-
Yes, no contradiction, all kinds of things are unities in one sense and pluralities in another sense, so it would be natural for God to be so too.
-
Some use the debt metaphor but it's not the most straightforward and not the clearest thing to be drawn from the Bible. If someone gave you this somewhat sloppily, I apologize. The fact is that in our own lives we've made mistakes (without needing to blame Adam), and that Jesus agreed to suffer the consequences of our mistakes so that we wouldn't have to (e.g. consequences like everyone else's anger at the things you failed them in), and that the Father accepted this substitution so that everyone who demands anything from you for your mistakes can be pointed to Jesus who promises to make it right for them too. (He also gives us all the blessings he earned by his righteous life.) As the good Samaritan says, whatever debts the sick man accrues, charge me with them instead. It's simpler to understand that way.
-
The Bible doesn't say you've failed if you don't convert people in some number, that's indeed a pressure tactic and again I apologize if you got that impression from people. It actually says we can't convert people, none can be converted unless the Father does the work of drawing them. Our responsibility is not to force change but just to share truth and let the Spirit work where he wills. There's a key text in Ezekiel, if God tells you to warn a person and you don't, you're responsible; but don't let a lying spirit or attitude make you think you have to warn everybody when you can't, because that's not its point. Christianity is not about "must"! It's about what we joyfully get to do after someone else (Jesus) did what he must.
So, like I said, I have truths and I enjoy sharing them and people can take them or leave them, and I rejoice when people take them. (And I rejoice when I'm corrected that what I thought was truth wasn't actually complete.) Zero pressure. If it's pressure, I call it churchianity because it's not life in Christ anymore. I've even gotten a bit more liberal as I've aged about the second coming and hell, because rightly understood those are not about pressure either, though they would take a bit longer to explain and you didn't raise a specific question there about them. But I hope that shows that I am confident my news is pretty good.
Remind me again what A-lister they got to portray Melinda Gates?
That's the spirit. Gradual and progressive. Besides, that TPUSA date will be repurposed for, well, it'll be obvious.
What I do know is that whenever you accuse Scored anti-Semites of being shill Semites they never ever deny it. It's always a winning trump. I tell them all you're making the Jews look good and they never ever stop to say, y'know, you're right, since I want the Jews to look bad I should stop acting like an insane anti-Semite and argue rationally. They always double down and act stupider. I'm literally the only one here saying if you want to criticize the Jews do it right, I said that on ConPro five years ago and eventually got banned for it, and never a soul has taken my lead and said, yeah, let's prove how stupid the Talmud is on its own terms instead of our own; every one has continued the strawman. Ooh, I haven't tried this with my most recent Talmud misquoter yet, I should.
A couple people receive my criticism and thank me for the context. But if they don't receive it I whip out my trump card and it's worked every time for five years. This could lead to a new theory: Jews (demographically of course) are so insular that they often fail to read the room to find out what's good for them. It's been noted that as a group they are abysmal at outreach and enfolding with two exceptions, Chabad and Messianics. Maybe some of them actually reason that, since the strategy of larping as anti-Semites always works and is morally acceptable due to a perceived war, we should press harder on it when challenged and act more irrational. But they think it would dishonor the name they want to worship if they were to admit the truth, that either the individual or the group finds it advantageous to larp and divide a larger opponent. As soon as they would admit the truth they would find the doors wide open for them; and I've previously prophesied that this is exactly what Judah discovered when he laid down his life for Benjamin and found he received Joseph and his riches thrown in.
Aside, there are a couple folks that are apparently Muslims larping as Christians. You and u/Mark4-40 may have spotted this trend before I did. They talk very Christian with the exception of the "tell" that every now and then something positive slips in about Islam, Muhammad, Ishmael, or oddly Semitic nontrinitarian monotheism. These folks always fall to the equivalent form of the same trump card, pointing out that they're Muslim (which they can never deny even though true Christians can calmly deny it on first request) and then ridiculing them for trying to make Christians look bad when it actually makes Muslims look bad as soon as they're caught. Looks like not all Abrahamics handle the pursuit of truth the same way. Let's call this the Nehemiah card:
Then I sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart. For they all made us afraid, saying, Their hands shall be weakened from the work, that it be not done. Now therefore, O God, strengthen my hands.
