Well, you inspired me to see who the 13 families are, and I was disappointed, there are 17 of them and they don't control the WEF or have any formal organization. So I conclude there's no shortcut to naming the families other than to work through the half-million sealed indictments and extrapolate internationally.
The only families that are really big enough to panic are Rothschild and Soros. The rest are just convenient players with whom deals can be cut; they may be panicking for their lives but don't have power to pull strings. What I want to know is where there are a group of associated families that keep their fingers on the strings, and I was disappointed in that search today.
It's not me who's stuck on the numbers 109 and 1030. If you had pursued my links or noticed my reference to the anon using the name "Molyneaux", you'd realize the original samizdat 1030 is also a suspect list and does not contain any demarcation of 109 nations. If you said "over 50" you'd still be hard-pressed to make up that number with a true list even with all the sources at hand; you'd end up double-counting regions that had different national structures at different times and would fall into a big methodology problem. So there's no list of 109, and not even of 50 nations, I said the most authoritative list gives 81 exoduses from parts of 22 nations, and listed them. But you're apparently not interested in saying 12 and parts of 10 others. So my deflation of sails is actually working.
Obviously there are many reasons stated for expulsions, and there are some horrific charges, and there are also evidences of confessions under duress, and it's pretty gruesome all around. I should have included the witch hunters, who were widely recognized as overzealous, but nobody sympathizes with the witches. To get to the bottom of an expulsions issue cannot be done by listening only to one source out of all historical context.
I see you also want to pivot to the word "Jew". Yeah, it's in all kinds of Bibles, in KJV 1611 it was "Iewe", translating Yehudi and Ioudaios. Here are 18 such Bibles (note I searched RVR60 where "Jew" is not, because RVR60 is in Spanish; that's what allows the site to show the English list). So you'd have the burden of proof of producing "Bibles" (plural) that don't use the word "Jew". I have no doubt that somebody deliberately produced one.
We just discussed the etymology here; it was first used in France ca. 900 with the spelling "Ju", at which point it was a simple elision (syllabic shortening) of the Latin "Judaeus" with the same meaning. (Yes, the "I" and "J" had not yet been distinguished, which is irrelevant to the identity of the two words.) If people wanted to translate it all as Judahites, that would be unambiguous. But the reason people believe "Jew" is a different word rather than an elision is that they have some theory about Edom or Khazaria that is unlike any other historical fact about migrations of nations, and they think that "Jew" must mean something not only different from "Judahite" but also with no racial or cultural heritage in common with "Judahite", which is patently false. So your insinuation that it's about "modern Bibles" (but I quoted KJV 1611) or that it's "replacing some other" (but the word goes back to a time when there was one and the same people called both Judaeus and Ju in the same country in different languages) fails any traction.
No, I didn't watch your link, I don't usually watch links, and your quote shows I had no need to. He seems to be talking about a Jewish subtheory about preexistence of souls, and it's not actually much different from Origenism in Christianity, which is a historic subtheory that still asserts itself sometimes. When put in cultural place instead of out of context, it makes fine sense.
What I'm referring to is clearly spelled out in detail in Deut. 28 passim, blessings for the obedient of the people, cursings for the disobedient of the people, all applying over time to the same people.
TLDR: I don't seek them, they come to me. The 109, the 1030, the blood Passover, the word "Jew", the knocking modern Bibles (manipulated by Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, and Scofield), the preexistence, they are all charges about how bad Jews are. I want to know the truth so I ask proponents what they mean, and they tell me, and I find a spiderweb of toilet tissue. I must conclude that the people most likely to be spreading lies against the Jews that are so easily debunked are in fact the Jews, believing "all press is good press". As soon as we get our facts straight and stop telling Jewish fables, they get starved of attention and the problem goes away. But those who participate in spreading lies after they've been warned are betraying both Jews and Gentiles. If there were any truth, I'd affirm it along with the rest; for instance, the lists of Jewish CEOs are usually more factual than not. But on this forum there's no need to distract conspiracists with false conspiracies to prevent research into the actual satanic conspiracies from going forward.
Because u/DresdenFirebomber points out the quote is fake, I thought it'd be easy to check the documents.
WP: "The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals." "Praktischer Idealismus, Wien/Leipzig 1925, pages 20, 23, 50." Already quite different despite translation. Archive.org.
