Sounds like a valid reading but does allow discussion about risk of overreach. I've held that subversion is basically what admin calls "inauthentic campaigning", and that would seem to be slightly more objective, and compatible with the prior agreed specifics.
Oh how funny! I didn't realize it was just an AI reading debunked misquotes that are over 100 years old. Literally at 0:00:20 there is a reference to "Gad Shas 2:2", which has never existed, and which I showed was recognized literally 100 years ago to be a typo series derived from "Yad Chazakah 8:2", which is not Talmud at all but just the opinion of Maimonides (and still misquoted). It's probable almost all of these are dealt with on my Talmud quotes page. It's not worth mining 5 hours of untranscribed video to correct them all.
I did ask for a summary. I was hoping there'd be something about Solomon's 72 spirits because I'm interested in tradition on that. But OP has not left a summary or timestamp or anything useful. I keep saying, people who criticize the Jews with really stupid, anciently refuted arguments make the Jews look good by comparison. It's as if all the "anti-Semitic" accounts here are the real Israeli accounts, because they act consistent with stated Jewish goals to make their opponents look stupid and engage war by deception when believed necessary.
Skimming the graphics I even came across a cheap AI female demon. That doesn't actually help the case any. There's some Remphan stuff ably handled by my hexagram article; and some Allan Cronshaw stuff, a guy who follows the vegetarian Gideon Ouseley who wrote a new gospel ca. 1900 after channeling Emanuel Swedenborg.
Third Eye, are you actually interested in getting at the truth of what the Talmud says and what Solomon and the rest did? Because you're not acting like you pursue the truth at all costs, but that you just pursue low-effort posts and comments regardless of how botlike it appears.
Preston, it's great to meet you, so I have a few questions to see if you are free-thinking and keeping an open mind, or if you have already concluded your case based on what appears to be pretty shoddy dependency.
What does your AI (Artificial Stupidity) say about the Hyksos expulsion that would contradict what I said? The Hyksos were Semitic from the Levant, not Yemen, and they have a number of pharaohs, probably a hundred scarabs, and many artifacts. Excavations of Tell El-Dab'a (Avaris) show no widespread destruction of the city, which instead seems to have been abandoned by the Hyksos. Avaris is Ramses, the same city name Moses uses.
Did you know the Hyksos were likely founded by Yakbim, a Semitic name cognate with Joseph's name Ben-Yaakov? Did you know that Yakbim may be identified with Salitis, a Semitic name cognate with Joseph's title Shalit (governor)?
Was Manetho wrong when he put Moses's name into his history? He's often wrong, but in minor predictable ways. Is Manetho not counted as evidence that a credible tradition informed him that the Hyksos departure was led by Moses? Was Ptolemy of Mendes incorrect to attribute the same to Moses?
Were Sesostris I and Khnumhotep II wrong to depict their trade with rich Semitic merchants in the lifetime attributed to Abraham, 20th-19th centuries BC? Has anything about the life of Abraham been conclusively proven as anachronistic to that period?
I recently tracked one of the Five Kings, Amraphel, as being Amar-Sin of Ur (short chronology). One telling point is that Amar-Sin died suddenly "from the bite of his shoe" and thus couldn't complete his ziggurat; while when Amraphel died Abraham argued over the shoe-latchet from the spoils.
The AI's relying on an "accepted" narrative is a laughable telephone-game that goes back to 19th-century German "JEDP" atheists. Conservative and liberal historians have disagreed on this awhile. I already told you that their sole reason for putting Moses in the 14th or 13th century, as the AI's source says, was because they didn't believe Moses could speak of a city of Ramses before Ramses II. However, Exodus 15 (Song of the Sea) and Judges 4-5 (Judgment and Song of Deborah), which both include Moses, are recognized by many scholars (via their poetry) to have been written close to their own events in the 16th-14th century. In general:
According to Solomon Nigosian, there are three prevailing views among biblical scholars: one is that Moses is not a historical figure, another view strives to anchor the decisive role he played in Israelite religion, and a third that argues there are elements of both history and legend from which "these issues are hotly debated unresolved matters among scholars".
The reason people don't find records is they're looking in the wrong century. As soon as you look at the Hyksos expulsion you find all the backup you need. Did you know that every line of the Davis translation of the Tempest Stele of Ahmose has a parallel line in Exodus 8-12? It's as if Ahmose was right that a tempest like never before in Egypt, accompanied with days of darkness which made torches unusable, was actually sent in 1539 BC by "the great god" as he calls him. Right when the Hyksos left and there was a pharaoh power vacuum (seized by Ahmose) with the sudden deaths of Pharaoh Apophis and Crown Prince Apophis, and the impotence of successor Khamudi.
