You got it! 2007-2008, the year that Obama literally went to the throne of satan and there called for and invoked a new spirit to infuse all mankind, and then was named to lead America while standing before a replica of said throne. That's the punchy headline version, let me know if you want the details dug up. I found that out after doing the calculation, of course. It wasn't a 16-year plan, it was a millennial plan.
The real reason people don't touch your links is that you do just what you just did, link them to insults and obscenities without any accounting for your venial and mortal sins, and when you do have something that might be useful you don't give any submission statement alongside it to guide people what it says or what your impression of it is. Ask your priest about whether Civility is right for you.
When I first met u/TallestSkil he was using a 10-year-old link that said that whites would be gone in 10 years. But he has some good insights at times too. Still looking for his prophecy for the Jewish year 6000, seems like he left it incomplete. (Hmm, he said 2339 AD, maybe he means 2340 AD, the end of Hillel year 6000; he may be making the same millennium error that TAFKAP did in the song "1999". But doesn't he know that 200+ years of Persian kings were omitted from this count and by my best guess we have just entered the year 6018 AM, counted from creation? He doesn't agree with Chabad when they disagree with all historians and put Nebuchadnezzar 200 years too late, does he?)
Good links, but I must exempt one. The "Torah prophecies of 6 million" idea is false. (1) I tracked the source and it turned out that someone was just noticing a defective letter waw in the text (i.e. the number 6) and then interpreting it after the fact to apply to the Holocaust; I'll dig that up and add the source to my "hoaxes about Jews" article. (2) The word "holocaust" meant burnt offering before WWII, and so it was occasionally metaphorically applied with perfect innocence before it got its famous onetime metaphorical application; no prophecy. (3) I also demonstrated that people just searched old newspapers for quotes containing "six million" and "Jews" in close proximity, including even a quote about six million dollars; there was no prophecy in any of them, and they were no more statistically significant than searches for 5 or 7 million (I believe the best hits from that search came at 3 million). That too should probably be added to the hoaxes article. Your graphic is too blurry to tell, but I believe that all of those came up solely from the "six million" search, and I believe one, maybe two, also had the word "holocaust" in proximity leading the title writer to play that up as if it were a multi-decade prophecy. I'll try to include enough links to show it's all just a posturing hoax.
Your other links sound fine, I might have a quibble if I looked closer but I repeat my thankfulness that you are seeking to keep it well-balanced. To replace the "6 million" link, you might do well to create a link about how Jewish banker Jacob Fugger was the real cause of all the hundreds of years of Catholic-Protestant wars, when he gave Albrecht a usurious loan, the repayment of which out of indulgence money created the whole Reformation.
I larp, I tell people I'm too smart to take the bar.
I told you that a person in your hypothetical can honor his parents at all times including by obeying when he can and telling them when he cannot, which are two applicable categories of honor. You have not said anything about those not being categories of honor. Since you wish to be more specific, you honor a person who is degenerate by appealing to the image of God in him to rise above his degeneracy as the Lord wills; you honor a person who treats you and yours like trash, or abuses you, by the same appeal, in addition to protection of yourself, and of who and what are yours. A minor in his parents' household is in a position of not having mature knowledge of morality, so the means of judging whether a minor is "honoring" are more limited, but God gives minors enough common grace to show a path to them at the level they are at, such as through common cultural expressions of morality. And, when the church encounters an abused minor, they would not say "dishonor your parents", and they would not dishonor the fact that the child has those parents, but as long as the case is limited to a report of child abuse they would still use deliberative, procedural means to protect the child from abuse, and would not act rashly. That is because society's default stance of according the parents rights over the child should not be interrupted lightly but only on credible evidence.
The cases can get more detailed: There may be other factors beyond a report of abuse, such as risk of abuse to others than the reporter, in which case someone might "take the law into his own hands". The person who does that is declaring emergency jurisdiction over the law and is responsible to judge rightly and to be punished for wrong judgment. That still doesn't involve dishonoring a parent. In the extreme case, we get back to the just war, if a parent is being so belligerent and aggressive that the believer regards it as an act of war against him: in that case the state of war should be acknowledged and the inability to retain relations should be stated upfront. Obviously if a father deliberately tells a son he is no longer his son, the son is also no longer subject to the duty that sons have of honoring fathers, though we still honor people as image-carriers.
