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.
And many people like myself immediately remove this God, Yahweh, from the possibility of that
Jesus didn't.
He didn't provide for anything that would be necessary to overcome these odds
Heavens declare.
The creator of a world has to decide whether it will include freewill or not. If not, it's not much of a creation, more of just an automation. If freewill is included, that will mean some creatures will do evil, but (as your question presupposes) it is better for creatures to have freewill (a good gift) than not.
It's not relevant to compare this universe with other hypothetical ones though because this is the one we live in. If other universes had been created, by the definition of universe they would be separate from this one and so we wouldn't know about them except by imagining them. So, yes, freewill creatures who have willingly given themselves are a better aspect of this universe than the creatures who have no freewill and just obey the laws of nature regardless (whether those are robots or rocks).
Then the creator has the decision of how to structure the world so that freewill creatures will choose good and so that evil will be limited. There too one can't fault the creator for deciding on a certain amount of evildoers if there is evidence that the domain of the welldoers is infinite and that of the evildoers is finite (it burns out). If the first evildoer is a spirit creature, and this tempts many other spirits and ensnares all humans who will be born of Y-chromosomal Adam, that's not a risk but an accepted part of the freewill narrative that is outweighed by the benefits coming at any time.
So we don't "have to" be perfect, but while we are not it grates against life and calls us to higher life, which is a good thing in a freewill universe.
It wasn't that knowledge was wrong, it's that knowledge of evil by definition means accepting the corruption and nihilism that the concept of evil would mean. Jesus willingly accepted that corruption upon himself by becoming intimate (knowledgeable) as to evil without committing evil. The purpose of the tree was to show that there would be a human who could absorb death without committing evil like our parents did. And that's what Gen. 3:15 says. They didn't have intimacy with evil before because they hadn't committed it, even though they could have reasoned about it for some time before making the fateful decision (see Perelandra by Lewis for a narrative of what could have happened).
There was no risk because the trajectory of those hundred billion plus would be calculable. The issue is the amount of loss compared to the amount of gain in the long run. We have faith that it's worth it, and he have faith that it's correctly stated that all those hundred billion had opportunity to recognize the creator in his creation in some way and were able to choose sufficiently for their lifespan, or not. But when we start saying we know better both how many people are unsaved in this universe and how many people should have been unsaved in a more perfect universe, we're playing God when we are just incomplete creatures. There are many more reasons than we can process for why things happen, and I've found that whenever I seek a specific reason or answer it's always available sufficiently for what I ask. The handwaving escapism of rejecting all moral responsibility because a couple of theodicy questions remain a bit murky is always mystifying to me. If you know so much about right and wrong, propose a moral law yourself and go about doing right and getting right done, instead of criticizing those of us who are doing it.
Nobody's perfect. Except one.
Well, Yaakov, if personality is the lesser state then you should abandon your personal account and stop pestering us with illogic.
I just rattled off a few Scriptures about God's plan for the nations (before and after Jews existed) and Jesus's work for them, there are many more. If the god of Israel wants to dominate the nations, what if he is the universal god and thus the best god of all the nations? Because if you think the real god or monad is the impersonal and nobody should have a personal god but should worship the impersonal as greater, then you're against Jesus as if he said something wrong. But people never can get around to hanging Jesus on his own words.
The real God is the one that is revealed in creation and that lets each person find out truth by a unique traversal of the one path of truth (and, when one comes across special revelation, testing that revelation by the nature of truth revealed in creation). If people don't accept the reality of what (or who) the real God is, people face natural consequences, because rejecting reality leads to negatives. Now, people might argue that, oh, that's an evil god using tactics against me, but if it's the true God then all their special pleading is for naught and all the negatives are what they deserve for their prior rejection of reality. So you wouldn't be able to tell apart the true God from a false god by saying the true God doesn't participate in allowing evils to happen to you; any devil can put bad things in your life and promise to relieve them when you worship him. So that's not how people discern that the Biblical God is the true God. Instead, they decide that based on (1) seeing the true God in creation or (2) seeing the true God defeating any other proposed god in a fair test. If the first doesn't work, you get the second, even if the other proposed god is yourself.
Test comment. You should be able to see this logged out.
Preston, you're on the Conspiracies forum and you're citing PBS and Nova as if they're "contrary to the establishment's narrative". That's self-unaware. You're also upholding Islam, which makes all your contributions suspect due to taqiyya. But I find that taqiyya is sufficiently countered by extra transparency because people learn that they can be free to share the truth without feeling pressured by policy to uphold a single narrative.
"Muslim" now applies to a man of peace but was not used as a personal title that far back. You don't get to say Abraham and Jews and Christians are Muslims unless you use all the titles the same way. "Jew" means man of praise, "Christian" means man of anointing, and Abraham was all of those metaphorically and none of those titularly. If you don't see the word "Abraham", you sure don't see the word "Muslim".
