I distinctly saw her *Running JOYFULLY FREE thru a slightly UPward seemingly eternal Wildflower meadow ... kind of like this https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/12i3ubUQNV/daybyday-in-paradiseyes-gods-cou/c and mom was finally at PEACE.
Very good. That agrees with category 6 above as described by Burke.
This is described by what I give as category 3 of NDEs, as detailed thoroughly by Burke. Other reports vary.
The Jews agree that Jerusalem was not originally their city but was Canaanite until conquered in the late 11th century BC. This gives no evidence that Jews and Phoenicians were the same people.
The third-mill citations you give don't pan out as Jerusalem doesn't seem to go back before the 19th century BC. It's entirely possible there exists one older "Egyptian statue" and/or "[Ebla] tablet" but they don't come up and there are no Ebla tablets before ca. 2500 BC. Instead, I see I don't even have to ask for your source because you plagiarized Phoenicia.org, written by Salim Khalaf without further sourcing. So let's drop the partisan rhetoric and stick to elite research, thanks.
Neither the Jews’s religion nor their DNA traces back to the OT Israelites, but rather to the Phoenicians/Carthaginians.
Source?
What I see is that Phoenicia (including Carthage) had similar ancestry in Canaan to the Israelites' through Abraham, but that would make them brother nations and not descendants. One hint is that Phoenicians have some Jewish heritage rather than the other way around.
Oh, I guess I didn't read it as a threat because it was indirect.
To speak indirectly about it, a lot of people think that they should be free to drop all kinds of intentional hints indirectly but that when they infer a nuance from someone else's indirection then that other person should be punished for the nuance that they received. I would certainly hope that's not you.
To speak directly, when you say "make coherent statements" you're not saying the comment is incoherent but you are implying (connecting it to rule 1) that you think it's potentially worthy of discipline; and when u/Thisisnotanexit says "this is spammy harassey stuff" she is saying the comment is potentially spam or harassment and implying thereby that she thinks it's potentially worthy of discipline. Both statements are equally indirect.
So I applaud your desire for justice and equal treatment and would encourage you to continue calling out things that look imbalanced to you. Over time the discussion will help us all come to agreement on proper balance. But so far I haven't been persuaded by your case.
Funny, incoherence has never been against the rules in this open-minded forum. Failure to address the argument is also not against the rules if one chooses not to attack but to speak of something related. Nor does disrespect seem to be the issue here.
It would be a hard stretch to shoehorn this comment, or similar ones, into an overbroad category of "disrespect" or "subversion" or "spam" without making those words totally arbitrary. Disrespect is in the context of personal attack such as namecalling, subversion is in the context of meta posts, and spam is in the context of inorganic content, none of which apply. The post isn't "low quality" or "trolling" or "intentionally misleading". The worst we've got is that it's contrary to norms (which is what the forum seeks after all), that it can sound illogical (not a deletion criterion because paradox often helps explain conspiracy), or that it slides the forum (but this account never posts, is easily ignored, and has no stated agenda). So I reluctantly tolerate this content, and interact with it from time to time as I am "inspired".
A freshly deceased mind, spasming out fragments of memories, mish mashes of whatever connections your neurons built during life. As you rot and the connections dry out and crumble away, the dreams have less architecture to pull from, and you lose the inclusion of memories of lesser importance. You have flashes of work, family, porn, memes, playing games, injuries, mantras, songs. Little micro-dreams of the school dance, that one ball game... and they occur less and less vividly, less frequently, based on how often you experienced them, how thick your neurons built the pathway. As it melts away you're left with images of immediate family, Bing Crosby singing Christmas carols, your church sanctuary....
This hypothesis has been heard and duly considered by NDE researchers and the sources I listed show it to be a much weaker explanation. In particular, a supermajority of NDEs report greatly heightened ability to sense and to choose, many NDEs, from people blind from birth, report experiences of vision in ways that cannot be explained ordinarily, and many NDEs report observation of contemporaneous events on earth that they could not have known without the NDE. Further, the NDE generally returns to a fully intact mind, not one that has melted away in any sense. So this explanation, while it might handle an isolated, low-detail case, does not account for the data accumulated by researchers in the last 40+ years of collation on the subject.