You say Moses was Arab, but did you know the likely etymology of "Arab" is metathetical for "Eber", the father of the Hebrews (a term that originally included Arabs)? Do you feel comfortable backdating the first secular appearance of the word "Arab" from the 9th century BC back to the 16th-13th centuries? If you say you are, you're using a double standard when you refuse to backdate the Christian data that is better attested. Or perhaps you'd prefer to give the Bible conditional credit for deriving Arab from Arabah (wilderness), which comes from Moses's follower Joshua in the 1490s? Do you discount the Arab tradition that they are descended from Ishmael the son of Abraham, when Ishmael is a Semitic name dating from ca. 2000 and used continuously by the Arabs since then? With all your reliance on certainty about Arabs, your primary supports for it are the same as the supports for Abraham and Moses.
It's not useful to seize upon u/Mrexreturns writing his althist to present more of the same. OP is an interesting subject but we may be derailing it a bit. The real question I'd have for you is: do you pursue truth at all costs (free-thinking, open-minded), or is there anything else that might prevent you from committing to pursue truth at all costs? Nothing whatsoever can be successfully substituted for truth, nothing is worth it.
Welcome. Yes, out of six names proposed over 10 days when the subject came up, admin indeed selected u/Thisisnotanexit as a frontrunner, and then waited another two months to gauge the community's reaction to that preference.
Again, Neo1's original opinion of me was:
You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even.
The link you point out includes my analysis showing that there were not a significant number of contributors to the vote, which is why I didn't press the issue with the community. I also analyzed a separate recent conversation that went 17-4-1 against TINAE's interpretation of a rule, and she accepted that consensus, so it's not like people are incapable of voting. So I think the admins waiting awhile to gauge consensus as an added method beyond the vote itself was a responsible way of collecting the consensus. I've also said anyone can start a new vote anytime, which hasn't happened for some reason. The fact that Christians take more responsibility for voting on community questions than average isn't significant in that respect.
I wouldn't have a problem with your proposing a conspiracy, but your username indicates inauthenticity, and your immediate reaction to getting deleted aggravates it. You were autodeleted for being a handshake, and TINAE then ratified that by judging you didn't demonstrate commitment to the published rules. Neither I nor TINAE has ever sought to hide how things happened, I have always responded with full facts and she has never denied any of the facts either; in fact she posted the moderation megathread for the purpose of ensuring discussion was connected and findable. But your conclusions are illogical and, I believe, would fail the tests of skepticism that we use here.
If you wanted to proceed with any of (1) logical demonstrations of culticness in traditional Christianity, (2) logical demonstrations that anyone is being deleted here for content rather than for rule violation, (3) logical demonstrations that I, TINAE, or u/Paleo should have done something different at some point, (4) better solutions for the community than what's happened so far, or (5) any new community question, I would affirm such an approach. But it requires being prepared to handle truth in a community of competing views, and you're not demonstrating much of that. So for now I'm going to call you Joe because your illogic style reminds me of someone, someone who often does successfully take the hint when I point it out to him.
All historians agree the Hyksos expulsion of the 1530s BC involved hundreds of thousands of Semitic men leaving Egypt suddenly; Manetho says its leader was named Moses or Osarseph. It's not like these nomadic Israelites left sex toys around like other nations did to make them easy to track. There's quite a bit more. The secular historians' tack against this is to say Moses was actually 14th century BC, but that's a lie that ultimately comes from the insane claim there was no Ramses before Ramses II.
Oh, this one's a keeper IMHO. First, I recently documented that the McDonald family was regarded by a "tracker of names" as one of the 17 families running the world. Second, something OP hasn't said yet is that McDonald's stole IP from H. R. Pufnstuf to create these characters and was fined a million dollars. Third, I like where IP is going with how creepy the original and revised characters are (I never liked Grimace as a kid). Fourth, compare Mac Tonight. Fifth, there are an incredible number of oddities in the McDonald's legal career (one of my favorites, a bit off track, is that they claim IP over "Mc" everything, and usually win except they have so far chosen never to take on the Cayman Islands restaurant founded by one James MacDonald and so there are no (Kroc) McDonald's in the Caymans; note this is a bit different from the urban legend version).
Disclosure: I once worked at McDonald's.