Plus, it's illogical to appeal to Muhammad, who believed in Abraham, and then to argue that Abraham was a mere hypothetical. Yes, we accept that monotheist nomads don't leave memorials. The evidence for Abraham is (1) the chain of tradition by which the Bible came to us, (2) the fact that the Bible is reliable on every point on which it is testable, (3) the fact that the Bible's testimony is consistent with the early period and not with a later. Now, despite the validity of the first two evidences, some people quibble on the third, ignoring the Bible's chronology (Abraham 2044-1869) and pushing him later than the Sesostris period in which rich Semites from Canaan regularly got rewards and negotiations from the Egyptian pharaoh. Do you believe in the existence of Abisha the Hyksos? He visited a pharaoh of this period, 20th century, 12th dynasty, in exactly the same way Abraham did. It's possible he was Abraham in a later visit than those recorded in Scripture; his name is cognate. Egyptologists grant the provisional existence of people on much less evidence than that, but certain people raise a red flag anytime it means admitting that the Bible is a good historical record, because they think it'll mean they have to come to grips with the Bible's moral demands. If you actually uphold Islam you shouldn't use secularism to rail against Judaism and Christianity when the same is opposed to Islam the same way.
I told you Manetho mentions the name Moses. I told you that his name is the same as the root of Kamose and Ahmose, with whom he was contemporary (also another Ahmose, the mathematician), and with Ramose, the name of the city he lived in. I linked you all kinds of contemporary evidence that came up in a search of just one or two days. And you come back with establishment denunciation as if there's no robust Biblical archaeology community debunking all of it.
If you're a Muslim, there's nothing to argue about the existence of Abraham and Moses; in that case you're either betraying Islam by questioning them as if the questioning tears down your opponents, or you're practicing taqiyya and hoping your duplicity isn't caught, which would also betray Islam. If you're not a Muslim, you are running so many contrary stories at once that your position doesn't have any logical weight. (Sources for no Abraham, sources for a robust Abraham but in Arabia only; citing the Bible when convenient and rejecting it when convenient; citing the Bible for the character of Abraham but rejecting its dating of Abraham; etc.) So I'm not sure what benefit there is in continuing. The point of my quoting your book source is to have a large number of salient quotes for analysis, because it's quite an intriguing etymological study; but, without my stating a conclusion on the evidence, it still belies you because it totally argues for the existence of Abraham and Moses in every detail except traditional geography.
So, here's my one conclusion. It appears you are not someone interested in pursuing the truth at all costs, but only in popularizing narratives that advance a reactionary agenda (denigration of Christianity, also Judaism) whether or not they are the truth. Only one reality happened, and we have sufficient evidence to know the broad strokes of that reality, such as that Jesus rose from the dead and had a message and gift for us. Do you want to know the truth at cost of everything else, or do you think there is something more valuable than truth (in which case that something may be untrue and be deceiving you all along)?
Where did personality come from, from nothing or from the Higher Power? If it came from nothing, wouldn't that make us superior to the Higher Power because we have something that it doesn't have?
Why did Jesus say that he gives his life for the world, that God so loves the world that he gave, etc.? Why did Jesus say he had other sheep to bring into one fold? Why did he say God was building a house of prayer for all nations? Why did Simeon repeat the prophecy that Jesus would be a light to the Gentiles?
Thank you for at least getting Rev. 2:9, 3:9 relatively correct.
Thank you for being so forthright! Wouldn't you think the highest intelligence would use very punctuated demonstrations of his power and would be able to appear in any form anytime he wished, once people recognize that the form is not the whole being?
Did you want to look at specific Scriptures Jesus upheld to see if they actually say all the nations that don't serve Israel would be utterly wasted? Seems like the literalist Christians are just fine with them, as if they might not say what you think. I mean, your idea that he called Gentiles dogs and swine as if racial seems just as invalid as others' idea that he called Jews vipers and foxes as if racial. So you may need to work with the text a bit to see if we read texts the same way.
God defines Reality perfectly, we model Reality imperfectly.
Discovering Reality as "made-up" by God is no change because nobody else can "make up" a better one.
Discovering intermediaries making up proposed Reality models is indeed a very helpful, positive change.
In this Reality, one known physicospiritual form is sentient (Homo sapiens); other proposals exist.
God said he made the first from dust (golem) and the second from the first (GMO); the rest by natural diploid birth.
So there are right ways to think about creation of golems and GMOs, but most all proposals are dead wrong.
Nowadays, "mud" golems are called "metal" robots but work the same; no souls.
Ensouled and/or enspirited humans always have the power to escape the golem's "life" despite robotic behavior.
So true NPCs and clones are potentially wild, not guaranteed to follow orders of their "fathers"; as it should be.
NPCs and clones exist, and many act like them; either they can be human, or they can be proven robots (Turing).
So treat everyone as human who looks human until they prove otherwise, and you will not be deceived or disadvantaged.
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.