Page 20: "Meist ist der Rustikalmensch Inzuchtprodukt, der Urbanmensch Mischling." [The rural person is usually a product of inbreeding, the urban person a hybrid.] So we're already reinterpreting "Urbanmensch" as "future man", which is not what he said.
Pages 22-23: "Die heutigen Rassen und Kasten werden der zunehmenden Uberwindung von Raum, Zeit und Vomrteil zum Opfer fallen. Die eurasisch-negroide Zukunftsrasse, auBerlich der altagyptischen ahnlich, wird die Vielfalt der Volker durch eine Vielfalt der Personlichkeiten ersetzen." [Today's races and castes will fall victim to the increasing overcoming of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid future race, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of personalities.] Okay, pretty close in WP, but poorly summarized in OP.
Page 50: "Kein Wunder also, daB dieses Volk, dem Ghetto-Kerker entsprungen, sich zu einem geistigen Adel Europas entwickelt. So hat eine giitige Vorsehung Europa in dem Augenblick, als der Feudaladel verfiel, durch die Judenemancipation eine neue Adelsrasse von Geistes Gnaden geschenkt." [It is no wonder, therefore, that this [the Jewish] people, having emerged from the ghetto prison, developed into a spiritual aristocracy of Europe. Thus, a benevolent Providence, at the moment when the feudal nobility declined, bestowed upon Europe, through Jewish emancipation, a new noble race by the grace of intellect.] Funny, "50" is found in the WP cite, its text is not in the WP quote, but its text is in the OP quote in mangled form, which suggests the formulation of both versions is older and single.
The last sentence of OP appears added.
Thus if we were to try to be accurate, we'd say this:
"The urban person [is] a hybrid .... The Eurasian-Negroid future race, outwardly similar to the ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of personalities .... A benevolent Providence, at the moment when the feudal nobility declined, bestowed upon Europe, through Jewish emancipation, a new noble race [the Jewish people] by the grace of intellect." Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder and president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, in his book Praktischer Idealismus, Wein-Leipzig 1925, 20, 23, 50.
It's not that far off except for the left hook added in the end, but it's no fireworks like the revision, and you see that misquotes (especially memed without proof links) hamper the cause. In this case the person who wants to expose the "Kalergi Plan" makes himself look stupid by making Kalergi say more than he said. He also plays fast and loose with what he wanted Kalergi to say, including trying to helpfully gloss "Providence" as "God" when that is by no means a certain equivalence. (I'm an equal-opportunity corrector.) This telephone game also encourages the actual working of what the "Kalergi Plan" was and became to keep going unhampered as its strawmen are attacked instead.
its really the Jews importing Muslims with false promises to White countries.
Name The Jew For Real. Alejandro Mayorkas MMN Gabor?
To me Jesus is the guide who helps me escape The Matrix. Who knows how many times I have been here before, but I want this time to be the last. Like I already said, we humans are species with amnesia.
That's fine. And as you refine you'll find more about Jesus's true nature too. He's much more than we know.
Do you want to live forever this time, or cease to exist? Why or why not? I thought people naturally want to live forever because it's illogical and impossible to consistently want to cease to exist.
The prophets were better boatwrights around back then.
Guess I'll need to start basic Bible studies here.
Heh heh. I mean a lot more than Roundtables, but we can start with that because the community likes it and it might even get more consensus and participation than it has. We all use our judgment, I posted three community questions but the most traction I get is to talk about Christianity and Judaism instead.
It's turned out that there are more errors made that I can correct on Jewish questions than on most other questions here; I just found another. I'd thought I would be here to correct errors about the Federal Reserve and personal income tax, the natural-born citizen clause and the satanist socialists, but for some reason that one topic comes up through the ranks much more than any other. Oh wait, in 2021 there was significant pushback against the creedal view of hellfire, and after researching it and making a moderate community statement the problem vanished, so that was the last time there was another topic that had such united vehemence.
I'll be happy to look into the idea that I do keep gates here by referring people to easily demonstrated debunks on topics I'm familiar with and that I've self-selected. We are all biased toward things we think should be easy for others as opposed to things where we don't have as much experience. But c'mon, you say something flat wrong and I have an immediately relevant link handy, I'm going to chime it in.
You are free to give any source you want, including "Molyneaux", but none of them give a list of 109 modern or ancient nations. I won't quibble details: If you want to call them expulsions, reasonable historical statement that they're expulsions will do. If you want to cover your bases and call them exoduses, you get more leeway on admissible statements. But when you say "109 nations" you're in error because the source for that claim listed 81 exoduses from 12 nations and a handful of regions, as I linked above.