Now, you may be referring to individuals you know who have been abused and who have not gotten good answers from believers. You may have in mind a case where your conclusion was that a form of dishonoring parents, or some other exception, was morally justified. Please don't take my case law as specific to a case I have not heard all the details of. But I can tell you confidently and categorically that in any case where you have justified your own or another's action while believing it was contrary to some moral principle, there was always a better way available, and reflection in the Spirit will reveal it to you without judgmentalism. To him who knows what to do and does not do it, it is sin. But he will provide a way out with the temptation that you may bear up under it.
So, yes, one who is a child should honor one's parents at all times. In the most extreme cases, the means of honor are strained but can still be preserved, by God's guarantee.
Thank you for showing the idiots here how to properly cite sources and report with relative journalistic neutrality. Letting facts speak for themselves rather than demanding an interpretation is so helpful. I respect that you may have a lot more invective in your feelings than you let on, but you are to be commended for restraining that here.
My one certainty is Reality: it is certain not because I accord it as such but because it establishes itself as such (IMHO). When we get to details, I find them all in Jesus, but that's building on the foundation you ask about.
That means that any "certainty" I experience is sufficient and imperfect even as my experience evidences that Reality makes itself certain, completely and perfectly. In practice I can't know everything but I can know anything.
If by Soul you mean Reality and by our being you mean nested reality, then I say "certainly".
Mindfulness (listening) to the Self-Other nature is "certainly" our path.
Poisons and predators and middlemen exist. I cannot judge an ethnos unless it has formally constituted itself as a corporate middleman, not just because it's close to guilt.
The math of universe to multiverse to multigame was also played by Georg Cantor, who famously said there's more than one kind of infinity. I think he was wrong, the infinity is the same but there's more than one way to look at it. What we perceive of as being "beyond" this universe is still only mediated by our perception in this universe, and thus any complex description of the beyond ends up being isomorphic with another if it stays consistent. This principle is more often abused than used (cf. poisons).
What I would draw from that is that, even as no ideology, theology, dogma can be complete in my mind, Reality itself does constitute its own ideology, theology, dogma in itself. The whole point of dogmatic proposition should be as hypothesis and not as absolute in itself. Hypotheses can be refined, absolutes cannot. Many here have come to reject the principle of dogma because of its abuse as if absolute; but the reality is that we all use the principle of proposition every time we listen to Self and Other in nature, and the issue is whether we treat our perceived propositions as absolute or whether we abandon them to the absolute being the transcendent and not any subset we can experience as a whole.
So all the propositions made by you or anyone here are proposed as sufficient but imperfect, falsifiable and in-progress. Over time some of them get familiar and dependable enough that we can raise them to an inspired level and call them statements of truth, but even then they are still only reflections of Reality. I encourage you to let this natural process bubble truths up for you as they can keep rising forever. I tell everyone simply to pursue Truth at all costs.
Both names for the enemy are fine, there are different circumstances when one or the other would be preferred. The larp is things like "Church of Satan" but since it's a deliberate deception it's still satanic, just not it the surface sense. But whether we call the enemy the satanists, the children of the devil, the sons of Belial, the luciferians, the antitheists, we are using the same core concept.
(To OP: I haven't found OP's links to be worth clicking so I am not commenting on them without enough precis to know what I'm clicking on and why.)
Reading comprehension, friend. "Honor" does not mean "obey to the point of dishonor". See Acts 4-5, we must obey God rather than men. You honor an unjust command by straitly telling the commander you cannot obey and will take the punishment, Daniel 1. (Also Luther, here I stand ....) Your quest to see contradiction and exception in the moral law is, well, doomed.
I said honor by obeying to the point of conscience and by communicating beyond that point. You changed that to honor to a point (and not beyond). You're the one changing the clauses. The tight place is only misperceived by you.
Further, the argument is becoming needlessly pedantic and unfitting of the true Church you represent. It might be time for one or both of us to take a break. (Guy is doing fine AFAIK, we might both be better off listening to him instead.)
So you're not supposed to foresee the consequences of your actions and consider them before acting?
Illogic, friend. We consider the foreseen and guess at the unforeseen; the fact that there is unforeseen doesn't allow us to treat the foreseen the same way. The lot falls into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. The Lord turns the king's heart as he pleases. We have sufficient but imperfect consideration of the consequences based on our limited perception, so we cannot make that our final basis. Ultimately our pursuit of truth means not that we are capable to do so perfectly but that truth is capable to pursue us perfectly. That seems to be a minor quibble here though.
