Don't forget pepper, which I link with demonic activity in the Pacific. Opium is big but people don't forget that one. I wonder why I have Saigon cinnamon on my shelf when we don't like Vietnam communism.
I'm sad that you continue thinking I took sides. In many disputes I disciplined both sides, or neither side. It was rare that I ruled that one side was all at fault if it wasn't an obvious thoughtless trolling attempt.
When I tell two sides separately what they each did wrong, each side will remember more what I said about them than anything said to the other person. So it's natural for people to feel justice is unequal because it's much easier to remember injustice committed against oneself than against anyone else. I attempted to answer that by being open to all appeals (and still do). Whenever you charged favoritism, I addressed any specific case you called out.
Your choice right now is that you can continue to treat me as a person who has erred in the past, so much so that it's fitting for you to keep bringing it up (as if some resolution is needed); or, you can work through the issue of what is needed so that relationship is restored and one never need talk negatively about another's past again. If you want me to do something, I always say, let me know specifically.
I upvote lots of people, and OP when he's saying something useful buried in the slop. I only gave him one upvote on this page.
You say Solomon and Moses is fake?
Year ban is not permaban. I'm sure that a user like u/NeoOne could fit into this community without making it all about meta material. Also, his post is still live so there was no loss of material and I don't know what could be intended by merging it.
u/Foletadoo, Neo1 (a separate account that has asked me not to ping it) first raised the question of restarting roundtables by a mod, which led to about 10 days of discussing 6 names as potential mods, after which admin told u/Thisisnotanexit that she could become mod in time, which happened after another 2 months of community vetting of that idea. Since nobody demonstrated a strong consensus result in favor of any outcome, admin stepping in could be considered a coup, but if the community could demonstrate some consensus result I'm sure admin would accept that.
Neo1 got the year ban for rule 3, which was about unnecessary meta posts (now called subversion), and it appears his several attacks were also rule 1 violations. I don't know why he hasn't contributed to the several new roundtable threads that he wanted restored.
Right now the status is that the whole forum is political by default. IIRC, this would be a good time to ask u/Thisisnotanexit if she would like to remove the Politics flag from the description and then to mark politics posts as NSFW, if the community agrees. This would give more app visibility but might lead to some misunderstanding, and would require her to set the meaning of what is political (much discussion of cabal can be charged as "political" rapidly).
I honestly think free thinking and open mind are pretty clear; it merely means not judging others negatively for their opinions, and therefore treating people respectfully even when you disagree.
I wouldn't take the phrase "your issues" as an important indicator, it appears only an attempt to ask you for specifics just as you like to ask others for specifics. I understand if that phrase has been misused in your past experience. I haven't stepped into that convo because you two seem to be negotiating well. She is open to questions and has a greater burden of transparency now, and so you can ask her anything in place; you can ask me anywhere also, whether here or c/CommunitiesConflict or c/ReputationCampaign or c/Meta (where others would chime in too).
Since you have not asked me not to reply to you, unlike some other accounts, I can explain now that it's actually more lenient to give a year ban than a permaban, which is standard practice on some other fora here.
I am very interested in hearing about objections to moderation that do depend on content rather than objective rule violations. The account you're referring to as to 1-year ban violated rule 3 with an unnecessary (trolling) meta post and, I add, rule 1 with at least 7 attack comments. This is consistent with other recent bans, and better than the permabans given to those known to constantly press community-reject points (to forum-slide).
If you wish to contribute conspiracies and not subversive meta posts yourself, I think you'll find the community welcoming of your content.
I suspect also a Talmud believer.
Nope, I've said for years that those who criticize the Talmud with misquotes and strawmen are the ones advancing the Talmud, while accurate criticism of the Talmud must depend on understanding its cultural context as with any other criticism. I have a number of criticisms of the Talmud on grounds of insularity and superstition that don't rely on strawmen.
not once are the Pyramids mentioned.
Argument from silence. The tower of Babel (a ziggurat, the same style as the pyramids) is mentioned as representative. I tentatively accept Etemenanki as this tower. But the purpose of the Bible is not to glorify giant works done in the names of other gods, so much about contemporary religion is deliberately omitted.
more than 100 pyramids
Only 4-5 of them are what people think of as "pyramids". The rest are more moundlike and are mostly unimpressive ziggurats under 50 m.
none of this is ever mentioned in the Bible
Argument from silence. The book is not about the Egyptian people per se but only about Egyptian interactions with covenant people. Egyptology is indeed amazing, but when you look into it you find where the Bible alludes to the same things. First, recognize that "Egypt" is a Greek word and the Old Kingdom had other names for itself, notably "Tawy" in Egyptian. This means the two bounded lands, and is translated in Semitic languages as "Misraim" (Arabic "Misr", its current official name). Given the variety we don't have to assume that description of early culture is limited to use of the names Tawy or Misraim. A good summary of early culture is Gen. 6:1-8, where we see exactly the divine-human sexual union depicted in Old Kingdom deities like Amun. That far back, that's enough correlation to posit an overlap even without specific name mention.