If you think it's some victory to amend your statement to "The Jews were expelled from the nations of Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and Ukraine", because you think it proves something special, Christians are persecuted in dozens of nations today, and Roma are persecuted in quite a few and have been expelled from many. In fact Trump's policy is in essence to expel 109 nations from one. So there's nothing special in Jewish expulsion. The proponents rarely connect the dots anyway, they are trying to get others to do the dirty work of getting the "109" meme out there so the proponents get plausible deniability. I wonder who would have an interest in getting easily debunked lies against the Jews out there so that the debunking makes the Jews look good by comparison.
Yes, according to the Bible the Jewish people get the best of blessings and the worst of cursings in the same people. It would be expected that they both rise to positions of power and fall spectacularly from power, that they both regard themselves as (metaphorical) aliens and regard themselves as internationalists. Those parts are not problematic. What's problematic is to make false statements as if they bolster rather than hinder the case against individual Jews.
Oh, you think human parthenogenesis is a speculative miracle because it's never been observed scientifically in our species like it has for others? That's not an appeal to miracle. From the standpoint of the Bible literalist, he already believes in parthenogenesis and Nephilim so adding a little bit in our favor to find Cain's wife is no problem for him. From the standpoint of the skeptic, it doesn't matter what solution is proposed, theistic evolutionists believe in pre-Adamites for instance, but the issue is that he already disbelieves the Bible and is just using Cain's wife as a human shield. That's why I feel totally free to share my own literalist answers with you, to encourage you that they exist, not to say you must believe them; but from your standpoint of skepticism you need to have consistent methodology first before you even have the power to complain about Cain's wife.
If your Jesus is God of the OT, and the same yesterday, today, and forever, then those commands from Jesus we were discussing that you call Near East case law are not something you get to avoid because it makes you uncomfortable. If the OT laws from Jesus were not morally objective and transcendent, then he's not some kind of revealer of objective, transcendent morality.
Glad you understand that part so well! The Near East case law that has shining moments in Hammurabi and Moses and Solomon is indeed one of the better cultural expressions of natural law. America comes close, it has a secure Constitutional foundation but it's been more easily distracted than Moses's nation was overall.
I'm stepping away from our conversation on this note.
I knew you were asking questions where you might not like my candid answers, so I was prepared for that; but I answered candidly anyway, because I can. Your logic doesn't follow though. First, the US kills for treason and that position is highly approved on this platform. However, second, the right of a people to execute traitors does not extend to corrupt tyrants who have seized the power to execute arbitrarily and capriciously. Perhaps your view of moral law as monolithic is getting in the way. When following one law you don't get to ignore other laws by claiming they are in conflict, you must (like good judges do in this country) resolve the apparent conflict and find the distinction you need. In your proposed case, the fact that a culture is anti-Christ does not give them legitimate power to restrict or punish peaceful minority religions (we call that observation "1A" here) because personal practice is not treasonous, and attempts to make personal practice tantamount to treason (Daniel in the lion's den) are themselves destructive of their own government (his attackers wound up in the same lion's den). By authorizing capital punishment, Noah's statement (whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed) emphasizes that execution must be deliberative and transparent to prevent becoming vengeful and cyclical. That precedes any tyrant's distortion.
TLDR: If you choose not to follow up on these notices, it's sufficient that you have been informed that you'll do better to build on your view of moral law and recognize that it assumes class applications such as man and woman, adult and child. And you'll do better to question the quibbles that atheists wrote dogmatically in the same way you question other religions. For that, I'll leave you to Jesus's statement, love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, love neighbor as self, and on these two hang all law and commandments.
Let's start with: we can do Roundtables. And go from there.
Both slurs and collectivism detract conversation and give little benefit for discussing conspiracies. Even the person who is most diehard about "it's the Jews" defames, dilutes, and annuls his message as soon as he starts charging millions of Jewish children of participating without any evidence other than prejudice. And y'know, nobody ever responds to my observation that this charges the innocent along with the guilty, so it must be a winning argument for me. That's why I think the hardened antisemites are JIDF, they keep the convo going by self-loathing.
However, even though other communities do wonderfully with a "no collectivism" rule, all mods here have been silent about this community for months and there is not likelihood that that will change from admin. Unless we get our act in order and do what we can as anons to straighten things out.
I was going to write a whole book on this. Disproving you two is so easy but it's not on my schedule today. Tomorrow not looking good either.