Why were you given reason then - just follow the rules like an algorithm and you'd be fine, right?
To the degree that we describe rules as being followed like an algorithm, that is true that they direct behavior, because as an algorithm they cannot contradict. To the degree that we describe rules as including the unstated, it's also true that behavior is directed by reasonable inference from rules. Law and reason are not in conflict, however you define them.
Do you realize that Scripture contains seemingly contradictory commandments if taken out of context and used as maxims?
Yes, and it does so deliberately in Proverbs 26:4-5, which teaches that we are to use context to determine meaning. All seeming contradictions are paradoxes to be unfolded. Thus the tension between "not killing" (not murdering) and "killing" (executing) is a paradox, not a contradiction, and you should describe it as a seeming contradiction instead of having said it was not absolute.
Prots get around this and cherry pick the commandments they like and pretend they should be applied without reasoning and nuance regardless of context.
Many do this, which is why I took the time to read the whole Bible and learn all its commands and learn how they are all applied without contradicting each other and learn the principles of reason and context that the later writers used to inspiredly interpret the earlier writers. Now I like all the commands. But it sure seems like you are cherry-picking the commands because to you they don't count if they're not in the Ten and those in the Ten are all capable of exception. That may be an uncharitable summary, so I'll leave it as a proposed perception and see if you can correct the perception. The question I'm looking for an answer to is whether it's ever necessary, justified, or sinless to have another god before God.
Yeah, we already had that cycle, but I notice that nobody else is taking his bait. If I felt I needed to correct some falsehood for lurkers' sakes, I would. But I think greater commitment to the principle Don't Feed The Trolls is likely to help. In particular, if almost all my interactions with JG5 are about the positive things he has occasionally done, and the negative just get him downvotes and nothing, then he's more likely to gravitate toward more positives. And (unlike other trolls) JG5 shows some leeway for being influenced by constructive redirection, he does sometimes read the room. So I think my speaking out more about the idea of troll-starving will have a longterm effect.
That's begging the question how do you determine what aggression is just.
It's not begging the question, I explicitly told you that it's a long digression when we try to describe all the cases. Jesus wasn't said to use the whip on the moneylenders, he probably directed animals with it. No aggression is to be permitted and aggression is defined as threatening or initiating force against another's person or property. Lots of Christians have theologies that permit some aggressions, as you do with your permission of lying, but I believe they're inconsistent. Now, you may want to know about the regulations by which I permit a just war, such as a formal judgment of the serious aggression conducted by the other party, and an offer of terms of peace, a final unequivocal declaration of war, and the prohibition of war crimes. But I'm not sure you want to know, because the thrust is that you believe there is no absolute principle, and I say that both the general and the specific principles are absolute each in their own application and can be sufficiently stated in a few words in any particular case. So if you want to continue the question with specific cases, I'd be happy to hear your propositions and difficult passages.
I summarized your position that Chrysostom accepts deliberate deception with the less charitable "you tell me he's a liar". I don't see a need to modify that statement in its context. In the greater detail, I showed that you may be wrong (he may not accept deliberate deception) and that Chrysostom equivocates by admitting two meanings of the word "deceit", making him hard to pin down.
Go collect Church fathers as if they're pokemons.
As you do with Augustine and Origen. (I dislike Origen but I note that the Church did not condemn him and, out of respect for his other contributions, deliberately avoided using his name when anathematizing "monstrous apokatastasis", leaving the reader to decide the difference between monstrous and Biblical apokatastasis. So I interpret Origen in context, but you seem to dismiss him out of hand.)
What's your standard for discerning which father is reliable? Your personal judgment?
And what's your standard? A few other people's personal judgment? Your own Patriarch? Follow a multitude, but not to evil.
Btw no Church father teaches that lying is not a sin but that it could be justified under some circumstances.
But you said the fathers support the idea that "there is ever a time to deceive or mislead". You quoted Nazianzus, "It is necessary sometimes to deceive." How can there be a time for it, and it be necessary, if it is never justified? Get the semantics right please. There is no temptation except what is common to man and where God gives you a way out that you can bear up under it. If you say sin is necessary, you're in the Romans 3 loop of getting Paul's smackdown.
Please don't play the game of swapping murdering for killing. Murder is never justified. Do I need to call you out on your claim that all commands have exceptions?