Water-birthed babies don't scream.
In this metaphor if there were a past life it would not be lost near birth but near conception. The fact is that birth is a crisis transition to much greater liberty, and evidence shows that death is too. Therefore the screaming or its lack relates to how well the parents have provided for the transition, and spiritually the same is true of death.
If they're Cainites, they're not Jews (Judahites) then.
If they're Jews (Judahites), they're not Cainites then.
The fact that Judahites are doing Cainite things, and things from the other races you mention, doesn't make them Cainite by descent.
If Americans can say Jews are not Jews, then Jews can say Americans are not Americans. Perhaps the Jews are seeding us with the idea of erasing their heritage so that they can be justified in erasing ours? We wouldn't want to contribute to that, would we?
NDEs give much evidence that there is a choice but they only show those who choose not to go beyond a certain "barrier". The best two books on the subject are Life After Life by Raymond Moody and Imagine Heaven by John Burke and all those interested who have the time should invest in both. Some people go a long distance "toward the light" but many find a "barrier" and recognize that it's a point of no return, and those that came back tell us that; so going toward the light in itself isn't the final question.
Ranging from negative to positive, NDE experiences include (1) a choking, repulsive "pit", (2) a warring, painful "hell", (3) a distancing, dark "abyss", (4) observation of earth's happenings during the NDE, (5) an ascending, tubelike "passage", (6) a rewarding, fruitful "paradise", (7) an exciting, joyous "city". Almost all fall into these categories. The light can be experienced in any realm but has the effect of moving the soul toward more positive realms and, if pursued, almost always resolves into human form (not any other form). The entire narrative, combined across thousands of testimonies, indicates a presentation where the light is the most reasonable, loving being and resistance to the light is engaged by the most unreasonable, hateful beings.
We can infer from observing death that the experienced "barrier" is consistent with the fact that most people don't return from clinical death. We can infer from the aggregation of testimony that those who return often experience a straining point where they judge that to go further in the direction (either positive or negative) would be "permanent", i.e., it would separate sentience from body indefinitely via a breaking event. All reports indicate that choice exists in all realms (but is harder and more pressured in the negative than in the positive) and the barrier encounter evidences that a choice can be "locked in" for any realm (although the consistent impression is that positive and negative locks create separate, unmixed destinies).
Therefore OP is about (1) trusting the appearances to be accurate versus (2) distrusting the appearances in favor of some other explanation. Death is certainly a "birth" from the present realm to a realm without physical experience but with heightened sensation (reported by the supermajority of NDE experiences). I've pointed out that in reincarnation cultures the gilgul oversoul explanation fits better with evidence than the transmigration recycling explanation, but since OP is about the NDE and since there is no discussion in the NDE about observation of anyone engaging an experience of forgetfulness or return to a zygotic state then we simply cannot rule it in or out on the experienced evidence but only on contingent theory. Therefore my conclusion last time was that every day of life we are preparing to make the right judgments in the afterlife, and making the right decision when confronting the light will absolutely be guided by practicing right discernment in the present, every day. Prejudging the case is unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive as it hampers the ability to judge it when it happens. However, judging human presentation to find out the nature of truth and deception can be practiced at every moment and seems to be the best answer to your question.
We're not arguing white man's burden. I agreed with you that genocide including children is permitted in the Bible in certain very regulated cases. Obviously you don't want the cases drawn so loosely that it justifies the next idiot who decides on his own recognizance that he can commit "genocide" against any individual of his choosing without reason. That would be murder. So let's find out what crimes your avenging by your genocide, you haven't said.
If you get 4.5 votes for, and 1 vote against, on some binary proposition that contradicts the prior vote, that would indicate that the prior voters had become passive so it might be a start on new consensus. However, if you don't get a margin of 3.5 it would be a less conclusive total. Plus, just as last time, it's not on any of us to interpret results finally but only on admin. Admin didn't announce how they would implement the vote in favor of a generic mod, instead they approached TINAE rather than anyone else and negotiated a plan and let her publish it. So please feel free and see what the community does and what the admin does.
You can do all this without namecalling, which is still a Rule 1 violation.
