Lurkers.
Did we agree there is one objective, absolute Truth by which we can decide all other questions?
Note that I don't vouch for the etymology. See the verse numbers from Num. 26.
Germany (Deutschland, Teutonia): Ephraim from Tahan (35).
Poland (Lechia): on a limb I'll say Manasseh from Helek (30).
Ireland (Eire, Eirne, Irin, Arran): Ephraim from Eran (36).
Scotland (Caledonia): Manasseh from Gilead (29).
Well look at that, your tribe is Joseph. You win a computer-assisted cold reading of your Josephite identity.
A summary of your links.
(1) No video linked. (2) Jews have no Messiah but Jesus. (3) Jesus says many rabbis will fall for Antichrist; not all. (4) I know some conjure demons and summon Antichrist. (5) It's not helping Antichrist for me to speak truth. (6) I direct our criticism away from error and toward the real issues of Messiah and sin. (7) These forums aren't damned.
I was giving a general notice. I always want to talk about what you want to talk about with me. Did we agree there is one objective, absolute Truth by which we can decide all other questions?
For you, Vlad, since you asked, I'll stay concise! "I love brevity."
The link was just to correct a single aspect easily at hand, not to comment on the whole.
If you want to condemn any wicked Jews in real time, don't contradict the Lord of the Catholic Church when he says the synagogue are not Jews. (If you want to condemn wicked non-Jews, prove they're non-Jews.)
Nobody has to believe me, but all the ancestors and names I've seen are white.
In Ciaramella's case, it's more significant to report that Wikipedia scrubbed not only every reference to him whatsoever but also every helpful log of every reference to their actions. Here is an example of an unhelpful log. Note that (until this too gets hidden) the talk page has a lock history but the article page has a lock with no history, proving the lock log was hidden by further action.
But I see nothing about Ciaramella being Jewish. Why does it matter? Doesn't it suffice to say "Ciaramella is evil for getting Trump impeached and Biden cleared" without having to make him part of a bogeyman race that includes men, women, and children? And why all the cropping and irreproduceability? I wonder why you don't mention his regular writing at the very sus https://carnegieendowment.org/people/eric-ciaramella page (even when you could easily link Carnegie to the cabal). You undercut good research with namecalling and invective. Vlad is not a namecaller, he takes revenge with great patience and precision. Try that again.
This argument interests me. As a covenantal Christian I get attacked for trying to find a balance on the question. I've supported and contributed to a Name The Jew For Real campaign at ConPro but I also correct misquotation of the Talmud because it makes the attackers look worse than the Talmud if they attack it incorrectly. I would love unified agreement on how we criticize theories, groups, and individuals so that they don't become automatic exclusion of other groups of Homo sapiens (which is what contributes to noncommunity by our dehumanizing each other).
In fact, I should take your comment as an inspiration for me to shut up and complete some infrastructure so that your idea of proper critique of Jewish interests could go forward. Give me this week to think about it.
Do you want to specify a European country of one of your ancestors to see if you have a match to Ten Tribes theory?
Summary: It's basically a vegetarian Marcionite canon compiled 1898-1901 by Gideon Ouseley via visions and revelations from four named departed entities.
"I have not yet begun to fight," said the pirate before stealing the other man's ship by surprise.
You run from Jesus's name like running from a crucifix. Jesus Christ is Lord. Does the Host burn you? Or maybe bacon while we're at it? I know Muslims want whitists to look as ridiculous as you do.
It doesn't matter who I'm talking to if I'm testing ideas because only the ideas matter. Any argument not worth my time can be ignored, any bad faith actor can be called ..., and any points I hadn't considered can be incorporated into my understanding, even if they're from feds or bots.
Pulling the above anon's thought out for amplification.
I apologized. We had a similar conversation in c/ChristianAnarchism where the lack of mods was public, but partly because the folks there are dedicated to Christian anarchism and partly because the community was small, we didn't get manipulated and cordially agreed by consensus to stay anarchic and mod-free. Otherwise I give my thoughts separately about what migration to more consensus and conclusiveness would look like. If you see risks it'd be proper to be more specific.
First section: dooming noted and dismissed. Second: ditto.
