Agreed but appeal to nature is a fallacy. Why don't you show pictures of animals eating their progeny? Most of the time nature is vicious and cruel, not cuddly.
We're not beasts after all. But yes, that lady on the picture is an obvious psycho. You can see the demon peeking through her peepers.
True Christianity is the way. Obviously, anything can be subverted. If you can't discern between co-opted Christian zionism and the apostolic Church established by Christ Himself, the problem is on you.
Is it enough to call yourself a Christian in order to be a Christian? Can I call myself ma'am and become a woman all of a sudden?
It makes sense. I've not red into it, but knowing the true faith makes it easy to discern how demonic such a cult is.
It's a pagan symbol related to Sun worship and it's obviously satanic. This is apparent from the last few paragraphs that claim that ultimate reality is physical and impersonal. As Christians we believe God created everything, including the laws of physics and His providence is all-encompassing. God's divine energies are also called the uncreated light. Darkness is the absence of light - it has no ontological (real) existence. It is caused by a shadow, closing one's eyes and moving away from the light by your own will. Saying darkness precedes the divine light makes no sense because nothing precedes God.
The Black Sun is ultimately a death cult, worshipping the created universe and death that is bound to be destroyed in the apocalypse, and worship of nothingness (hence the black hole and space talk). But we already know that if you don't follow Christ who is the life and the way, you're choosing death. Everyone outside of Christ's Church ultimately worships death. This is what Satan wants.
Tl;Dr it's new age esoteric neopagan nihilist bs (which explains the Nietzsche quote).
What's that? Do you go engage in apology of the Talmud and judaism as if they don't teach JC is a false prophet born of a whore?
Correct, there's a reason why Jubilees is considered apocryphal and not part of the Bible cannon.
That's a lot of words to answer a simple question and in the end you didn't answer but went on a tangent and weaseled out. Do you follow Jesus's commandment and eat His flesh and drink His blood or do you ignore that, forfeiting eternal life and condemning yourself to death instead? Is this a hard saying for you too? Does it offend you?
I can give you a hundred more examples like this and expose how inconsistent, reductionist and arbitrary your exegesis is.
It seems you pick and choose the parts of it you like and go with them. Almost as if you're doing your own free interpretation that aligns with extra-biblical assumptions you hold (the protestant exegesis tradition and your own biases) and you're not truly following the text...
Most commandments are self evident, there are few which need interpretation. Is "thou shalt not steal" a head-scratcher?
Thanks for proving my point once more. Yes, even this commandment is not self-evident and absolute. In cases of true necessity for survival, taking what is needed is not “theft” in the moral sense, because life is more fundamental than property.
Same goes for other such commandments. You realize the same God that commanded Thou shall not kill in Ex. 20:13, also said in Ex. 21:12, “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” The Holy Spirit authored both these statements and they are not in conflict. Rather, these texts teach that the sin/crime of murder is wrong, and that a lawful magistrate killing a murderer is, in fact, virtuous. So yes, even this straightforward command is interpreted contextually. Even if you reject the death penalty which God institutionalized, it is obvious to anyone that killing can be justified if it's in self-defense or when protecting the ones you love.
Do you see now how much deeper everything in Scripture is and how your literal, legalist and limited understanding of it is leading you in the wrong direction away from what God intended? This is where pride and putting your faith in your own reason as the ultimate authority and ability to discern leads you.
You won't get away from this mess by being clever.
Let's see an example from John 6:
I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is [k]food indeed, and My blood is [l]drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a [m]hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples [n]complained about this, He said to them, “Does this [o]offend you?
Since you hold that the meaning of God's words are as self-evident as a stop sign and are abundantly clear and straight forward. Do tell, do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to get eternal life as He commanded?
Trent follows what the Vatican teaches - ecumenism (Nostra aetate), open borders and socialism (Gaudium et spes), skittles (Fiducia Supplicans), promotion of covid jibby-jabs (Vatican issued commemoration coin), climate change scam and sustainable goals (Fratello Sole) and dual covenant theory/rejecting conversion of jews (The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable).
Trad caths like you are going against the Pope and are in a contradiction. Maybe it's time to jump ship and come to Orthodoxy?
You're disporven by the fact of us disagreeing on what certain Scripture passages mean. Do you even logic?
You're mentally and spiritually unwell. No sane person would come up with this idiocy. Christ is the Church. You're blaspheming God and you're doing it knowingly. Very sad.