You do you, it's not as if your bound to any position. Tomorrow you may wake up with a different feeling and go off it.
I tested all bonds and found only one would hold, my bond in Christ. I'm pretty confident that "No false testimony" will never admit of exception, but ultimately my confidence is that Christ will defend his word, not me. It's not in my power to protect myself against losing the truth, it's only in Christ's power and he has promised me I cannot slip from his hand. Feelings have nothing to do with it, they have been crucified. My unity of commitment has been vindicated by the fact that, having committed all to him, he continually gives light on any question that skeptics present to me, whether I had already learned the truth of the matter or whether I look into a new matter briefly. The consistency of all truth is his to uphold, not mine, and having taken my own hands off what is his responsibility, I've been freed up to enjoy his ever-growing manifestation of truth.
You begin to doubt me as I affirm commitment to rejecting all deception, even as you are the one stating leeway to permit deception in some way. Well, anyone is free to doubt, I can only appeal to Christ. I might point you to my five years of record here, or refer to my growing up in a covenantal church, learning about the Near East culture of the Bible so that I could understand the relationship of OT and NT, and my learning to be all things to all men to save some, with my one commitment to Jesus as Truth becoming my only motive. But if your position is that I'm wrong for using my judgment, even though everyone does so and you use your judgment to suspend your remaining judgment to the Church, and if you don't think you're using your judgment, I can only point out the illogic, as many ways as you permit me, and leave it there. You made an offhand comment that lying is sometimes justified, and you come full circle by discussing treating me as if I always were justifying lying, in every sentence. There's a reason why I do me as I do.
This is a great start! I take it that by "basis of Jewish belief" you mean that ingrate nonconstraint is a lifestyle seen in practice of many Jews, as opposed to a specific published tenet of Judaism?
And I take it that you connect the dots that Jesus models how we are to be part of a Plan when He made Himself one with the Plan?
Jews didn't crucify Jesus. Jews weren't kicked out of 100 countries (#11 on list), the source only gives 12 countries. If cherry-picking allows us to say Jewish traditions reject Jesus, cherry-picking allows our enemies to say American traditions reject Jesus (but America's Constitution says Jesus is Lord, in the date clause). If we can distinguish whole people-groups, including literal children, as devilish based on the crimes of a few, we are condemning the innocent with the guilty, which God forbids from Genesis on.
If you admit there are well-behaved Jews (no one is "good" but God), then we don't get to call Jews children of the devil collectively, that's judging the innocent with the guilty. Something to think about.
As night falls on the Global City of Jerusalem on September 29, 2239, a single trumpet sounds from the sky…
Your cliffhanger has suddenly interested me greatly, Skil. Then what? Every tear has been bottled, so we need a sequel.
For example do you think you ought to honor your parents if they are complete degenerates who treat you and your family like trash for no good reason?
Uh, yes, you honor them by obeying them up to the point of conscience and by telling them when your conscience forbids your obedience (because they have given an immoral order, which abrogates their authority). It is a principle of US Con Law that a law repugnant to the Constitution is no law and can be disobeyed freely; but the sovereign citizen must make that judgment in the moment before a court weighs in and rules the law unconstitutional in accord with the sovereign's judgment.
You're supposed to apply discernment and not follow the commandments like a freaking robot.
If they are God's commands I see no alternative but to obey them in exactly the same way that rocks obey his commands. This doesn't apply to immoral human commands as judged by the light of conscience. But your language making it ambiguous which commands shows that, once again, you've placed authority in the earthly institution that you do not count as derivative from the only Lawgiver. And you did that by using your own judgment, which you don't admit using.
If you lie to a demon to save the life of some innocent man is that bringing confusion?
A literal demon is not deceived by human lies because he doesn't trust anything. A demonic human still has the image of God in him and should either be treated as such or, in extreme cases, told formally that his actions have lost him the right of being treated by you as human. If you declare war against him in that formal, regulated way, then what you say afterward is not directed to him and he is left to deceive himself about what he overhears.
You see, this is why commandments cant be taken as universal maxims but should be examined case by case with wisdom.
The specifics do not contradict the generic because they involve different combinations of cases than the generic. If they were perceived as permitting one to punch holes in the generic freely without distinguishing the difference of case, then the generic would no longer be the generic and one would be making a false equivalence.