Third section: Great vision sharing, I'll discuss disputes separately. Otherwise looks very passable. (a) We might tweak that newcomers might get 2 warnings (a typical rule). (b) The practical reality is that using alts manipulatively is already a major violation but it can hardly be enforced except when admin knows or when the evidence or problem is already serious; so the best practical solution seems to be encouraging everyone to shut up about alts publicly and just report privately to the mods so that determinations can be made, so that those accusing of alts publicly are recognized for the troublemakers they often are. Believe it or not, that works! (c) Lurkers generally comment before they post so a general prohibition is dissuasive; if we take note of who is spamming (overproducing) unhelpful comments without posts or other good interaction, that would meet your previously stated standards better. (d) Mute and ban are the same except for variable length. I don't believe in permabans and stop at 365 days; no reason to tell a person "forever" (tempting worse response by other routes) rather than give them a date certain and an appeal route. Let me emphasize "Have clear guidelines on when a person should receive [warning or mute], and when a ban can happen." While ranges allow flexibility, a graduation of ranges such as 1-3, 3-7, 7-30 days, etc., is effective, with mercy being allowed if there is also intervening attempt to support the community. Nobody wants to risk a month ban on third big fail.
Disputes: I believe I know how to get to your goal, and it takes spiritual unity and not just formal unity. Not all can be said on that in one go, but one must start by identifying the regular subset of the community that wants a goal of coming to conclusions (a goal not currently stated on the sidebar) and that jointly agrees on methods of determining consensus conclusions. I mentioned that Henry Robert was exceedingly insightful about this. (Let me offer this post as an example of a moderator board deciding an agreeable conclusive community position in a contentious community, which has stood well for all sides for 4 years; it is indeed archived for future retrieval, like some of my lone-ranger conclusions are.)
Fourth section: Good pep talk, and might have an effect toward spiritual unity. You leave the enemy both undefined and as having massive power. The issue is that Conspiracists have much greater power on tap and so glorifying the enemy is unnecessary as we rightly estimate it. The Power fighting against our enemy is more united, harsher to violators, maturer in its plans than even the most ancient enemy, beyond immense in resources but with better morality, and also in a phase that ensures this is the enemy's last by destroying huge swaths of it at once. I speak both generically and spiritually. To bring about the unity and dream you seek, especially among anons, requires alignment and spiritual harmony. Incidentally it is beginning now without any moderation at all. Your post and my response are part of doing it. For it to reach the critical mass here that results in the Awakening of Conspiracists that you dream of will take patience, dedication, and indeed God's grace.
Response: I hope that's enough to push the ball further. I think you should first put forward a dream of what enemy we are fighting and what Power unites us. The sidebar, I've said puts forward the power of Fairness (morality) and Transparency (truth), which implies our enemy is evil and falsehood. Even there, contributors disagree about what things are evil and false and so it might be necessary to work from a rough-consensus subgroup that has a stronger core agreement on them. (I will say frankly that most positions that end in ism are likely not to promote morality and truth.) The way to unity requires an awakening shakedown against evil and lies that reinforces the truthtellers and ostracizes the manipulators. The degree to which you, Neo1, alongside others, are able to enunciate this will be part of what makes Conspiracies stand or fall.
You already have near-total freedom under anarchy, Cthulhu. We're talking about unity in a well-regulated community that where individuals volunteer to honor each other by submitting their rights so as to serve one another. Read the whole post.
The Golden Rule means you want to get mocked back; but I'm selective about my mocking.
What's unclear is if you worship Jesus the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Jewess.
Nah, I'm still unmotivated to search your history for when you may have said Jesus is Lord under duress like the devil.
We'll have to settle for the Panda approach and just tell everyone all the time Jesus never knew you.
That's Jesus's meme, you know: the foolish virgins were literally wedding crashers because their not knowing the groom meant they were never invited, they just thought and acted like they were when everyone else knew the truth.
You're acting uninvited to our party. Continue and we will mock your burning vermoulu corpse in the Limbaugh Museum where idiots are kept as instruction to the righteous of what not to do and what we've been saved from (Is. 66:24). (Theology, not violence.)