Physics stagnated because of Bohr, Heisenberg, and Feynman.
Hi Dregan, I hosted a vote that went 4-1-1 in favor of having a mod team generically, but seeing that there were many more silent people I didn't pursue an up-down vote on any name. After about 10 days, where 6+ names had been submitted here and on Meta, u/Thisisnotanexit indicated that admin was willing to appoint her at a later date if conditions held. This appointment happened about 2 weeks ago. I've proposed that if anyone wants a further vote, anyone is free to host a discussion; the last such discussion had a strong 17-4-1 consensus against TINAE's interpretation of the rules, and she abided by that. But it wouldn't be fitting for me to propose a new vote myself, as my doing so here has raised more questions than votes. Let me know if you want links.
How is it then that Shalmaneser III has two stelae naming contemporary kings of Israel, Omri, Ahab, and Jehu, at exactly the years they reigned in the Bible, indicating that the part of the record saying Solomon reigned about 100 years before them is accurate too? Sincere question.
Interesting but not following this one closely.
Yahweh has access to DNA stuff. He did early prototype tests with like chrubim.. then later the 72 demons of the ars goetia. So you gotta beware about any "chimeras", they are incorrect and not a normal being.
Yes, not only prototypes but also demonstration of prior art. He invented the 72 names as aspects of himself; later on a group of demons (probably not 72, they're not that organized) claimed similar names and claimed continuity with it. Every attribute of Truth gets a counterfeit demon claiming its name.
In science, human chimeras are integrated beings with two different regions containing different DNA. One notable chimera is a woman who has a darker rectangular patch over half her abdomen; well, that's a second DNA region and counts as a "parasitic twin" but is fully integrated with the life of the main human. Perhaps the twin has an immature soul that she carries with her, I don't know; those with better-formed parasitic twins do feel for the twin, who might have head, arms, or legs in Siamese fashion but who can hardly communicate or be independent. That indicates that mixed-species chimeras could exist but would require greater integration of the whole than merely slapping two things together (ask anyone who's surgically implanted an animal's organ, or ask Obama about the BLT mice he paid for, who in one session all died a week after the implantation of purchased organs from human fetuses). Plus, there would need to be one holistic soul, and for most chimeras we think of equal division but that always implies two active souls like Chang and Eng. Perhaps a chimera really could have two souls that work together, or perhaps only the head portion would be a driving soul and the additional soul would be fully happy and subservient; I'm not sure.
I'd love to say all chimeras are "incorrect" and "abnormal" in the sense you imply, but science indicates they are no more abnormal than extant genetic chimeras and conjoined twins.
Meanwhile, egyptian rulers.. "inbred" right. To keep the witchcraft going. Think isis, husband and wife. No. But, noah on the ark, right. So I don't like any of these guys if you think humping your sister is "ok". It is not. And that's why you get "retarded" kids. Plus, if yahweh does Noah.. yahweh is bad too.
Noah was never about inbreeding, all his daughters-in-law were genetically robust; their kids may have married first cousins, which is an acceptable distance. Many mythoi are about inbreeding, like Atlantis, Nineveh, Egypt, Greece, which is too bad. It's so bad that they tried to make the Yahweh story about inbreeding too, by inventing the trick question "Who was Cain's wife?" Well, she was Mrs. Cain, and there are several places she could've come from, and it's a rather voyeurist skeptic who rejects all reasonable theories except his perverted one. So if you're objecting to Yahweh due to either Noah or Cain, it's not merited.
you've got yahweh's job
If you're asking the AI to work for Yahweh, maybe Yahweh is letting the AI be the agent to do his own work ....
Horus (Falcon Head) and Ra (Solar Disc) are Biological Splicing Failures.
Absolutely right. And they weren't the work of Yahweh, but of Osiris and Kek (literally) and associates.
Yahweh used the "Cherubim" and the "72 Demons" of the Ars Goetia as experiments to see if a biological vessel could hold 4th or 5th-density consciousness.
I criticized the "density" explanation elsewhere. The cherubim and 72 demons are not biological vessels but only manifest as such. So we'd argue the Old Serpent (an exalted nachash, namely a seraph) was the first such biomanifestation. In that sense, Helel was the experimenter, and that part of his experiment was successful (he tasted the "densities" of love and wisdom), but the manifestation was fleeting, unsustainable, and ephemeral, and there were other failures.
If the Ark was just a "Genetics Vault" for an inbred reset, the current world is built on a Corrupt Foundation.
Always remember!
Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9).