If you claim the right to criminalize children because you believe Jews criminalize children, yes, that's hypocrisy. You need to hold yourself to a higher standard than those you declare enemies.
If you were to claim the moral right to execute children as the result of a tribunal judgment upon a race, that would be different and instead of appealing to the Jews as standards for your behavior you'd appeal to your own circumspection. That's what the Swamp Rangers do: we are willing to judge whole classes of people as Swamp Creatures as long as the judgment and crimes are public. The Bible indicates that there are rare times when even the children can be judged but it is for their own behavior (unless they are casualties of war, which is quite different from "it's the Jews"). So you don't seem to be acting out of moral right but out of emulation.
You say caring more about Jewish children than white children is a crime, and you say my efforts to obtain moderation for this forum were a crime. That would be fine because then you could hold me criminal instead of the Jews. I learned from Paul how to suffer on behalf of others. But you're not stating any crime any Jew has committed. You can't even say Kissinger got JFK killed, let alone that all Jewish toddlers are complicit. So your failing to produce crimes suggests that your judgment may be a trifle rash here. (Speaking of which, I defend all groups against unjust criticism equally, and I defend all attempts to obtain consensus about this forum equally, so your judgments there are questionable too.)
I keep hoping you'll advance the discussion by proposing a tribunal. For instance, let's check in on the ICC, South Africa v. Israel: oh look, Israel has now answered in court (as of 2026-03-14) for charges of genocide, so the proceeding is ongoing. Why not agree to hear the ICC's eventual ruling before making your own judgment? Or why not say, as others do here, that being indoctrinated into Rabbinical Judaism is a crime in itself because a child should know better than to get a bar mitzvah? To say "it's the Jews" when the very pertinent "it's the satanists" is available seems imbalanced. Were you going to give a name for what happened prior to 1797 BC? Were there Jews before Judah and if so how do they retroactively earn a name that didn't exist yet? What tribe are they, Semite (what about before Shem), Noachite, Adamite?
Yet, at the same time there is something of minor value remaining after the fiat currency is abandoned.
Literalist Christians believe the real Tree of Life is a physical species of tree gifted by God to humanity and that will be restored in Jesus's kingdom. They also recognize that Bezalel's menorah is typological of the pattern in the heavenly kingdom, and that it's shaped like a tree, with three nodes on left and right, a main branch with four almond blossoms, and a total of 22 almond blossoms. Catacomb Christians have used diagrams similar to OP to express this thought, with the cross worked into the pattern. Christians also affirm Jerome's observation there are ten basic Hebrew names for God and yet that God himself is an unnamable above all names. So when we claim the symbolism of the Tree of Life for ourselves (much like the nascent-Messianic author of the Sefer Yezhirah) we find that we do have value in it even though that value has been hijacked by a few rather silly associations along the way.
So you're using the alleged standards of Jews who judge their behavior and adopting it as your own standard to judge your own behavior? No, I'm asking you to judge your behavior by stating a crime. You obviously don't believe it's right for them to judge children, so why do you? This has nothing to do with remigration proposals or Anne Frank laws, I want to know why you believe "it's the Jews" includes your criminalizing millions of children. So that I can agree or disagree with your reasoning.
Hey Vlad, sorry to keep asking, but did we establish that the vast majority of Jewish children were guilty of some crimes in your opinion? Either yes, we should name the crimes, or no, we should modify the oversimplified statement "it's the Jews". And what was it called before Judah was born in 1797 BC? I say it's the satanists.
Words that attack persons without evidence of crimes would break Rule 1.
Maybe along with that "strange growth" on the ISS the demons are setting the US up for disclosure in an attempt to take over the NWO directly. Wouldn't be a surprise. Truth will continue to defeat the new cabal same as the old.
They: "Take me to your leader" Me: "✝️"
u/LikeThemSpicy is the only account out of all of them that is clearly in favor of the Jewish roots of Christianity. Ordinary give and take about Zionism doesn't register as sliding as far as I can see. It's clear that Spicy does intend to advance an opinion, which could be interpreted as sliding if there were serious objection to it, but they are within the bounds of religious discussion TheDonald has permitted and his arguments are concise and incisive and seem to be carrying the day. I was surprised he wasn't mentioned at the linked post.