-
Modern employment includes the whole range of what the Bible had as to slaves, except for the semantic issue of not calling them property anymore, which wasn't an offense in the past like it suddenly became today. Revelation adds that up to the end people will still be selling humans (human trafficking) and so the literal slavery problem is actually worse today than ever, even if we've put a dent in it of late. The problem is of course the abuse, not the semantics or the regulation. Lev. 25:44-46 (correct reference) is about employees staying with the household upon the homeowner's death, but they were either under contracts of 6 years or less, or under a (voluntary) life employee contract that was regarded the same as a business's "key man" contract today. Ex. 21:20-21 (correct reference) is not about beating nearly to death. If one beats another to death, that can be a capital crime depending on circumstances; but if one survives then the assailant is still required to pay for full restoration (verses 18-19 apply, 20-21 being a special subset of them) and is only exempt from paying him for lost time if he is an employee because the lost time is the owner's natural-consequences loss. The twisting of these verses against their culture (and their advances in the Near East compared to Hammurabi) is not moral, but the general principles as intended are moral, as I said.
-
I said that the context indicates that picking up sticks on Sabbath was not the only crime committed or it wouldn't have been reported that way with the deliberative process and the context of presumption.
-
The old Cain's wife problem has several solutions. Personally I think it's possible that, just as some animals do and as Mary reportedly did, there may have been daughters of Adam who experienced parthenogenesis and gave birth to children without cohabitation; after that, marriage to a niece is not forbidden in the incest laws (Lev. 18). But there are other solutions that have satisfied many people as well. This has been a quibble for a long time that (as I predicted) came from atheists who just want to discredit a narrative for spurious reasons.
-
Of course objective morality has ins and outs and context. Didn't you just say that toddlers don't get the same moral standard as others, and all cultures have recognized that by giving different moral rights and responsibilities to minors vs. adults? It's not an obviation of universality to say "all people in a certain class should behave a certain way"; obviously rape laws have different application to men and to women. When people study general principles to publish good case law, it becomes more specific, and this process is well-understood even though (as in the US) it can be abused into casuistry. Even in the original context "thou shalt not commit adultery" was a command that applied only to males because of the meaning of the verb construction; the woman was commanded not to seduce or to adulterate herself. We don't reject there being an absolute standard simply because it admits of differences in cultural status.
-
I told you that in the text, Num. 15:30, the sin of presumption is described as include reproach, spite, and violation, and that context connected to the historical narrative indicates the background of the narrative that need not be restated in the immediate paragraph of 32-36. The original readers had no problem discerning the intent, but our modern mode of reading things often fails to grasp the implication of context and placement. You construct "desecration" by application to picking up sticks, but I construct it by application to presumption, reproach, spite, and violation. Now it's an interesting question as to how we could decide which construction is better, but for now note that we each have a construction that agrees with our presuppositions and so it might be better to go deeper and work on those assumptions instead.
I also told you that the reconciliation of Sabbath and Lord's Day is a problem that eluded many people for very long and my own solution took 25 years, which is why I'm not going into it until we get the basics more clear.
In each of these cases, you're taking objections favored by atheists and materialists since only about the 19th century (slavery, sabbath, incest, casuistry, execution) and not realizing that those too are just another psyop that was constructed to propagate a narrative (in particular, old-earth and God-denial). These were answered very ably in the same period and the same questions and answers have continued with little newness all this time. So that's why I ask people if they want to understand.
If you want to pursue truth, then the first issue is not whether nitpicks in a holy book can be found (anyone can nitpick with or without nits); the first issue is whether truth can be known and how it can be recognized in broad outlines. I say that is done by the human spirit, the image of God in humanity, and there is evidence that we have broad agreement on not murdering, abusing, stealing, or lying (even as casuists point out that communities do have rights of capital executions for instance).
The old argument is to say, but oh yeah, you Christians think your book is perfect in every way so a single quibble means I don't have to believe anything Christian at all. That argument has always been defended against very well, but I would separate the defense into two portions. For me, I believe it's perfect and have answered every quibble I've been presented by reference to culture, history, language, and giving the document the same benefit of doubt that every other historical document gets (i.e. not imposing my culture on someone else's). For others, I point out you don't have to believe the book is perfect to be able to judge what is moral, to find echoes of that morality across culture, and to select which cultures and religious traditions demonstrate that morality the best. And that eventually comes down to: Jesus did it best and there's no problem in seeking to do what he did and to follow what he taught.