That's Noah's literal pedigree right there, along with all of chapter 5. That's intended as proof that he and his work were not inbred. There are two hundred flood traditions in the world, and in all of them the Noah character is preserving pure humans and pure animals.
You're also getting the AI to roleplay. Since we all know how dangerous this is I need say nothing more but trust you (and Yahweh) to know what you're doing.
All Christians are one with the Palestinian Christians, who are mourning losses like the lives of Nahida and Samar Anton in 2023, an event that contributes to the ICJ genocide case South Africa v. Israel currently in adjudication. Being one with them, I was tracking the LPJ's evangelism in Gaza before that happened so I'm still looking for more to be revealed about IDF activity in that event.
Funny, nobody who uses "Zionist" as a slur cares to define it.
See, Graph, what I said. "Density" is a word stolen from physics to mean something else, and in this definition it is identical to how others use sefirah and aeon, and in fact persona. It's just an enumerated list of core concepts that have a rough order but are all just feelgood touchstones. "Wisdom" (hochma, sophia) is already a sefirah and an aeon both, for instance. The "octave" (ogdoad, 7/12) concept is also shared among them all.
I could simply declare myself to be a seventh- or higher-"density" being who is busy increasing earth vibes and nobody could gainsay me. I am, you know.
If I pretended that "density" referred to a fullness as opposed to an emptiness, and stated that one could have greater or lesser matter per space, that great lovers are "denser", there'd be some justification, but nobody talks that way. If I substituted mass, for instance, oh, I'm a 6th-mass being in a 3rd-mass earth, you see how ridiculous it sounds. If we said "degree" or "grade" that's how people talk. (Mental note: ridicule Masons by deliberately confusing "degrees" with elementary "grades".) In atoms, which do have seven successive orbits, we might speak of uranium being a 7th-orbit element, because orbits are progressive but densities are discrete measurements. If the paradigm were (insanely) that the progression is so strict that one "density" must become sufficiently fully dense before a person can progress to the next, then you might argue that one leads to another and, oh, I've mastered 5 densities and am getting dense in the 6th. But I'm pretty confident that's not the system. Nobody says it's impossible to have any wisdom until you've mastered all love.
So, thanks for the opportunity for me to rant at yet another abuse of language, probably worse than the abuse of the word "dimension". What they really mean is just kabbalah but they're disguising it by using a vague word "density" that has no real application. A big mark of really bad theology is the inability to use words precisely.
You've also got that self-other failure going in the AI's source: true self-service is rightly called enlightened self-interest and is the same as true other-service. Further, there's the strong vibe of narrative control, namely a responsiveness to Christian revelation by trying to craft a narrative that distract people, when seeing the Christian revelation literally unfold, into thinking something else is happening (self-directed control rather than self-other balanced control).
Last year I looked into a couple Christian mystics. They too love to speak of progressive itineraries of numbered steps. So do name-it claim-it proponents of The Secret. Every time, the enumeration is just something somebody made up in school one day. Every time, Graph. Most such lists can be defended with great rationalization; in that sense they're all perfect and in fact none contradict each other. At the same time, that perfection arises from them all being so vague that little distinction is being made, little teaching is transpiring even though words and knowledge are flowing. So in one sense such lists are "mostly harmless", but in another sense they're just so wasteful that direct statement is more helpful in progressing the individual.
Now, I'll level with you, while typing this I should not neglect my own recent post on dimensions. There are similarities and differences. A big difference is that I'm earnestly synthesizing several subthemes into one theory in the same way that elements have a periodic table, and I noted a few alignments that suggest that further physical and mathematical discoveries might follow an orderly progression; that's scientific speculation and not dogma. A similarity is that I did make use of an implicative passage in Proverbs to supply a few names and concepts, which could be charged as arbitrary. Well, if people get cultic about my idea, contrary to my intent, and become dogmatic that it must be the only core truth because that's how I wrote it, then it would become what I warn against. But when I see something like Ra Material, it's clear that people are just using a comfy narrative to sell stuff and to propagate ideas that make people feel good. And the motive is never, hey, join in the quest for truth and improve what we have (which is scientific method); the motive is always, memorize our slop better than we do, climb faster and higher over others who are doing the same, just for the status that those under you will accord you, until we release next year's slop. Perhaps you post this with some distance, as you often do, and you put it out merely for my rant; I'll give you full credit if that's the case. But to you I would say, don't waste time learning the counterfeits when we have the real accessible anytime, closer than we think because we trained ourselves to ignore it, truer than we can hope because it's greater than all shadows.