It was up to admin last time and it'll be up to admin anytime it's challenged.
The community had a chance to argue in favor of having no active mods. It still hasn't put forward a case that there is a consensus for that.
Voters were listed at https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0RBc7L/community-question-your-response/c/4eXueGRlA3U
Admin are the known admin accounts (C, Perun, Doggos), TINAE didn't say who represented them.
As a fellow Christian, please take my public accountability to Scott Lively and my elders and SwampRangers.com, and TINAE's public accountability as my sister as stated at c/Christianity for the past 5+ years, as sufficient testimony. I respect your right not to take our testimony, but it's appropriate for sovereigns to negotiate rather than to act unilaterally, especially when admins and mods have authority stemming from platform ownership.
The community discussed, voted that some new mod was needed, and mentioned about 7 different names. After review, admin told u/Thisisnotanexit that they were likely to appoint her (as someone who's been on Conspiracies about 2 years longer than you) and she announced this. After 2 more months in which no serious objection or contestation arose from the community, she was appointed.
Individuals are free to object or seek community action, but so far none has been coordinated.
Mars, the moon, and every star and planet are likely to be plasma.
According to accretion theory in stochastic electrodynamics, plasma is indeed their source, called mayim (waters) in Gen. 1.
Yes, according to C it's reasonable to assume, but it's not reasonable to cast a wide net over everyone OP disagrees with. Anyway, I believe the truth rises to the surface in an open forum.
unscored.arete.network/p/1ASZ3aY8EY
Oh, it's just a list of accounts believed to be IDF with circumstantial evidence, insults, alt accusations, obscenities, and reference to $7,000. No meat.
Sample that triggered OP: https://scored.co/c/TheDonald/p/1ASFvVOcmk/do-it-again-elon-make-the-bitch-/c/4eaTZh7Lt2m
It's always been worthwhile to posit that those calling irrational attention to IDF infiltration are the most glowy, because they make anti-Semites look stupid. Reasonable people who want the truth to triumph are much less likely to be paid advocates.
Lovely title. Reminds me of when Reverend Spooner saw (or didn't) the British navy and was stupefied by all the cattleships and bruisers.
Funny mix of pretended and real etymologies, Eustace. "Cannibal" is a version of the 16th-century Carib [or Kali'na] people's name for themselves, so it's a Native American word. Many spellings and languages are attested and may have originally been "karipona". We could argue that Natives came from Asians who would have known of Hamite Canaan and of baalim under the simple meaning of human lords, but such a literalist theory would require backup and would need to explain how Kna'an and Ba'al were combined and became karipona* in Guiana, which has no sense. [If we were to supply a Semitic root arbitrarily for the Guianan, we might propose qari'-panah*, which can be translated "chosen head", which would one-up Eustace quite a bit in terms of historical fit.] The fact, that Nimrod, whom I've tracked to be the same as Naram-Sin, engaged rituals that probably included cannibalism, is no evidence that it was so named at that time.
I'm seeing no real evidence for the "seventy deities" besides a late strained Jewish interpretation of Deut. 32:8, which is not about El but about Elyon (since we're making distinctions). The deities have no names unless the Table of Nations starting with Shem, Ham, and Japheth is taken as their names.
Oh, that's fun and I should know it if true. Yes, it looks like Jorg Lanz published Ostara magazine about this god, that Hitler read it in his youth, and that Lanz is on my broad list of contributors to Nazi philosophy; but calling this connection "the patron god" ("the") presses the issue too far. Ostara is indeed merged with Ashtoreth in European convergent etymology, meaning that it had the ordinary positive connotations of east, Austria, (sun) rising, and merged those inseparably with the Semitic connotations of Ashtoreth, Asherah poles, and some say Stur (Saturn), a process long before 1000 AD.
"Purple" does not appear to be the original meaning of the "phoenix" words, but a derivative based on association with the extant Canaanite people. The original may be Egyptian "fnhw", "carpenters", found at Karnak; or, in Linear B, "ponikijo", "palm".
Other statements are accurate or not worth disputing.