As I've said, I think "Climate change" is coded language for "the political climate being unfavorable to the ruling class." It sure as hell isn't real because the sea level in 1999 is roughly the same as it is now despite their claims... and Obama+Gore+etc. all buying mansions by the beach.

The major competing hypotheses to the ETH are the null hypothesis ("all natural phenomena") and the Silurian Hypothesis. (the idea humans weren't the first advanced civilization) In this case, "unknown" might be Silurian.

Part of it is gender dysphoria exists in a very SMALL portion of the real population and medicine DOES need to handle it with a valid course of treatment for adults who have informed consent.

Part of it is the medical industry has shifted to Dr. John Money's (cf. the doctor who treated David Reimer by trying to turn him into a girl after a botched circumcision) discredited hypothesis of gender mutability back in 2014 when Obama banned "gay conversion therapy." Places like Tavistock kind of flipped the script there to "trans conversion" on children by withholding valid alternatives and thus informed consent. Part of this is insane parents and teachers getting on the progressive liberal bandwagon of "trans kids."

Another aspect of this "men in womens' sports" seems to be a kind of weird retaliation from those transwomen who found a way to weaponize "autogynephilia" as a way to validate themselves by picking on physically weaker competition by side-stepping a category boundary. As feminism once marginalized men for years with slanders like "male privilege" and "manspreading" as a way to put men in a psychological bind, it seems to me like some men have found a way to flip the script in the most perverse way possible.

All in all it's a mess and it's going to look bad in years to come when sanity starts to return...

Cassandra Syndrome seems to be a theme of this world for those of us who reject mainstream groupthink.

Hmm. It’s probably why derivatives “lose” a term. And integration “gains” a constant value. The highest value in derivatives go to nullity. Values never quite go away. It’s just entered a scope where the value is in a stasis point. Ultimate we’re playing with a series of quantum values that never quite reach absolute zero but simulate a zero for specific cases. There is some kind of mapping between the derivative roots here that math has yet to fully map.

It’s probably related at some level to how multiple values can be entangled in a system and sent as a composite state.

It looks like it wants to lowercase Phi. Probably need to add a shift to the code somehow.

So it appears what you're working from isn't trigonometric (linear) or classic circular geometry but something that is more approximating spiral geometry and incorporating the additional dimension in. Perhaps the flaw in traditional mathematics here is to assume the pi derivation is the only derivation of the concept. In reality, pi is as simply a candidate from a series of numbers that all describe a similar phenomenon with spiral behaviors.

It is probably a necessary evolution in mathematics since we're using a work-around of double-trig to get the results for this in quantum mechanics. The case of pi is a special case where you are spiraling around the same point rather than moving forward with a velocity as most analogical systems do such as planets.

π(area) = 3.1750342893406196275691162777; Or more simply:

π(area) = 4/(ln(ϕ)*ϕ2)

π(circumference) = 4ln(ϕ)ϕ (3.1144...)

How did you derive the new numbers?

The classical definition of π is as a convergence of the ratios of the perimeters of circumscribed polygons to the circumference. Since measuring a circle itself is trickier, Archimedes also approximated using circumscribed and inscribed polygons about the circle to the same effect. Values such as these invariably converge to 3.1415926535898...

How does this new value correspond to geometry?

Furthermore, later mathematicians such as Leibniz found associations to many other principles that are mathematically critical as well.

It can be summed as a definite series:
∫ [From 0 to 1] 2/2+x^2 dx = π/4

Or as an infinite series:
∫ [k from 0 to infinity] (-1)^k / 2k+1 = π/4

Naturally, these summations also imply the inverse tangent function from trigonometry:
tan^-1 (1) = π/4

And as a relation of the exponential series to the root of -1 which has indispensable geometric consequences in radial coordinates:
e^iπ = -1
or ln(-1) = iπ

With π/2 being directly correspondent to the value used to represent orthogonality as a 90 degree rotation, and π being the value used to represent negative values as a 180 degree rotation.

This relationship is functionally critical in defining orthogonal relationships through the root of -1 and the periodicity of trigonometric functions. Functions in form re^Θi are polar and generate the components of x and y coordinates as cosine (real) and sine (imaginary) parts: cos(Θ)+i*sin(Θ). This integrates the fields of trigonometry, coordinate plots and circle mechanics as well as providing an intuition about what the "root" of a number actually is geometrically: specifically that it's a subdivision of the value of the angles around the origin point.

Are you suggesting that these newer values are an additional parameter for the original base function which isn't yet included in the structure of the derivation?

Edit: tagging u/frontdirect7269

That article was so sensationalist... hurrdurr muh QAnon. Gotta keep getting a dig at some random 4chan dude that turned out to be right that Epstein existed. As if it somehow invalidates anything they slap the word on.

The shift to biometrics is the next stage of the stupid 2 factor authentication scheme of "something you have" and "something you know" as a means of check-in. They always make it inconvenient and malicious hackers break it anyway. Probably to justify more of the insidious "database of everyone" things they really want to implement.