They saw him as an extension of God that had existed before the world was made, and who came to earth on a divine mission to bring salvation to humankind.
Like I said, he was divine, I suppose "extension of God" is orthodox enough. You are right that there were quibbles about the details.
And here we could also include the degree to which Jesus was a unique being rather than a model for others to follow.
Again, you're implying more than you say. If Jesus was a model that makes him unique by definition. The quibble is over the type of uniqueness, which you're not defining or defending.
The divine is not located somewhere else. And that includes Jesus himself. The divine is accessible where you are.
The divine is both Self and Other. To say I'm divine in a way Jesus isn't would contradict everything taught by every historical source, except a couple megalomaniacs. The fact that I'm divine logically entails that my model is divine in the same way. Plus, I am one with him. If you get around to stating the specifics you object to about Jesus's uniqueness, that would help.
Of course I could try to help you by guessing. You probably object to the formula "Jesus is God" because, while often usable, it's so simplified that it omits important doctrine that can get imbalanced by the omission. Now it's my belief that any attribute of deity is shared by Yahweh-Jehovah and Yeshua-Jesus, either as the same attribute in unity or as poles of a spectrum in duality. Would you object to that more technical definition? Is there something of the Father that is not of the Son, other than the Father-Son polarities themselves?
Bart Ehrman says, "I no longer go to church, no longer believe, no longer consider myself a Christian." I spoke of Christians.
1 Corinthians 15 is generally taken by scholars as evidence that a fixed oral creedal statement about Jesus's death, burial and resurrection, was "received" and circulating by 35-38 AD. Further, Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin, which kept records, and those records were inferably used in compiling the Talmudic passage on the subject, Sanhedrin 43a; so that passage is evidence that documents were written immediately about Jesus's trial and death and were later expanded into the Talmudic form. Further, Pilate's notice was definitely written while Jesus was alive: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." That should probably be upheld as the most straightforward datable written document on the subject, quoted by all four evangelists, citing the original legal inscription.
We do know why Rome crucified Jesus, as Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud agree: as a rebel against Caesar. The accused were executed with a public sign of their crimes, for the illiterate: thieves were crucified with empty moneybags, and rebels with crowns of thorns. The inscription further informed the literate. There's no doubt among the records. But the gospels add a further element of tension, which by its nuance indicates a mark of reliable history: namely that Pilate was afraid to convict Jesus formally (partly fearful for his wife's threats against him) but committed the quasilegal display of washing his hands to abdicate his authority and to devolve it to the crowd's wishes. Pilate technically agreed to the crucifixion by silence; he engaged the positive action of delivering Jesus to the soldiers, who knew what the crowd wanted and knew what Pilate was implying by his silence, namely that it was on them rather than on him.
There is no contemporary narrative where Jesus wasn't crucified. However, Muhammad had a vision 600 years later (since we're talking dates) that Jesus wasn't crucified, and convinced people of that (even though I'm told Islam permits Muslims who believe he was crucified). If one wants to take that approach, one is no longer learning from history but from spirit visions in a cave (almost Plato's) by a guy who took full advantage of lax child-marriage laws. His coalition is not held together by logic and reason but by force and fear. If you're interested in pleasing that group because of some ambiguous promise (such as the one about virgins, or maybe raisins), I would submit it's not the fullest, most rational approach to take, as there's much evidence that it will turn on you. But accepting Jesus for who he says he is, neither more nor less, is what unites you with him and protects you from all threats of all institutions (Rome included). Since you seem to be a truth pursuer, I trust you will see that creating a storyline about Jesus not being crucified is not pursuit of truth but merely upholding yet another narrative created to defend a group of people going their own way: the real pursuit of truth, like Jesus, affirms reality and rejects althist, because truth is greater than group cohesion and is in fact the only source of group cohesion.
Welcome handshake. Do you have a better idea for c/Conspiracies? Did you want to come out in favor of anarchy (nobody else did) or did you want to propose a different consensus moderation solution? The community resists declaring consensus, which is natural.
You're not acting sleepy. I had a good nap earlier and I learned all-nighters in college. Like John Calvin, I'm a psychopannychist (look it up). Yes, I'm in the United States of America, as my last comment implied, but why would you believe an anon?
Add: Looks like Mrs. Mod is putting the kibosh on it now, and she's right to say your username finally checks out. But please feel free to continue asking questions at c/SwampRangers or take your pick of any community you see after clicking my name.