Building 7 fell on time, even without the plane
Looks like they had to go to plan B with a "fire collapse" narrative because that plane or drone was unavailable
spliced from the local fauna
Tree of Life, Yggdrasil
jews
Name the Jew for Real, Henry Kissinger voted yes
Audit the gold[,] they don't have the power they claim to possess
End the Fed
Completely false because it contradicts Valentinian melon theory.
C'mon, man! Everyone who has done (or will do) that gets raided by the authorities who are tasked with keeping the public from knowing the details of time travel at large. When you win the lottery against cabal expectations they find out how and deal with it, even though they usually treat your invention like a Galt engine and let it rust and collect cobwebs. Time travel requires great timeline responsibility and of course patience. There is even one notable instance (not saying past or future) where the guy pays for the winning numbers and then another time traveler sets it so they are the wrong numbers just selecting that draw by coincidence. So it doesn't always work. When you know the future and try to exalt yourself with it then the future fights you (Cassandra problem); you can only advance in knowing the future by submitting to its greater expansive range.
Since you've gotten the mistaken impression that I can't stand up to your truths or that I'm against you thoughtlessly, let me affirm that (aside from the insults in the beginning and end lines) I have no problem with this narrative and affirm your getting it out. It appears true and fills in a gap in my understanding of history because I have some info on the wars to control Freemasonry ca. 1850-1900 and this seems the outgrowth of those as it leans into the Protocols and other invented narratives of the period. Good information to have.
Hi 3rdEye. Sarc: I do identify as everything but u/TallestSkil doesn't want me to talk about identifying as him. /sarc
My recollection is that I add context to your perception of truth when I think needed but you never add context to mine.
Do you know the difference between your perception of truth, my perception of truth, and God's perception of truth?
I was just agreeing with you earlier here how all evils, including JFK assassination, were brought on by the stockholders of the FDR-HST wing (representing the 32nd and 33rd degree of Masons via their inaugural numbers). They were the heirs of the kaisers (caesars) via conquering Hitler. Even the date 11/22 calls it out.
Anyway, if you have a better plan for community management instead of just complaining about current management, I'm all ears.
Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.
Thank you for upholding the rule of law, King!
Great questions. I've been looking recently into body-spirit nature and in particular how we recognize individuals (how did Saul know it was Samuel, how did Peter know it was Moses). Because the current corruption of the physical as measured by quantum redshift drops indicates that we are using much less of our innate human powers than in the past, we may need to resurrect the lost art of recognition via "tells". I have been so overwhelmed by variation in filtered images and artifice that I have despaired of mastering the subtlety of spotting lies in appearances. But perhaps we can have hope and aspire to a humanity that has obtained the physicospiritual power of knowing reliably who is who. If you can tell Tina Fey from Sarah Palin, that may be how you get onto the track of remastering the skill as part of a great awakening. There is much talk here of escaping Plato's cave and if we are able to regain the skills (training our own computers as opposed to cabal computers may help) then we might just laugh at the whole scheme, the actor, the masks, the lights, the cameras, the action. Mock and despise the twin gods of comedy and tragedy as a uniparty, and shine true light on the whole dead sepulchre.
Yeah, I'm a c/Christianity mod, I jump in on such threads. But my nuance would be that I don't want you to "convert" anything unless it's what you want. I would think that everyone would want to be turned more toward what is true, and if that's the trajectory than specific turnpoints are less relevant.
Why do you celebrate Jesus's birth and death and what do they mean to you?
I don't keep secrets, I share what I have and others do too. I (and the churches in general) don't have explicit details on most of Jesus's upbringing. I have learned to spot Jesus in many other things, including the appearances of God sprinkled through the Scriptures, so that I've gotten to know him enough to know the kind of things he did from 9 to 29 AD, such that it's not important to me where he went or what he learned at that time because it can be judged by what can be known confidently of him.