You're still on the hook for claiming there are times when one might steal or commit adultery or take the Lord's name in vain or have other gods before him. I might call you on that too.
"Genocide", a word coined by a Jewish lawyer, is defined with duckspeak so that a single statement that another takes as offensive is as genocidal as the Great Leap Forward. The reality is, as I've indicated, the just-war doctrine that one does not aggress another. When one declares war one offers terms of peace. The short answer is that 31 kings of Canaan refused terms of peace, and 1 king (in Gibeon) accepted them. There are very long answers on the subject posted here too, but if you start to question moral unity because you haven't yet understood the details of the OT wars then you're in the same position as the atheists, who first made this a fad. I know you don't want that in Orthodoxy.
So I continue counseling you to recognize your assumptions and realize that only God is the perfect self-consistent Law and his expressions of that Law in the Bible are sufficiently inspired formulations that we receive and model with some imperfections. That means that everything in our experience is our limited judgment and only God can count as the source of unlimited judgment. He gifts both the church and the individual with judgment powers and neither takes the other's place.
the second premise is false
I agree with u/guywholikesDjtof2024 that permitting lying promotes confusion. The link I just posted demonstrates that the risk of discovery of intentional deception often creates a greater spiritual harm (lifelong distrust) than the harm that the deception intends to avoid. I also pointed out it's contradictory if the Orthodox actually taught "regulated deliberate deception is acceptable" and "deception is always a sin", because that would be doing evil that good may result.
I can take pretty much any commandment and think about some exception where one would be justified to break it.
You really fell down on that one when you had to admit:
I meant the 10 commandments.
So it's not only in the West where people minimize the moral law to the Ten. Instead the Sermon on the Mount maximizes the moral law to every spiritual application, and the Two Commandments (and all being like unto them) demonstrate that every moral principle is inherent in the ramifications of every command. They are all one and that is why they are consistent.
What matters is intentionality and consequences.
God controls consequences so we don't get to use that as determinative because it's not in our control (e.g. if our lie is caught leading to greater harm). The devil pleads intentionality on the road to hell. So what matters is rather Truth at all costs. Discernment only arises from commitment to Truth and nothing else. Not "truth and exceptions", not "truthiness".
Shower thought: I figured out u/DresdenFirebomber. Everything he says achieves the purpose of making Musk haters look stupid, therefore (a system's purpose being what it does) he works for Musk, with or without pay, and can be safely regarded as a Musk advocate. This is consistent with Musk's own approach of self-ridicule if it calls attention to hypocrisy in others, and with the reasonable theory that Musk certainly has people both advocating for him and larping as his opponents. So, after years of confusion, I finally see what ties his whole persona together and can operate accordingly.
As with JG5, I recommend ignoring everything he says about natalism entirely and downvoting up to the limit. I do upvote Dresden on occasion if he says something totally agreeable (not so with JG5 who is still farming votes from lurker Nazis even when he really is trying to match the forum goals). But I'm adopting a stronger stance of Don't Feed The Trolls.
aggression is also justified
I don't believe so, I use just-war doctrine.
John Chrysostom
I've never been able to dredge up support for Chrysostom, having the same feelings about him as you have about Augustine, and now you tell me he's a liar too. Not surprising. I'm comfortable with my selection of fathers. But that goes back to how one knows for sure, because your having a good selection isn't the only way to do it .... Ooh, you also exempt OrthodoxWiki even though it's been tested by true believers, interesting selectivity ....
I am appreciative of your links. Basil letter 8 to Caesarea does not contain the text quoted, and your source does not appear in search; the text appears to be an anon proverb, and does not speak of deception but of silence anyway, so we can exclude that.
To Ambrose, I do (because of just-war doctrine) admit of the use of subtlety in wartime but I do not count this as deception. The reason is that in a declared war, you have forthrightly told the enemy that you are treating him as dead to you and that you have no further relations with him. If it then happens that the enemy reads your communications and misleads himself, that's his own fault, you weren't speaking to him. If your army knows full well what it's doing but roleplays something else knowing that the enemy may easily draw a wrong conclusion, that's part of his status as an enemy that you told him about honestly. Relations are not restored except by ratified treaty (oath) appealing to something outside ourselves. So I don't call it deception in war. If someone's declared war against me and then requests parley or waves a white flag, that is a signal but cannot be trusted or confirmed until it is tested, so I had better still be on my guard; to use such a symbol and then to recant it would be deception in war and would be a war crime, but my part if I were deceived is also blameworthy, because the official comms were total war. Again, the command is about false testimony, not about impressions people get who you have excluded from your communication; the NT application is similar, Col. 3:9. The idea that laws may contradict each other is ultimately harmful to the principle of law in the first place, but the idea that case laws like just-war doctrine are about specific situations that have different or mixed characteristics compared to general situations is self-consistent and is how all statutory construction works (as Paul teaches by example).