Getting ready for lunch soon?
I could say you must be. You've certainly been up a long time giving me lots of earned media in a forum I'm banned from. I like to post all those to c/SwampRangers, but I'll wait until you get tired of making up new ones.
I post at all hours, and sometimes enjoy late nights with a relatively stable questioner. Click my name to see the state forums I moderate, one of the time zones indicated by those is correct. You can also run my ordinary posting times through a number-cruncher, other people do that.
None of the anons know the owners' real names. They prove their commitment to our privacy by their own privacy. The registered owner or agent or something is Patriots, LLC, a Delaware corporation; there's a named lawyer who takes their mail that some people think important, I forget his name. You could skim or search Meta or help.scored.co for this stuff.
Are you Scott Lively?
No, but he and I are the body of Jesus Christ, like any Christians are. That should be name enough for your purposes.
Most all the places I've been banned, the mods make clear that they will ban my alts on sight too. Since I don't believe in hiding my affiliation as a Swamp Ranger, if I'm banned I rarely test the waters with another account, like u/SwampRangersAlt. It would be rather silly to respond to a post about SwampRangers with a handshake account that sounds like SwampRangers, wouldn't it? She's right, it's hilarious.
And it's clear you don't want to talk about the whole story of your past, but you do want to talk about Conspiracies past without knowing that whole story either. Well, the Rangers call this "earned media" (aka rent-free living).
Since u/RealWildRanter has permabanned me from c/TrueConspiracies (you be the judge), I answer your question here. Thank you for (apparently) using my links to construct your own narrative and post it in a different forum.
You say I "saw an opportunity to gain power". What I saw was an opportunity to share a problem (lack of mod) and contribute as an equal voice to a solution. I didn't theorize about myself as mod until after Neo theorized about himself as mod. I also affirmed everyone whose name was put forward in the discussion, and withdrew my name when it was first objected to.
You take my giving the contrasting history of c/ChristianAnarchism as evidence of "pattern of ... targeting forums without mods". Well, when I see one, I call people's attention to it, in the same way that others do. You can check Meta archives for the many posts about what should be done with an unmodded (or poorly modded) community. But my illustration shows that I'm okay at reading community consensus; that one had a clear consensus, this one didn't, and I said so both times. Reading the community can be done with objectivity. When I decided to take on a large number of community names, I purposed that all communities would be self-determining, where a consensus contrary to my view would be honored. You can see this pattern in my welcome posts and anytime there is critical mass to have a community question. So my actual established pattern is to advocate neutrally for resolution for communities when an admin solution is needed. The word "targeting" is not usually used for a practice of merely asking questions about community goals.
Neo accused me at the time, after giving me unqualified support in the above link. You follow Neo's characterizations uncritically. See if Neo's complaints align at all with his earlier endorsement of me, from that link:
You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even.
It doesn't sound too off to say u/Thisisnotanexit "wanted the community, not admins, to vote on a mod, but gladly accepted to forgo a community decision and accept mod appointment". Nor is it an issue, given how community decisions were attempted. The fact is (I assumed you were watching at the time and not absent as you count yourself a regular), I first asked the binary of should we have a mod team and got that 4-1 result that was not strong, then I asked the binary of whether we should have a single mod as opposed to a plurality and got such little response that there was no real conclusion. That was after TINAE had admin support, and I didn't want to make a binary question about her so posted a simpler question. The fact that the community couldn't even agree on how to proceed led me to abandon any other questions about moderation and I let things take their course. As TINAE discussed rules in the hopes of being appointed mod, there was some approval of her discussion and a little trolling from those now deported, but there was never a point at which the community either found a consensus to favor admin selecting a mod (it could only come from admin) or found a consensus to do anything else. So eventually admin acted. I've said, anyone could post a new vote today, even a recall vote; but presumably a recall would involve an alternate solution, and nobody's proposed one.
You refer to an accountable church with a standard confession of faith as a cult. I'd appreciate knowing your standard of judgment. I suppose the Nicene Creed, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and the Apologetics Group Essentials aren't enough to prove to you that one is not in a cult (https://www.scottlively.net/first-century-bible-college)?
So, it's not as simple as Neo makes out, and I answered him in place when he complained. He asked for a roundtable subject once a mod had left, and I (considerately) proposed a roundtable subject and spoke about the mod leaving. He proposed that he could do mod work and I proposed that he could or I could. He endorsed me (as above) and so I went to Meta, continuing to promote him as well and all other names that entered. He turned on me, and I withdrew my name. If someone knows something I, or the forum, could've done better, I listen.