So all those questions that you're upholding as great deceptions are really problems that very few people ever had with the texts for thousands of years among billions of readers until a severe skeptical period arose in Europe due to having such great prosperity as to give skeptics a lot of time on their hands. There was never anything to hide, there were just a new slate of objections by people who were so far from the original culture and language as to throw together what they could, frankly because they didn't like laws against adultery and the rest. But the student of truth works on the root problem first, which is to recognize that broad strokes of absolute morality exist, they come from an inspired source, and they are good foundation for making more detailed distinctions when the time comes (even though cultures clash over the distinctions and often fail to recognize differences of application).
You get to decide whether to cling to the (dogmatic) belief that a sudden motivated objector found something in the text that billions of people missed who were closer to its culture and who found it perfectly fitting; or to release your focus on Near East case law and move your focus to whether Jesus himself, as presented in the gospels, is indeed worthy of following in all aspects. Because history and tradition are unanimous that Jesus himself believed that Moses was perfectly consistent and, if you will, didn't stutter. So you might be able to pick up the pieces of Jesus's morality without reference to Moses, but it's easier if you don't feel you need to fight Moses to get at Jesus's morality. But to act like a couple higher-critic quibbles like Cain's wife are real barriers to entry of any absolute morality is so 1800.
Does this make sense or do you really present these questions because you think the existence of criticism is sufficient to forbid any progress in discerning morality? Because if you wanted to put forward a morality based on contradiction or based on some other proponent than Jesus, those have all been criticized heavily as well, so it goes back to whether objective standards of truth exist to help us judge. Either no standard exists or the standard is external, objective, and transcendent.
I don't think you're an atheist, the same chain of logic applies to anyone. The later phases of wrestling with what the Jesus record shows us are the ones most applicable to you.
psy op to prevent humans from realizing what we really are and where we came from, hiding where we are, who put us here and how we got here will always remain a mystery
That psyop exists, and the church is guilty of sometimes participating. What I don't see is you contributing toward resolving the mystery. It's true that no conclusion will ever be complete (Godel proved it), but it's also true that any question can be answered sufficiently and substantially.
That goes back to the question of whether you want to know. You are free to not want to know and to remain in the (dogmatic) conclusion that you can never know enough to answer. But maybe there are things you do want to know. IRL we don't balk at having incomplete knowledge, we operate on our substantial knowledge and laugh it off when we make a minor error. But in philosophy and theology we balk at asking because of the importance of how substantial we want our answers to be, even when any question can be asked and any topic explored to the degree that will satisfy the asker. Who asks receives.
Do you want to know more and to test what answers I've received? Do you want to talk NDEs from the best sources on the subject or talk about what you've experienced? Do you want to be specific about what Christian deceptions you want to debunk? Would you agree there are some things that you do hold out as definitely right, or definitely wrong, with sufficient certainty that they're worth acting on by writing them out?
Great questions!
-
Well-regulated employment is of transcendent, objective morality. We cleverly turned the word "slavery" into referring to something that is always abusive, while retaining the word "employment" (the same thing from the French) to mean regulated labor sales. In the past the concept of servitude was all one and it was well-known that it could be demonically abusive or very positively advancing depending on the employer. In this light Moses (compare Boaz) gives excellent regulatory principles.
-
Killing someone for deliberately rejecting community authority (treason) is of transcendent, objective morality. You refer to Num. 15:32-36, a very brief account from the compressed reference to the full 40 years of wanderings. The key context is verses 30-31, which introduce the subject by defining presumptuous (knowing) capital offenses as including spite for the promulgated laws. Since they did not know whether to judge him capitally, they kept the offender in custody until they received a revelation that the sin was capital and thus presumptuous. Obviously if someone wanted to approach the text belligerently they could assume there were no such mitigating circumstances, but that would not be the way that all historians approach all other ancient texts, ignoring the culture and implications of context.
-
Rejection of incest is of transcendent, objective morality. The historical notation that e.g. Ammon and Moab were tribes founded via incest is not an endorsement.
-
Obviously different judgment of knowing sins versus ignorant sins is of transcendent, objective morality. Who ever said that premeditated murder and accidental manslaughter should be judged the same way? Moses didn't.