- Invisible church
Not bad faith at all, it's my understanding of the quote, which is Metropolitan Kallistos (1934-2022), "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not", The Orthodox Church. Now I see cited against him Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894), "Christ is here, in our Orthodox Church, and He is not in any other church", Thoughts for Each Day. (I wonder how an individual would judge between two apparently contrary implications from within didactic Orthodoxy.) I learned the first quote as if it were normative from the Orthodox u/CuomoisaMassMurderer. Perhaps you think Kallistos was not a valid teacher, but if so you would just make my point about individual judgment even stronger; if his view isn't what you regard as Orthodoxy, it's strange then that it should be taken as Orthodoxy (unless individual judgment exists).
The Orthodox have both the negative and the positive claim as to where the Spirit is and isn't.
Can you show this before the Great Schism?
- Development
What the Early Church taught is the standard against which later teachings are verified.
But the early church didn't teach that their own teachings were verified by earlier church teachings alone, but by (originally Hebrew) Scripture and tradition. My understanding is that later teachings also taught that they would be verified by both Scripture and tradition. Your phrasing puts a difference between verifying early and verifying late.
The tradition is not closed because it's living.
That's my point! What is static isn't alive.
changing truth leads to falsehood. What would necessitate such a change today?
Life isn't to change truth but to refine it by bringing out more of it that harmonizes with what came before, such as adapting it to the tech age. Jesus refined the OT tradition and interpretation.
- Protestant authority
It doesn't matter how the name of the movement came to be, but what the movement was
It's not a word game but original (though somewhat forgotten today). We were first called Evangelical, 1517 (that's the real unity and we share it with others), then we agreed to be named after the Protestation of Speyer, 1529. If we and Rome worked out the Luther issue we protested, we should reunify, which would also mean working out the evangel. It was because of treatment of Luther that the Protestants declared Rome to have fallen, which is just like the Orthodox's view of treatment of Michael; but we mostly admitted we coulda been wrong. Rome did a counter-reformation, and we cleaned up our rhetoric, and those initial extremes are now past and the movement is now about what is the evangel and how long will the protest last.
they may recognize certain aspects of the tradition but to determine that they'd need to have a standard which is other than tradition itself.
Which they determined they did, your position notwithstanding. They held that personal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition is all that we have because we imperfect ones can never comprehend or accommodate God's perfect standard. There is no external stack of books called Scripture and Tradition to which I can point everyone to externally, there is only every man's conception of Scripture and Tradition, which often largely overlap. (There's never even been a collection of perfect autographs of the whole Scripture in one place, God deliberately kept the several inspired manuscripts away from each other so we'd recognize via copying that we are imperfect carriers.) So "Tradition" is not a standard because it doesn't externally exist to our experience, unless we count it as a concept in God's ineffable mind, something that we each collectively and substantially approximate.
- Degree of error
What does "right enough" entail? You're appealing to sufficiency which also requires a standard. Where is the cutoff point where one's not "right enough" anymore?
There are two standards: the temporal standard is what any man or organization judges on earth for themselves, which is their judgment and which stands for their domain; and the eternal standard is what God judges and eventually reveals by "positioning candlesticks". The temporal standard can fail and need correcting; we keep testing and trust another that we're getting it right instead of ourselves. We submit to the wisdom of the eternal standard even if we're wrong on any point and it takes awhile to find out.
Orthodoxy is preserved from major error while it stands, but it seems to admit error. (Because I want to learn,) I find that Archbishop Stylianos pretty well recently introduced Orthodoxy to the ideal of conciliar infallibility. (Before that, OrthodoxWiki notes Catholic Gallican Assembly 1682 and Utrecht II Council 1763 placed infallibility generically in the church to prevent it from being papal, though that didn't last in Rome.) So I'm not confident that Orthodoxy teaches that it never errs; the AI is giving me that it may have changed its position on contraception since 1937, which isn't a great example, but if it never taught infallibility until others made it a hot button then it wasn't denying risk of error even at the conciliar level.