I'm sorry you're so lost dude. I'll pray for you to come to your senses.
You're obviously looking for the truth. You won't find it in the interpretations of delusional heretics online who twist the word of God. You'll only find it in the living Body of Christ Himself. If you're open to being challenged come to divine liturgy and talk to a priest. Maybe you'll be even more convinced the Church is wrong but at least you'd know what you're rejecting instead of dealing with hearsay and prejudices.
By going against the Church you're condemning your soul. Even if there is the slightest suspicion you may not know it all and be wrong about it, it's worth investigating. That's all I have to say. God bless you.
Can God communicate to man, yes or no? If so can he enshrine that in scripture in language people can understand? Is the English language, or any language, sufficient to transmit important ideas? If not why are we having this conversation at all?
How come people read the same text and come to completely different beliefs? How do you determine who's interpretation is correct? Why do you assume you specifically hold the correct interpretation? This is a problem of epistemology and hermeneutics, not theology.
If Jesus says call no man father, but my church has a tradition calling priests father, in direct violation of this clear declaration, do you require an interpreter to tell you you cannot do that?
Do you know what word-concept fallacy is? Do you think for example the word "kid" points to the same concept every time it's used or is it context dependent? You didn't answer if you called your biological father father? I'm pretty sure you did and according to your interpretation you violated God's commandment.
You trust the words coming from a human, but don't think the words coming from God can transmit the idea properly. How dangerous is that? Very.
Dude... I'm worried you're too low IQ to argue about this stuff. Every Christian appeals to Scripture. The point of contention is who holds the authority of interpretation. Catholics believe it's ultimately the Pope. The Orthodox - the Church. You believe it's ultimately you and anyone who reads the Bible. Are you not human just like the Pope?
For the last time, NO TEXT INTERPRETS ITSELF. No text is self-evident but is interpreted through a paradigm that comes with many assumptions that are not found in the text. If the Bible was self-interpreting we'd all agree on what the text means. What part of this reasoning is hard for you?
He claimed it was Kremlin and KGB that was behind the marxist push in the West which was a boldfaced lie. In reality USSR was very nationalistic and had long abandoned the internationalist ideas of Lenin and Trotsky of spreading communism globally. It was the western government and intel agencies, CIA, Rockefeller, globalist NGO's, think thanks and Wall Str. that pushed those policies.
Why did he say we need to bring religion back to the forefront?
Globalist technocrats and socialists aren't against religion. They view religion as a tool for social and political control. They are behind the ecumenical movement - the union of all religions into a one world religion of the future. They're also behind theosophy and perennialism. Fabian socialists like H.G. Wells, Lionel Curtis and the Huxleys promoted this idea in their books. There's a very important 80's elite textbook called Changing Images of Man where the role of religion and spirituality is discussed in shaping future Brave new world society.
This is why Rockefeller created the World Council of Churches along with Riverside interfaith "Church" that has statues of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed along with Thomas Jefferson. All Protestant churches (Anglican included) are infiltrated by the CIA and Rockefeller. Same goes for the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Eastern Orthodoxy). This is why they promote liberal ideas, open borders globalism and skittles stuff.
Meanwhile the elites promote Islam and Eastern religions too, again as tools for control, subverting traditional civilization and social reform. It's a very long and complex subject.
In other words, he posited a dialectic where the Soviets were the bad guys because it was too conservative and wasn't socially progressive, individualist, pluralist and liberal.
It was to illustrate they aren't fighting for a good cause, they're being lied to.
No, he hammered the point that communism is bad because it's authoritarian and suppresses individual liberty contrasting it to the liberal democracies of the west. He promoted classical liberalism even if he cautioned against surging marxist ideas in western societies. In reality, all forms of liberalism are bad, not just the radical ones on the far left spectrum. His message in essence was: "I've seen first hand where leftism and socialist ideas lead. You've got it good here, just don't let the commies to power". As if the policies of the US after WWII were not dictated by Frankfurt school operatives and the social revolution of the 60's wasn't socialist in nature.
Bezmanov completely laid into the boomer cold war narrative of the free capitalist democratic west vs. the authoritarian communist east. We see the resurgence of this RAND Corp propaganda with "Russia vs the free world".