I said specifically that it's a liberating discovery to know faith doesn't conflict with reason as you hinted they might. Belief that Jesus can do what he says has never conflicted with what can be found out by reason through facts and logic. You imply that the church has asked you to believe something contrary to logic. Permit me to apologize on behalf of the church for anything that might have given you that impression: there is never a contradiction, there is only a deeper logic that both transcends and subsumes any logical difficulty that may appear.
What I said actually agrees with what you said, except when you implied it didn't. Don't worry about that one, we'll catch it up in time, thank you for the interaction and welcome if I haven't said so already.
Faith is more important than reason. Is that what you are telling me?
Not either-or but both-and. I learned that faith and reason never conflict and I like sharing that liberating discovery with others.
Sure, sorry if I was too cryptic. There's always one cabal but, looking at Carroll Quigley's description of Cecil Rhodes's will, we find that it's set up to play subsets of itself against each other to achieve temporary objectives: (1) sacrifice whole groups to itself to scare everyone, (2) avoid detection of interconnection, and (3) allow each group to think it's the innermost "circle" and each leader to think he can be the final antichrist. So the cabal has lots of names over the ages even though the human and spiritual connection keeps the whole thing as one operation.
I implied that the various "sides" we see (especially left-right) each have their puppets and hidden hands, and so I'm open to data of cabalism on any side. I'm secure in Jesus, who said whoever's not with him is against him, and so it's safe to call the cabal "antichrist" or "satanic" as a general category before getting into the subsets (the hydra heads). Knowing the fact of internal tensions and occasional sacrificial virgins among the cabal (I don't need one because Jesus is already the only sacrificial virgin I need), I use the terms "former" and "latter" cabals to indicate the segment that appears to be dying right now (identified with the Alwaleed, Rothschild, and Soros families) and whatever of the cabal remains as it's sacrificing that dying wing. Since I cannot know 100% whether Trump is breaking cleanly from that group or whether Trump is secretly harboring a new subset that will reassert itself in time, I leave both options open. But even if Trump isn't harboring anyone it is prophesied that the cabal will resurface with strength again and we must always be prepared for it.
I was affirming your data on Edward House and pointing out that I and others have connected that to other aspects of the cabal. House's father indeed got rich off Civil War profiteering with Jewish bank assistance, because to get a Civil War you needed a protectionist north and a south that was willing to break embargoes and ship illegally, and if European banks funded both they funded unrest. So Edward House was born with the silver spoon because his father made tons of secret money off these embargoes and illegal product movements. This gave him time to plot the takeover of the presidency, to set up Wilson for success and to be his "second soul", to destabilize czarist Russia, and to bring in Paul Warburg's design, outlined at Jekyll Island in 1910 but developed as it wended through Congress, for the Federal Reserve. Once everyone knew the Americans were collateralized to allow a destructive Great War, it was a simple matter to "organize crowds" until one of them providentially shot an archduke or something and all war talk could be turned to deeds. Then the League of Nations (most of the 14 Points) successfully brought much globalist agenda into reality.
When the powers realized it wasn't enough, they took advantage of another slow presidency to set up popular support for FDR so that another war could be collateralized (by a Victory Tax, which rolled into personal income tax by 1944). FDR was reportedly a 32nd-degree Mason and also the 32nd president. Interestingly, as soon as he started picking a Cabinet FDR sent his advisers to meet the aging Edward House to get his latest thoughts on the world stage. That's how WWII finished many things WWI couldn't do, and the League became the UN. So all that was to affirm that your putting House as a central figure really does connect far backwards and forwards to other aspects (subsets) of the same cabal.
We real time travelers have already done everything we're going to do even when we haven't done it yet. This timeline is the one where the right people died at the right time. Why do you think we don't have the timeline where Hitler discovers immortality? Negotiations.
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK9mGPat/look-at-the-time-a-first-officia/c
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.