-
Resting regularly and allowing your family and employees to rest is of transcendent, objective morality. If you do not, by the design of humanity you are destroying or burning out yourself or other people. Like Charlie Kirk, I do happen to be a seventh-day rest observer. (I've also reconciled the Christian practice of Lord's Day as complementary; that's a toughie but it's also a boring exposition for a lot of people.) As above, the capital issue is not whether someone refuses to rest (which has natural burnout consequences), but whether someone is disturbing the peace via presumptuous encouragement of rebellion to established order, and, though it's not explicitly stated in the same paragraph, presumption is the intended inference. In Ex. 31 the word for "desecrate" (defile, profane) is very strong and doesn't refer to later Pharisaic casuistry (as Jesus showed) but to promotion of impurity of the community's order. Jesus rested on the seventh day, so I do too.
There is no list of 109 nations, there are only about 12 modern nations and a few regions of others.
I very much appreciate your taking it philosophically, but it sounds like your objections are only on the surface. True morality is one even if it has different applications for toddlers and for executions and for employments in different cases.
The difficulty becomes how one knows whether a morality comes from inner light (the image of God within oneself) and whether it is manmade (a situational rationalization that denies the big picture). And that begins by recognizing that every generic and specific question has an objective answer that can be pursued beyond oneself (our light is received and reflected, not self-generated). If we are both taking that warning and avoiding manmade dogma, we can reason together and find those principles. Also, that's the only ground from which churches can be judged.
If you want to say "Father forgive them for they know not" is your overarching principle, that's fine, because any true statement of the moral law is isomorphic to any other and they all connect behind the scenes (on these two hang them all). Mercy and justice do kiss, they unite without conflict, and when you perceive a conflict it's because the principle uniting them is still to be sought. Obviously mercy is not always extended to those who know what they're doing (and in the case of the sabbathbreaker there was explicitly stated review, to ensure the offender knew what he was doing by rebelling against the newly organized community authority). And most people do want laws evenly applied including to themselves, because a good leader will admit his mistakes and take the consequences, and a bad leader will continue to deny his mistakes and create transparent rationalizations and demand mercy and permission to continue his tyranny. If the intent of the law was indeed to be read as smiting everyone every time, that would not involve mercy, but that is not the statutory construction intended; rather, it states maximum penalties that apply in the worst case and it also gives methods for mitigation for extenuating cases. We sometimes read laws uncharitably and out of context, and US law when read that way has the same difficulties because of the nature of statutory construction, but when you see the logic and the whole picture you realize it's a good system for its time and place and the principles of mercy are built in but not always evident out of context. When you start with the knowledge that the Bible was received by many as not in self-conflict, you realize that our reading of it as conflicted is not the original reading and you can then discern and test that reading for what it is (a statement of moral law that is all interconnected).
So, (1) Everyone does have a moral system by which they judge right and wrong (unless they become nihilists and deny all right and wrong, which never works). (2) All sincere attempts at defining the moral system, which does arise from inner light, are interconnected and none are contradictory. (3) Our judgments that someone's system is wrong may or may not be right judgments; at least one person is wrong and maybe both (i.e. comms error). (4) Honest testing of systems resolves all objections in time. (5) It's not necessary to reconcile the whole Bible to be able to uphold moral law, but when one is committed to upholding moral law one loses the need to join with atheists and scoffers in rejecting the Bible out of hand.
If we stick with logic and our spirits are actively discerning what is true Light and what is just our creative rationalized dogma, we will come to unity on any question.
For me, logic and reason are even stronger, so much so that faith cannot fail to work.
You found some deception in Christianity and, whatever it was, because of it you also chucked Jesus, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And instead you practice a different deception, one you think socially acceptable, it's called situational performativeness. I'll give it just enough respect, namely, from what the truth appears to be to you, you perhaps concluded that a white lie is your best life given how black everyone else's lies are. But you can do still better. Either it's really true and does matter, or it doesn't matter and isn't really true, but not both.
Did you see my chain of evidence that is still the top reply to the top pinned post in the Atheist forum? Because whatever hooked you, it's always possible that there's some greater truth still that can be apprehended. And as an anon if I'm wrong I want to know! So I lay out my logic and reason and I consider the challenges of others.
But IRL most people who "left church" got sidetracked by some letdown between broken faith by leadership, failure to answer hard questions, and the influence of some really lame reasoning from atheists who just came up with it in the last 100+ years without consideration for world history.
So if you're willing to lay out objections to Christianity and be as open-minded as I strive to be, I'm all ears. Because two people reasoning together can find the real truth if they seek, because truth has the power of uniting them. Perhaps the biggest conspiracy is that people continue to pile on Jesus to this day and he continues to laugh and watch them be disproven.