Bezmanov is a MI6/CIA shill. He was used for propaganda purposes and promoting liberalism, americanism and the western power elite agenda during the Cold War. "Sovietism is bad because people there are oppresed, but western liberal socialism is good because you're free to be a degenerate". He cried about homosexuality being suppressed in USSR as if that's a bad thing. Classic fake and gay Cold era dialectics. I cringe every time I see a fellow conspiratard share this shill's lectures.
All cults are ran by the intel agencies. Case closed.
I know about branch theory. It contradicts the Nicaean creed (one holy catholic and apostolic Church). The Church is Christ's body here on Earth - there can be no divisions or parts within the body. This is a heresy condemned at Chalcedon which is the reason why the Orthodox Church rejects the Catholic's Sacred Heart devotion.
The problem is that in theory any individual or group can set new norms and they have done this, even in the first millennium among those who are still professing Christian churches today
You're confusing the synodal structure of the apostolic Church (as established in Acts and the Epistles) and oikonomia (canon law under the jurisdiction of the local bishop) with different sects falling away from communion with the Church due to difference in dogma and doctrine. The first major split in the Church was due to Nestorianism and that led to the falling away of the Oriental Church after Chalcedon. The setting of new norms is economic only. The decisions made at the ecumenical councils are infallible and definitive of what the orthodox faith is - deviation from this means you're no longer in the Church (your branch has been cut off).
Here's Jay on branch theory: https://youtu.be/qXx6DHU0HmI?t=377
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do. Again, no one did that back in the day. The presuppositions you hold are 400 year old at most.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
If the Bible tells you that you can be saved as a certainty, and your church "father" tells you he can never know, then run.
No, it means you have wrong presuppositions and wrong interpretation of the text and commit a word-concept fallacy. Calling no man a father refers to the heavenly Father, not biological or father or father in the patriarchal traditional sense. Have you called your dad father? Well I guess you've broken Christ's commandment then. You see how stupid the protestant interpretation is?
The Bible is clear, it talks about "saved" people in the past tense. Not might be saved, or could be saved. Please watch the video.
This is outright lying or willful ignorance of the Scripture. You're quote mining as every protestant in existence, ignoring the passages that don't jive with your presuppositions.
1 Corinthians 1:18 – “To us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Philippians 2:12 – “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling…”
Romans 5:9 – “We shall be saved from wrath through him.”
Romans 13:11 – “Now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.”
1 Peter 1:5 – “…ready to be revealed in the last time.”
You made that "strawman" happen because saying saying "be your own pope" presupposes that's a legitimate role.
It doesn't matter if you accept the pope as legitimate authority. I don't either. The point was that everyone ultimately has to appeal to an authority for interpretation of Scripture. It's either you (protestantism), the Pope (RC) or the Church (Orthodoxy).
The early church, i.e early christians, maintained scriptures. Did specifically the people calling themselves "Orthodox" do so? I mean surely that's what you guys say, but either way the scriptures are written by the original authors.
The Early Church of the apostles you talk about has never ceased to exist (as Christ promised) and it continues to this day. The problem you and all protestants have is that you don't believe the institution of the Church and its councils is guided by the Holy Spirit and is infaliable. But that same Church decided what the list of the books that go into the Bible is. You hold the Bible to be infalliable but if the people who compiled it weren't infalliable then it's possible they were mistaken.
It's never "scripture alone", it's God who saves us, by grace, through faith. But one thing it is not, is by ritual, by tradition. That's superfluous.
It's weird you believe this, because the OT and its continuation in the NT is literally a tradition that is upheld by rituals and sacraments. Denying tradition is sawing off the branch you're sitting on. It is this tradition of the Church that has produced the Bible (remember that there was no Bible until 4c.)
It's very bad. I know hippy dudes who lost their mind to demonic obsession because of such practices. They didn't even take any drugs...
It's very dangerous, even simple physical exercises like mainstream yoga wine moms love to do.
Hinduism and raja yoga in particular is demonic degeneracy. Stimulating kundalini awakens the "snake" within you that reaches to your head and possesses you - utterly satanic shit (also think about the material aspect of sodomy as a pathway for parasites reaching your brain and controlling your behavior - aka "the parasite pill").
Pray for the people who have been deceived by new age bs. There's a reason why the elites promote this Far Eastern religions and spiritual practices in society and it's not because they love you and want the best for you.
Check out his video on Sola Scriptura too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AjgIrk9-o&t=78s
Did I reply to you? I was referring to the link posted by SwampRangers.