Gen. 10 includes an incredible wealth of worldwide data encoded in names. Here Mizraim is given as a son of Ham and his family is eventually assigned the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The Middle Kingdom never built large pyramids like the Old Kingdom and so the Egyptians' Semitic slaves had nothing to do with that earlier slave labor; the Semites were instead employed building smaller ziggurats, temples, obelisks, and fortifications like that of Apophis in Avaris against Kamose and Ahmose. Since the text is unqualifiedly iconoclastic, there would be no mention of building statues; but they appear later in Scripture, and the statues of Ur, which included some Egyptian deities, are mentioned in oral tradition about Abraham put to paper later.
But Gen. 10-11 specifically focuses on events that have didactic value. Thus Nimrod (probably Naram-Sin grandson of Sargon) is singled out because of the uniqueness of his unprecedented Akkadian Empire. This rise coincides with the collapse of the Egyptian 6th dynasty into an Intermediate Period of relative impotence compared to Akkad, so it's appropriate to focus on Akkad rather than Egypt when discussing that period (23rd century BC). Centuries later, in the time of Abraham (which I have as 2044-1869 on Biblical chronology), well, Akkad was weak again and Egypt was entering the stronger Middle Kingdom and anxious to trade with Semitic merchants, as I documented. And at that time you see all kinds of references to pharaohs and Egyptians, but not to architecture, which is appropriate for nomads who care about relationship more than structure.
In 1763 the elevation of Joseph corresponds naturally with the founding of the 14th Egyptian dynasty, admittedly run by Canaanites, and likely founded by Yakbim/Salitis; this ran concurrently with the 13th dynasty in the south, just as the Bible indicates Joseph's power in the north was largely independent from the pharaonic successions in the south (e.g. Khendjer). The great building works directed by Joseph are discussed prominently, Gen. 41:48-57, and his legislative reforms, Gen. 47:13-26. The Israelites settle in Goshen in 1754, Gen. 46:28-29, the exact abandoned region now called Tell el-Yahudiyeh. Their primary cities are later named as Pithom (Per-Atum) and Ramses (Avaris), exactly where the Hyksos lived.
Egypt never had Pharaohs
The title pharaoh for a person is first attested with Thutmose III, a little after the Hyksos expulsion, but it's a very old Egyptian word and originally meant "great house" and referred to the palace and the administration rather than an individual, starting in the 12th dynasty, the one that Abraham traded with. Because of the collectivist focus of culture, the king was regarded as one with the people, land, palaces, and administration and was not to act "independently" but as the collective will of the people. In modern English, we might use similar titles like "the court" when referring to what an individual judge does in the name of a collective; judges might refer to themselves as "the court" when their more literal meaning is that they are identified with a people as their appointed agents. That is the way in which "pharaoh" is used from Gen. 12 on, and it's consistent with the Egyptian use of the word from the contemporaneous 12th dynasty on, where it is usually translated something like "great house". Good observation, because this is easily misstated if one is not careful!
There is nothing recorded in Egypt literature archives about Moses, or Israelites, or slavery
Manetho is Egyptian literature and mentions Moses. The Merneptah Stele of 1208 is Egyptian archives and mentions Israel. The subjugation of the Semites to build warworks under Apophis is also well-documented and corresponds to the brickmaking work of Exodus. If you mean they didn't bother to mention the same names contemporaneously with their lives, it was not expected that they should care about foreign names in formal literature or architecture. But we do have a number of crossovers of Semitic names in Egyptian records, too many to list. "Moses" is likely cognate with the many pharaohs with the same root, Dedumose, Kamose, Ahmose, Thutmose, Ramose (Ramses), etc. "Yah" appears in the name of Jtwnjr’yh, an 18th-century Semite who got his own special burial in Egypt and dedicated copy of the Book of the Dead, whose Hebrew name was Adoni-Roe-Yah. Egyptian god names were often different for the same Semitic deity concepts, but the linkages can be traced; so for instance Seth was identified as the Semitic god Baal-Zephon, exactly the name the Bible gives to the Semitic outpost in Ex. 14 (at that time this was understood as a title for Yahweh, the leader of the divine council; separation of Yahweh and Baal concepts happened demonstrably later). There are a few more such correlations I've noted.
In fact Egypt didn't widely practice slavery, and never had slave open markets.