So that leaves Chrysostom and Nazianzus, for which my reflexive answer is to exclude them as being the outliers. But, not having the depths of study on all the fathers, I realize that may be incomplete. A search shows that, yes, they got it from Origen and Clement of Alexandria (Migne 9:475-477), who gave Christianity the "therapeutic lie" that Chrysostom and Nazianzus invoke. Chrysostom's defense is stated to be "trying to apologize to his dear friend Basil, due to a similar deception that he committed against him", which is a rather telling detail. But the actual case Chrysostom gives is a doctor who allowed a patient to think that a medication was actually wine, apparently without actual lying. Though he extends this hypothetically to other cases and invokes Michal's statement in 1 Sam. 19:14 (not a formal lie), his comparing it to stagecraft (which is advertised as storytelling and therefore honest) indicates that we need not necessarily treat him as countenancing direct, intentional deception. (But I'm being charitable to him.) Therefore I consider myself free to interpret that the deception these fathers reject is that which involves material falsehood and not the use of means by which a goal is achieved without violating a person's right to consent or to be sufficiently informed. If the doctor is asked if the drink contains medication, he should answer truthfully, but if the doctor knows that the patient will drink that which smells like wine without questioning it then his accomplishing his goal by that route is by silence, not by deception.
The link shows that Tristam Engelhardt 2000 regards Orthodox ethics as teaching that deliberate deception to protect a soul from spiritual harm, via pure, exclusive good purpose, is both acceptable and yet a sin. I am free to reject such a contradictory reading of the fathers, and to regard Paisios of Mount Athos as normative rather than in tension with others (Christodoulos Ageloglou 1998 p. 140):
It is a sin for someone to lie. When he lies for a good cause, i.e. to save someone else, then it is half a sin, because the lie is for the benefit of his fellow man and not for himself. However, it is also considered a sin; therefore, we should keep it in mind, and not fall into the habit of telling lies for insignificant things.
Chrysostom also equivocates (admits contradictory definitions) on the position of reading him as hard in favor of deliberate deception:
Great is the power of deceit; only it must not be applied with a treacherous intention. Or rather, it is not right to call such action deceit, but good management and tact and skill enough to find many ways through an impasse, and to correct the faults of the spirit.
TLDR: I respect it's a hard case and church opinions differ, including interpretations of the interpretations. I remain subject to my own conscience that I do not permit deception at all even as I am not always called to tell everyone everything. You remain subject to your own conscience, even as you act like your conscience is identical with some construct that you describe as the church's conscience, but which you select from as if Augustine can be dismissed. Therefore ultimately we come back to the issue of individual judgment that is responsible to judge communal judgment. Follow a multitude, but not to evil.
But in all forms of macroevolution, we all mutated from the same creature, a boy is a dog is a pig is a rat. The creature's name is LUCA, the mother of us all, and is worshipped as such (with hyperdulia only, of course).
If it did happen, the only reason it happened was because God caused it to happen. The only way for abiogenesis to occur is by way of a Miracle. It is physically impossible but with God nothing is impossible.
Exactly. The odds of abiogenesis happening by chance are zero since there are only about 10^150 possible events in the extant universe and the simplest organism requires many orders more events than that. Therefore it happened by fine-tuning and could have happened many times as easily as once.
Like any other court (Deborah and Roy Bean are great examples). You accept those who consent to the jurisdiction of the seven laws and you rule accordingly and in consultation with other jurists doing the same thing. You can also publish ex parte rulings to speak to situations on your own initiative. Nobody has a monopoly on Noahidism, and the doomers are mistaken to think that those who've spent more time planning the subject have some natural advantage over those who have equal communal access to understanding the laws. This would be a good place to ask questions, but suffice for now that it appears eminently doable and would in theory answer any 3 hours of dooming.