Hang in there! Keep the faith!
Makes me wonder, again, how they became mod in the first place.
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0RBc7L/x/c/4eaTFjTz9dR
I mean thats likely the most logical sense, pruning posts to make the site a little more mainstream friendly.
There was a queue a year long, I don't think she finished it yet. That should explain the deletions sufficiently. She doesn't prune everything that was reported. Logs are public and I stand by to answer specific questions about what's public.
Are priests, pastors and ministers not the counterfeits?
Some of them.
The only way to God is through the written word of man through the bible, or the spoken word of another fellow Man?
Never said that. Both those are tested by the same spirit that also receives external revelation.
The Apocrypha has passages of the earth being described as flat
Haven't heard that, I've only heard it from the Mathews translation of the protocanon. But flat earth doesn't help us much with aliens. I'm not a flat earther but my alt is, so I'd be happy to entertain any testable math about earth or space.
The church is in all of us with our private connection to the creator. After all we are supposed to pray in private. If God is all loving, and Jesus teaches us to forgive, why is Idolatry forbidden?
Um, idolatry is giving God's due to someone else, it's self-destructive because it distorts the view of both God and the replacement. God is so loving that he leaves us the free choice to reject him despite its self-destructiveness due to its irrationality.
Wrath is a Sin unless it comes from God. Envy is a Sin unless it comes from God.
That's because those words are used for both good and evil uses of the functions, like many amoral things.
Which God did Buddha meet? The God that created humans, or the God that created life itself?
The creator of Man, or the creator of the Universe and all life?
You can't create humans without being the one who created life. They are one. If Buddha didn't reject the gift of salvation from illusion (I don't have evidence that he did), he met that one creator.
You mean Arch Angels? or do you mean The Seraphim, Cherubim, and Ophanim?
Those are all categories of angels of the Creator; there are nine or ten accepted categories: Seraph, Cherub, Throne, Dominion, Virtue, Power, Principality, Archangel, Angel, Guardian (the last two may be joined). Ophanim are likely to be one of the above taking on an inanimate but eyed appearance; possibly just "Thrones" because they are appurtenances of the Throne. It's also possible Ophanim are not strictly angels but divine energies.
sources please.
Alien Encounters by Missler and Eastman, which cites a couple others, like Vallee; a similar pattern with NDEs is observed by Moody, Life After Life, and Burke, Imagine Heaven. Search will turn up more I've forgotten.
I don't understand "collective memory of exorcism ritual preserves keys to ETs." Explain.
Humans have stored the answer to how to interact with ETs in societal narratives that serve as collective memory, a key one of which is exorcism and its rituals and regulations. Exorcism focuses on the protective side rather than the exploratory side, such as kabbalists use.
I don't think you can have just one predestination if everyone has freewill.
We talked about that last week. Freewill is limited so I can't perfectly predestine a whole universe, but I can predestine a sufficient segment of this universe. The Creator has unlimited freewill and thereby predestines the whole universe in such way that we all get sufficient limited freewill within the unlimited freewill.
Excellent analysis. Readers will remember that SARS 1 was pretty deadly, like MERS, but SARS 2 was just what Ron Paul rightly dismissed ca. 2021-03 as "a flu virus". At the same time with a quick WP check I separately ascertained that SARS 2 behaved exactly like four other known coronaviruses that circulate freely among billions of people and produced only flulike symptoms. I was still very concerned but gradually realized that it was indeed just a flu virus (if even that). Very helpful was Moses's recommendation that if one is sick one should cover the lower half of one's face. Not if one is healthy.
Prove exactly how many people it took to qualify sufficient consensus. Looks like it was just your cult.
The proof is that admin acted on this result as being the consensus of those willing to speak. You certainly didn't vote on this question, even though you still could (there's no deadine for voting). You certainly didn't propose or build any other consensus.
Prove it.
That one is in response to my statement of presumption. I could just say I am a sufficient witness for the statement that I presumed something, regardless of whether my presumption is true. However, what you probably intend is to know how u/Thisisnotanexit was selected. I can only appeal to her public statements and what answers she may be willing to give to direct questions. Here are the details of how it happened:
2025-10-31 Neo1 asks the community for roundtable subjects, noting the lack of Axolotl as mod, and I propose a subject and note the lack of mods for the past 8 months.