Correct, Gen. 15 should not be read as speaking of 400 years of slavery because in context it indicates that slavery was a culmination of the 400 years. But the law that all land and people belong to pharaoh (the great house) is ancient, and mentioned in Genesis, and is defacto slavery (what they didn't practice is an oligarchy where each master had his own slaves, as the Levantine nomads had). In the war between Apophis and Kamose, Apophis had laborers build fortifications at Avaris (also Nefrusy, Per-Atum, Tjaru, and On/Heliopolis). This is the point at which the straw breaks the camel's back and the despoiled people seek a redeemer figure.
Also, nothing recorded about the Exodus, escaping of the Jews to the promised land, in Egyptian literature.
I told you and linked you, look up the Hyksos expulsion where hundreds of thousands of Semites left Ramses and crossed the Red Sea into the Levant. It's standard Egyptology, it's just not recognized by many as the same as the Exodus. Other Semites left at the same time besides the Israelites; some are named in Deut. 2.
the Pyramids ... the most important achievement of the people in Egypt
To your subjective judgment and argument from silence, they're not mentioned because the ziggurats were idol temples and were not to be glorified by the covenant people, and so are only mentioned in connection with their failure at Babel. They would hardly have called them "pyramid", a Greek word, anyway, as you note about "Egypt"; they would have called them "migdal", typically translated tower. We think of the three great pyramids as tourist traps, but to the Egyptians they were just overblown cemeteries that didn't affect daily life.
Nothing in the Hebrew culture or even traditions (Talmud is the most important book in Jewish culture) resemble anything to do with ancient Egypt.
Rather a sweeping assertion. I've loaded you up with Egyptian references and customs that don't reflect the later times to which the text has been forward-dated.
But, plenty of traditions from Babylon where the Israelites were in captivity for 70 years (not 400 years like in Egypt, according to what we're told).
I've never seen credible assertions that the Torah has data dated to Babylon and not to any earlier period. I told you the theory was invented by 19th-century German atheist historical-revisionists who hated the Bible and wanted its testimony dead. The whole book of Deuteronomy closely parallels suzerainty contracts popular ca. 2000-1500 that were not used in later periods. But when people try to argue for a late date on some decontextual wording or uncertainty, it's always easily answerable.
One mistake Christians have made is to insist that Gen. 15 means 400 years of slavery. On the dates and chronologies given this is impossible, and on the later references to this (including Paul) it's clear that it refers to a total sojourn in Egypt starting with Abram's first visit (1969) until the Exodus (1539). The meaning of the text is that these three things named, including slavery, will occupy a round total of 400 years (later calculated as exactly 430). The Biblical description of slave labor itself is chiefly confined to the reign of Apophis in wartime, just as history says.
Add: Since I have this page open, another very fun one is the highly valuable synchronism of the Stele of Neferhotep made in Lebanon by a diplomatic mission on his behalf: since Governor Yantinu of Byblos (Yantinammu) is depicted, it's clear there was a journey of Egyptians to the Levant at this time that had the opportunity to strike up business relations and possibly vassalage. Lo and behold, the Bible says that Joseph's family did make exactly such a trip, for other reasons, and were regarded by the Canaanites as Egyptians, internally dating it to 1737, right in Neferhotep's reign when the Stele was constructed.
Now, Preston, this is a speculative forum, and I don't intend to write to be dogmatic (in case my tone misleads). (Add: You asked and I should answer directly, I do pursue truth at all costs, and adjust my views when evidence indicates.) I am very interested in Babylonian influence on Israel and would not gainsay its evidences, even if I might not agree with the conclusions drawn from them. (I was just looking separately into the Zoroastrian wrath demon Khashm-Dev who informs the apocryphal Asmodeus; backdating that name to being a contemporary of Solomon does bear the marks of later narrative-padding, unlike the cases we're discussing here.) The issue is whether we can approach it with free thinking and open minds. You present to me some data about the word "pharaoh" that I was unaware of, and I thank you; I look at the data and recognize that it doesn't affect my general conclusion but does require me to adjust my perception of the different cultural uses of the word. I'm presenting you a lot of data, some long known and some I and others recently uncovered, and I trust you recognize it's not a clearcut scenario to reject the historic people whose stories became the narratives we have today. What you present is mostly argument from silence, and such an argument logically gives way when greater evidence is provided. So I'm interested in where you intend to take the evidence discussion in the pursuit of the truth out there.
You're welcome, fren! Will work on the not excusing people.
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.
Several people created vote threads just as you describe, the most conclusive one was 4-1-1 in favor of some unspecified mod team, with silent lurkers outnumbering those totals a lot. Anyone is free to start a new vote anytime, I'm mystified why they don't.