That's my point, it's not the Noahide laws, but their abuse. Since you and I are Noahides we have just as much right to contribute to the interpretation of Noahide law as anyone else. In fact, the constitution of the Swamp Rangers meets all the regulations one could ask of a Noahide court so we can put our interpretations up against anyone else's that claims to be a Noahide court. Anyone who reasonably volunteers to mediate disputes, like Deborah or Roy Bean, constitutes a Noahide court. So the objection is not to the reality but to some imagination based on ambiguous actions and misread Talmudic passages.
Now, as a Constitutionist I point out that all Americans are sovereigns and have responsibilities as such. Many don't take that responsibility and then complain that American law is sliding; but the fact is that as sovereigns they are free to protect themselves, to instruct their public servants differently, and to reject servant overreach by refusing to comply with unconstitutional demands, and when they complain that nothing can be done they abrogate responsibility. So if you don't like an interpretation of Noahide law, promulgate your own interpretation as a Noahide court!
There are seven laws; the law of no idolatry prohibits belief in other than the Creator God; and Abrahamic religions each recognize the principle of diversity of expression in the one God, in different ways. Therefore none of the Abrahamic religions is idolatry in itself under Noahide laws, they are only judged idolatrous within one religion as it judges another.
Maybe since nobody else is really doing it I should just declare myself a Noahide court and start judging, and admitting interrelationship with anyone else who declares a Noahide court. That would be fun, especially when the Jews come along. We could use the Abolition of Man appendix as our base interpretative framework. Then we could put these objections about such courts to rest. Noahidism is not unique to Judaism but can be claimed by 100-200 cultures that each have flood traditions.
Jewish culture is based around seeing Jesus as a heretic, so they have been the enemies of Christian’s ever since it’s inception.
In the first century AD Jewish culture split down two paths, one of which was adopted at large by Gentiles and became called Christianity, and the other of which became rabbinism. But rabbinism was not defined on being the enemy of Christ, but on regrouping after the destruction of the temple. Since all of the first 5,000 Christians and many afterward were Jews, and since many of the first 5,000 were among those who previously called for Jesus's death (Acts 3-4), Jews have not been the enemies of Christians since the inception of the name "Christians"; Christians were just another sect of Jews just like Pharisees. Over a couple centuries, Jewish culture shifted from accepting that there were Christians among the Jews toward trying to avoid the question of why there were Christians at all, and those ethnic, cultural Jews who believed in Jesus became very isolated where they existed at all.
Therefore it seems to me that Jewish culture is based around following Moses and leaving Jesus entirely to the Gentiles, which is why the missionary group Jews For Jesus has, as its motto and goal, making the Messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue for Jews worldwide.
Rejecting would be having the religious knowledge of the abrahamic religions already and still choosing to hate Jesus.
Yes, for instance, but that's where we should be careful about charges that someone hates Jesus. Most Jews do not hate the man Jesus, because when someone goes on the record they are usually hating on a false concept that doesn't exist and isn't Jesus. For instance, they're hating a name by which they were wrongly persecuted.
Most Jews hate Jesus because the Jewish traditions see him as a heretic.
Not actually true, I've asked for Jewish tenets on this and they aren't forthcoming. Yes, there are a couple folk-religious documents that view Jesus as a heretic that are not endorsed by any rabbi as Judaism, but Jewish traditions as defined by rabbis are essentially about remaining silent about Jesus's status. There's a new wave among some rabbis who want to reclaim Jesus for Judaism as a good Torah-observant Jew so that other Jews will want to be as Torah-observant as Jesus was. But when individuals speak against Jesus, the rabbis distance themselves from that position officially. I'm open to alternative evidence of course.
TLDR: I see no evidence that Jewish culture is based around seeing Jesus as a heretic, that Jews have been the enemies of Christians ever since the inception of the name Christians, that Jews at large choose to hate Jesus, or that Jewish traditions see Jesus as a heretic.
Well, whenever I look at Jesus's part in the plan it always seems like he's one with all of it. We just had a forum open up about The Way where I pointed out that even as we are all Anointed there is a sense in which the groom's "part" transcends the bride's "part".
And that's a fitting link for u/MysteriousFedKnight.
For the rest I'll leave it at the observation that unearned grace (including birth circumstance, I'm proud to be an American) is a pretty common idea around the world and doesn't seem to lead people automatically to nonrestraint rather than gratitude, not without some other corrupting factor.