If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before. They were Jews (Judah) before the Achaemenid Persian empire began. Judah was a tribe of Israel and then became a separate kingdom in 930 BC. The 9th-century Tel Dan stele mentions the House of David, which is admittedly Judahite. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 597 his chronicle calls it Iaahudu (Judah). He then annexed the region and called it the Province of Yehud. Israel Finkelstein estimates that 75% of Jews remained in the province during the diaspora, maybe 50,000 people. I understand that Cyrus subsidized the Jews for political purposes but he didn't invent them.
So the Jews were invented by the Persians to control the Levant. So, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.
How does an invention return?
The full quote didn't change anything. Delivering comms with different levels of comprehension to different audiences is standard practice for leaders. If your inner circle knows you use a codeword a certain way, and if your larger audience doesn't know that, you're giving perfectly good comms at two different levels (newcomer and initiate). There is no deception here unless the codeword is designed to contradict the ordinary use of the word.
Incidentally, all parents do this with children. If you're telling a story to a mixed audience and say someone was intimate with his wife, the children are receiving one valid level of information and the adults are receiving a deeper but also completely valid level of information. There is no deception in that at all (like there is with most Santa and Tooth Fairy narratives).
You're the one charging deception, but it's not in the text.
Gonna agree with u/TallestSkil on this one.
I do not consent to any wars or battles against humans in the absence of competent tribunals.
None of what you wrote makes no sense
Exactly!
Jesus says that he speaks in parables in order to deceive people and prevent them from understanding and salvation
Funny you don't quote him. "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt. 13:13). Nothing about deception or prevention, but about inability. Now, he does quote Is. 6:9-10, where Isaiah is told to tell the people, with a taunting imperative and a "lest", "Perceive not ... lest they see", etc. However, in Hebrew idiom this is of course not a command but a contingency: either you go on not perceiving or you will see and be saved; and this is the way Jesus uses it.
Yeah, I programmed a large language model in the 80s based on the Scientific American article and the AI revelations of Godel, Escher, Bach. The vogue term for AI was "expert systems". Now I'm like, oh, the public use of the tech is only about 40 years after the development, that's actually a lot faster than the Picturephone.
Of course I don't use this card with you or real anti-Semites here, Skil, because you have a pattern of getting your facts and sources mostly right. I picked on you once for facts and sources as to extinction, and again as to young earth, and you responded very rationally. The trump card is reserved for people who refuse to listen to reason; when that happens I find that their unreason is totally blown apart by my accusing them of being Jews larping against themselves. Read again: there are "insane anti-Semites" and sane ones.
Irrational "anti-Semite" accounts always in my experience refuse to deal with the fact that they harm anti-Semitism. Irrational "monotheist" accounts always in my experience refuse to confirm or deny being Muslim, because I believe it's impossible for a Muslim to deny being Muslim in good conscience. OTOH, once I realized that I was getting accused myself, I told people I'm going to stop denying being Jewish and instead (being all things to all men) agree to suffer alongside the Jews, as Jesus did. (And that card also always works, because people can't make hay out of my identification because it proves that they're acting on no evidence and that it wouldn't matter to them if I were Jewish or not.) So the refusal to deal with an identity question is 100% a tell of larping, while at the same time I discovered that if I lean into dealing with the identity question by identifying with the accused class that is the best evidence I can give for being sincere and transparent.
In this comment you make a couple generic swipes against "Jews" but decline to cite specifics such as saying Brooklyn rabbis like Yechiel Brauner and Yoel Malik "rape children institutionally"; but it takes 30 seconds to construct such a sentence. You also decline to note my regular statement that I worship exactly one Jew because you dismiss Jesus from being King of the Jews, IIRC (nor the recognition that the Angel of the LORD calls himself a satan, which is necessary context to statements about it). So while you do occasionally call out individuals, your post history trends toward the generic that doesn't build the case.
In my experience 85%-90% of Talmud references here are not on its own terms but are failures of interpretation. I've contextualized those. When people get it right I often say nothing. I don't recall you being outside this trend.
I don't know what you mean by that. I meant the person who is listed repeatedly in the most recent position here. Nothing to do with you or your style. If you were unwilling to listen to the reason of this statement, you might indicate a desire to trend toward that, though.