- True Church
the Orthodox Church is the true Church (and going back to Church history proves that)
What of my claim that it proves other churches are true also? Whenever you cite something and I say I see the same elsewhere, we're not making progress. Maybe we could both agree on where to find the deposit of tradition, or maybe not because it's living and we must point to people, but we don't agree on the epistemology or the nature of the deposit. How can I go against my conscience first and only then see that my conscience was wrong? I change my ways because my conscience is awakened, I don't change my conscience to fit some way I could be walking. You've used your conscience to surrender your conscience, fine; but my conscience isn't permitting me to surrender it, even as I believe that it does surrender to a coherent system that addresses its concerns. So how could we arrive at unity of conscience unless we either agree on the standard we individually use or one of us capitulates conscience?
Without an agreed standard, we don't have proof Orthodoxy is the (only) true Church from history. If the Spirit told me (by intuition or by thought) that a church was a True (eternal) Church, I'd know it would always be right, just like we decide collectively which glorified saints are definitely the True Eternal Church. I don't get that certainty in earth establishments. I can hope, but eschatologically I can't speak of knowledge that a current org will continue forever or that it will die out.
And I don't argue about eschatology, which you point out is part of the debate. If we "only" know a heretic after he dies, or a heretic movement after it dies, then all going concerns are unknown. John hints that we might intuit special knowledge of eternal damnation, and I think we might intuit special knowledge of eternal salvation too. I might get a revelation that the Orthodox is in fact eternal, but I wouldn't logically argue that from your sources but only from the revelation. I can certainly argue logically that there's an invisible church on earth and it is in fact eternal (in the new heaven-earth), but I don't get to assign that to individuals or orgs with certainty apart from revelation.
But I guessed right, your conclusion offers hope. We are (all) just to renounce false beliefs when they arise and make no negotiation or compromise contrary to (a) the written traditions or (b) the living decisions of our appointed leaders. Did I summarize you accurately on that?
Because let's say you invite me to get catechized by your bishop. I don't usually have a problem submitting to books I am offered, if I'm permitted to ask informational questions if I perceive paradox or contradiction. I would presume that the bishop would seek to answer questions and not argue that I must believe a paradox against my conscience; and that comes to the living decisions. If I seek catechesis sincerely and admit at the start I'm a hard case, and it should come to the point where the bishop and I disagree over how to basically break new ground in resolving the meaning of tradition, then we have logical options. Either we agree to disagree and I leave (making him no longer my responsible leader); or one of us conscientiously suspends judgment (including by dropping the subject) and decides to abide with the other knowing the risk that unresolved suspension may grow into problems later; or we press on working with each other until a "new" harmony bridge is built (founded on the old territory). In none of those does it appear that the bishop has some right to wield tradition over the head of my conscience and overwhelm and quench it. (I could naturally submit my conscience from the start and agree to be totally bound by the conscience of others even unto my destruction, and then I'd be judged only for that submission and not for the judgments made by others, but that way's been tried and is pretty sterile, and tempts people to break the bond.) So I conclude the use of Scripture and tradition is always to bolster the use of conscience and not to usurp it. Do you see an issue with that approach to catechesis?
You disown Jew worship, but when it's one-Jew worship you claim it's a change of subject. I could try rubbing your denial in, but my spirit suggests you're still not ready for it. So let's keep it at the question level for now.
Do you have the faith of Abel and/or Abraham, or did you supersede that faith?
Do you worship Jesus the non-Jew, or Jesus the Jew, or neither?
u/CrusaderPepe is pretty good on this, excellent on his research but a little biased, and I've scraped with him. Remember to consider the difference between some Jews and all Jews.
So you don't worship exactly one Jew? Would you like to be treated as denying the name of Jesus by substituting some goy for worship of the true Jesus? It's a matter of life and death, so I would think a true professing Christian would indeed say "Yes I worship that other Jesus the non-Jew" instead of failing to confess.
Funny how you can tell the true Christians here because they never fail to confess, but the false Christians run from it like a crucifix.
Jesus knows something we can do about it. Omnia vincit amor.
There's been quite a lot on 3I/ATLAS acceleration (buried by idiots), but by my math its chances of significant event are still astronomically low. If you think it has a will you're getting into theology, aren't you? I didn't check the Jupiter track data but I presume it was anticipated and unsurprising, so you could disprove that.
I would love you to stick around, expatiate on these things, and ignore (block) the idiots. Data does appear highly to suffer throttling and bottleneck ....
See why I don't sell this?