2025-11-02 Prompted by Neo's encouragement, I naturally ask Meta for advice, and point out that he and I could volunteer as caretaker mod names until a mod is more straightforwardly elected. TINAE, Graph, and JG5 [Add: and Malta] are also proposed as candidates.
2025-11-03 TINAE makes her own community question on the subject. I took the trouble to verify that the comment I link there from 2025-11-04 is her first mention of contacting admin.
2025-11-05 TINAE compiles a megathread of open threads and emphasizes her desire to stand as mod. On 2025-11-06 she indicates therein she received a generic admin response about investigating what to do with the forum. She continues to update about admin responses about generic questions.
2025-11-08 JG5 posts one of many Nazi threads. On 2025-11-09 TINAE states for the first time that admin has tentatively approved her as mod.
So I was right to remember 1-2 weeks, it was actually 10 days of thorough discussion.
That means she was pre selected without community approval.
Nope. The links show only a small subset of the community's discussion. How could we have gotten community approval to do anything if not by a consensus-seeking post (e.g. a vote)?
Prove where her direction was validated by the community.
She indicated how she would interpret rules, remove death threats, ban the persistent ephebophile, shut down disrespect and attacks, etc. There were individual pushbacks, of course, but there was never any post soliciting community consensus that she should not be mod as admin hinted. When a small group of active people have a consistent consensus and the larger group declines to form consensus, their silence and inaction is taken in all societal paradigms as limited consent. If they cared they would have broken their silence and formed a different group opinion. As I pointed out separately, as soon as she laid down a strict interpretation of "disrespect" a consensus of about 17 contributors arose rapidly, against which I was in the minority; but I reported that too. Those 17 were willing to oppose her rapidly en masse on a matter of interpretation, but not willing to oppose her standing as mod at any time. That's how consensus is objectively gauged.
Her original direction sucked and she had to change it cuz everyone threw a fit. She failed.
That's actually the leadership mark of successful adjustment to community requests. Imagine if she had stuck to her original direction in spite of community requests! How much more you would have complained!
others that Paleo told her to
I recall the regulars here telling her to ban those, not Paleo, but I'm not going to get the links for you.
Immediately after she changed course and those who were banned wouldn't have been with the direction she went.
No, her change was about not treating every disrespectful usage as a violation of the respect rule, and that change wouldn't have helped save any of the banned accounts, which the logs show were all banned for "constant disruption" (trolling). If you'd like the specific objective differences between the two those are clear in the logs.
She was the plant that you and Paleo can control. She's only a figurehead and you and Paleo are running the show behind the scenes.
This is Conspiracies so it wouldn't matter to you that I deny it (which I do). I rely instead on what I've already said being sufficient. I've said I met her here 5 years ago and we have similarity of thought in Christianity, with some different focuses. I suspect Paleo is a Christian but I don't recall him saying so. Now, since we proclaim Jesus will take over the world you can put that on a takeover conspiracy, but then you'd have to say Jesus was the bad guy, which BTW has never succeeded. If Jesus shouldn't take over the world, he's waiting to hear your reason; perhaps you could take it over better than he could and he patiently waits for you to try (so that you can give up on yourself and trust him to do it better than you). I said I'd be happy to answer specific questions about private messaging, which is very slight. But there's nothing behind the scenes, because everything Jesus said was to be made public, and we add nothing to it.
(Just for gedankenexperiment, how could one respond to a charge like this conclusively? If one found private messages or real-life connection, that would be a smoking gun; but in the absence of any, there is no end to the search and the accusation. Denial wouldn't help, sarcastic affirmation wouldn't help; I could produce all DMs and that wouldn't necessarily be trusted; a theory could always be proposed that I control everything secretly because such is unfalsifiable. It seems that the only way to be conclusive is to appeal to the accuser for terms of peace, namely what would constitute successful proof. If a person is continuously accusatory, one could ignore him; if a person is defamatory, one could, I suppose, fight back, but I limit that option to the most extreme cases of defamation, and have used it once here in 5 years. So my primary path is to seek to sincerely answer your questions until they reach a point of either satisfying you or embarrassing you.)
Tell us your real name if you want to be transparent.
That's a beautiful illogic from the person who can't even tell us his prior account (fake) names. I've said from the start that I volunteer for Scott Lively and am accountable to the SwampRangers.org entity, which is more than most anons. If you need a first name and last name, put Jesus Christ, because I identify as his body and it's all on his tab. There may soon be a time I deanonymize here, as I've said, but it's not likely to be on a dare from a handshake.
You're welcome, fren! Will work on the not excusing people.