But people, including you, don't act that way. You act like saying some things are good for you and saying other things are bad for you. Let's test that. If nothing matters, then it won't hurt you to say "Jesus Christ is Lord", just type it out right here. But if you aren't able to do that, then something does matter to you, doesn't it? And you should be able to say what it is that does matter.
I got called that so much that I've forgotten to keep denying it because it doesn't matter to me what people I suffer with by being identified with them by others. I'm a covenantalist Christian, and I learned the real meaning of the Hebrew history in Christianity. Some Christians here say we're the real Jews, which is one way to look at it. Others want to look at it as if they're charging that the self-identified rabbinical Jews at some point circumcised me, which never happened. So you get to decide from my testimony and it doesn't matter to me what you decide about me, only what you decide about truth.
Since I’m warm I know Jesus is my guide who opens access to spiritual understanding & helps me enter the kingdom.
You should check in with u/Graphenium, he likes the Gospel of Thomas too. You get a pass for a "near" answer. Now learn the answer more adequately. You see a whole lot of deception but you don't fight? Well, you might get credit for telling the truth too, because to me that is fighting deception. Maybe it's sufficient for now that, when you describe the cabal, you show them as weak as a spiderweb instead of having any power by their deception ("control", "corporation") by agreeing with their claims on lawful status.
By God's grace I've never been blinded because I've built up my photoreceptivity gradually; I still trip but I've stopped falling. I don't need to make up stories either, which means the two of us should be able to agree about histories. Perhaps you think the cabal is sufficiently exposed by truth without any "belligerence"; that may be enough to run with, but sharpen your truth. The bit about William the Conqueror is real enough, and it's a covenant, but it's anachronistic to call it a corporation and it's less helpful to just assume that it means a millennium-old faceless controller group. That's why I bring in Jesus because he's in control and I'm doing exactly what I need to be doing. Jesus also says there is one great city that rules over the kings of the earth, so I expect that he doesn't mean three literal cities unless there is a de jure government to them that he recognizes. But they are certainly part of the manifold works of satan that he teaches about in Revelation 2-3. Now if you just want to call it "expose" rather than "fight", feel free, just work on the refinement. As you refine you'll find more about Jesus's true nature too.
I just started you with the Golden Rule. It has fungible (isomorphic) formulations in Hammurabi, Moses, Aristotle, Hillel, Jesus, and others. It doesn't need to be made transcendent, instead it is recognized as transcendent in the same way the law of gravity is recognized as a law: by common testimony and experience.
Let's also throw in the Law of Sowing and Reaping, for which we'll use a formulation from philosopher Ralph Macchio, "What goes around comes around." Karma.
And most everyone agrees murder is wrong; we are told that Noah said, whoso sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. Good government.
Does the Inner Light testify that these principles are greater than your understanding of them, or were you looking for some principle that you could make or unmake by being greater than it?
Hitler sucks, I'm so real
I'm actually invoking Darwin's principles. Without objective morality, Darwin only had death to look forward to, that philosophical discussion is not a threat.
Please review the powerful argument of The Abolition of Man and its appendix demonstrating the commonality of natural law across cultures. For it to be objective and independent, it must also be transcendent, meaning that every expression of it is an incomplete mirror, and people might nitpick differences among the expressions. But more atheists follow the Golden Rule than you'd expect.
Let's turn what you perceive as a threat into a positive promise. You make the positive statement "show it". I invoke God that you will be shown it, at the right time and in language you can accept, by whatever means necessary. You might even start by holding forward whatever morality you live by, whatever you use to judge right and wrong for yourself, because it might have more external origin than you realize. If you put a credo forward (like the Golden Rule) and I agree, that's enough for a set morality between us two, isn't it? Then we can proceed nonadversarially. Add:
Inner Light
There are many lights. How do you know which is true Light and which is deceptive show unless you have a sharable standard? If my feelings of what is true Light are subject to change because I control them situationally, I can be deceived and hacked as soon as my control is distracted. But if the means of detecting true Light are given by and controlled by Light itself, they cannot change and are safe against hijacking. There is only one Power in the universe that can safeguard that, to put that power anywhere else is to jump to contradiction and nihilism.
Where is your evidence of a Roman 13? I know Borgia and Medici were big but when were they ever organized as 13 or grouped in anyone's list?