not sure you want the debate.
The challenge I lay to people is as to new experiments that can be constructed. We can talk that if you like, but you seem to prefer to deal with interpretation of evidence already submitted. To that end I submit that the resurrection of Jesus in 33 AD (with 3D photographic evidence recorded in the Shroud of Turin) demonstrated an exception to currently-known laws of physics. The spontaneous reorganization of the body and soul into the glorified life displayed by Jesus (and a number of others at various times) requires energy from currently-unknown sources and may even require violation of current lightspeed assumptions.
Do you mean the laws as known by God (in which case variable lightspeed need not violate those laws)? Or do you mean the laws as currently known by man (in which case the resurrection does violate those laws)?
You’re still unable to violate the laws of physics.
You'd be surprised. I recall you thinking you know how those laws work and your assuming that they can't possibly be used to create a universe currently in its 6,018th year. I tell everyone else to work with me to select criteria by which a particular new law of physics can be discerned objectively and undeniably, but they always back down long before we get into full negotiations. If you're interested in constructing a test of laws of physics where you would be willing to submit to its results, let me know.
But somehow, reading your mind, I think you're not referring to miracles generally but only taking a swipe at the number of Swamp Rangers being irrelevant as not affecting the results of your life. So far I'm the only Ranger with a mission on Scored, the same mission in Christ you claim BTW. And I'm very happy with the progress of my work with you. Sometime we can engage another round of mutual learning.
-
Genetic chimeras are known to exist. They have two DNA in one body and experience life as one human. However, since their cases ultimately connect "seamlessly" with parasitic twins and then conjoined twins, who experience life as two humans (some with intuitive experience of each other), this indicates the chimera really does carry on the life of a second soul within itself.
-
Therefore an ordinary dead twin, such as that of Jim Kelly (who survived an abortion that took his twin sister's fetal life; add: Sarah Smith and her brother are another case), may well lay some burden on the living twin, but when the two bodies are separate and go separate ways this is not much more significant than the ordinary experience of living identical twins or other close relations who share lives.
-
In that general category, we all pour portions of our souls into each other's lives and some "influences" are stronger than others. The soul that was formed with the body, because it contains a code that matches the physical DNA, still drives the body; it's treated under the metaphor of "51% ownership", sufficient for all determinations but also swayed by many other influences.
-
Both humans and other spirits often seek to wrest majority control over the body in extraordinary cases, aka (co)dependency. Building strong families with individual and group boundaries respected will avoid this. Weak individuals without parental support and gradual emancipation fall prey to "alternative parents" in gurus and spirits. The whole game is pressuring the soul to yield its control, which it does temporarily but which, evidence indicates, it still has the authority to take back at any time its will is awakened (from a new spirit inside or outside). This describes most walk-in episodes.
-
Your description of a soul "deciding to pass on" aligns with a point of no return (keeping in mind that the true barrier of no return is typically further away than expected). Without distinguishing OBE from NDE as there is similarity on this point, I'm theorizing that this point or barrier is being "truly dead" (as opposed to "mostly dead", happy 78th birthday Billy Crystal). The soul not only departs the body but also breaks all quantum entanglement with the body: and the "point" at which that final breaking will be reached differs according to how strong one's resonance is between soul and body (stronger resonance allows greater range before a breach). St. John indicates that the "mostly dead" phase can last into the 4th day and so it's fitting to count it as up to a whole week at the extreme. The wise can discern the difference. (This is not related to general resurrection, which involves transfiguration.) Therefore it's fitting to accord all the living as not having crossed a point of no return (because a true and full takeover rather than walk-in would be external-vampiric and no longer reliant on the DNA-keyed soul's power to maintain life). To theorize an exception of a body that remains alive but that is also completely severed from its origin soul, I think we'd be in the realm of other-animated corpse, i.e. truly dead but in use as a zombi; this calls for exorcism and probably physical restraint. If the body contained any life it would seem that life would have power of reconnection to its home soul and invocation of 51% rights, which has also been attained via exorcists.
In general, this shares with the other current post (NDE deceptions) the concept that the body born to (encoded to) the soul is so easily influenced that deception is rampant. The solution is the same as I always espouse, pursuit of truth at all costs (even of the body).
Oh, u/TallestSkil does expect people to read his mind. IMHO. He also expects them to take him solely at his word without inferring anything. He has a history of playing it both ways, but his self-contradiction isn't the most endemic or destructive so we play with him much as he claims to play with you.
Thanks, I read you as saying "it's the satanists".
FYI as a newcomer, two or three of us give more upvotes when collectivist language isn't used. I tell people Name The Jew For Real: don't blame the fictional boogeyman "The Jews", blame the Kushners specifically and name their associates.
One of the fastest ways to get more downvotes here is to complain about a single downvote. I gave you a downvote, but my primary reason was that you didn't provide a cognizable conspiracy.
Another user just noted how much there is today of people complaining Jews censor all criticism of them, oblivious to how they are complaining uncensored. I affirmed him by noting "It's the satanists". I thought you were of the same kind when you implied "It's the Catholics and Jews", which is close enough to negotiate.
All countries censor war footage.
There were a couple people here regularly calling for death of Nazis, the new mod dealt with them swiftly at the same time and in the same way as those calling for death of Jews.
Why don't you name the Jew for real (Henry Kissinger contributed to JFK's death, Jonathan Goldblatt lobbies for legislation against anti-Semitism)? People might get the idea that you are fearful, while you are criticizing those who are fearful. They might get the idea that you are a fed shill (a glowie) because you're seeking to get others to be specific where you're being generic.
Just tips if you want to fit in. You won't get banned for content here, but you might get banned for attacking people without evidence if you do it often enough.