It's pure IBM tactics, adopted by Microsoft for its "trusted computing," "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt." "Embrace, extend, extinguish."

Matthew 24:22 "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."

If they'd have had their way it'd have been a mass culling of the plebiscite. For the ones who resisted, they will have the best outcomes. For survivors, although their DNA is tampered with, it's at least a consolation that some of the cultural damage is repairable.

But for those who died suddenly from the clots and other harmful effects of the fanaticism. Well... heads will need to roll starting with Anthony Fauci's.

Ha. What an insulting backhanded slander you have, there... Mr. projection.

all your opinions are fed to you by a billionaire media conglomerate owner from Australia

As if someone can't form their opinion independently from mainstream media. No, I collect many observations from multiple sources and collate my worldview from them...

I'd have have originally guessed "Sky broadcasting" since that's the only media outlet in Australia doing anything I know of that's populist. But as you said "murdoch" I know you're doing the typical leftist "Faux News" tactic and pigeonholing that way. Nope. Dead wrong. You'd have KNOWN that if you payed attention because I outright criticized Sean Hannity up there a few posts ago.

"We have none other than Sean Hannity on record claiming he didn't think the election was stolen and that we should shut up about Trump talk..."

That sure sounds like a huge Fox News fan eh?

FWIW, there's a ton of independent journalism going on which doesn't involve mainstream lying media. But apparently you've walled them off in your insular worldview. Pity.

So what really happened? Watching 4 years of lying and treason by the US government against its own president and having to get that info from back channels before it ever became mainstream. The mainstream media being in lockstep with it through and through. Then watching them unleash a plague as a justification for "mail in ballots" to cheat and having to use the same back channels to find out that COVID vaccines are dangerous and injure many people.

I knew about pretty much all of the shit going down well before Fox News uttered a single peep. But what you're doing is trying to mentally discredit it by using the fact it was eventually picked up by Fox News as some kind of discrediting technique. Which is precisely what Fox News is doing. Discrediting populism by serving as a pseudo-right-wing foil of what actual populist points would be. They only crow the truth to dissuade the people married to CNN and MSNBC from investigating the facts.

Nope... you have no grip on what you're talking about when you think I'm just falling for "murdoch." Surely you're more intelligent than to fall for that progressive slander. This information is direct observation and grassroots communications routing around these dinosaur media.

As the "Network society" replaces the old "mass society" where the media was the major distributor of information, people are now getting the facts through peer to peer communications that are not done on platforms controlled by establishment hacks... Get with the times, dude.

hope gods wrath falls upon me?

Way to twist my words which were "I hope God has more mercy on you than you had for any of us." Where was the "wrath" in that? Have a guilty conscience? Why would God be wrathful if you're all right? And if not, it's basically "forgive the blatant slander that I'm enduring from this person" which is ALSO not a call to any wrath. Didn't Jesus say "forgive them for they know not what they do?"

The media is OPPOSING what we support. You are just so jaded you can’t understand that if you just sit there throwing stones the corrupt system is going to continue on with no challenge. Keep shitting on us who have been trying. As you do. I hope God has more mercy on you than you had for any of us. Your vicious cynicism only perpetuates the control of the establishment. Indeed. It seems we cannot reach consensus so at least have peace. Merry Christmas to you and have a blessed new year.

You just aren't paying attention then if you assume all Republicans are considered "MAGA." The Republican leadership itself attacks the MAGA movement. Those like Ronna McDaniel, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham are considered RINOs. Liz Cheney participated in the fucking January 6th Committee for Christ's sake. Do you really think they're pro-Trump? The Lincoln Project and the RINOs are in a chorus trying to keep Trump from ever regaining leadership and attacking those perceived as Trump followers. We have none other than Sean Hannity on record claiming he didn't think the election was stolen and that we should shut up about Trump talk...

And the MAGA movement likewise views these establishment Republican hacks with disdain for their complicity in the "Uniparty" system. Which is why Liz Cheney was evicted during her primary. They use the same election scams to keep out alternatives whenever possible... like with Lisa Murkowski being kept despite the attempt to primary her ass. Anyway, there's a "split" among Republicans where MAGA is trying to remove the corrupt old guard. And that you refuse to see it is quite irritating because you're playing right into the hands of the people trying to turn you against the populist beachhead.

The Republican leadership explicitly doesn't aid those like Kari Lake who are fighting the real battles to unmask this chicanery and restore actual representative government. Katie Hobbs, the Democrat, running her own election for governor... stuffing ballots as she goes... nothing to see there. /s Liars and cheats all the way. And it's very very annoying when people like you fucking ignore the reality of this fight because it's like you're throwing your towel in with that shit...

Quick Primer: MAGA is "reduce foreign spending, strengthen borders, remove DC corruption and America First."
RINO is: "expensive foreign wars, open borders, more DC corruption and let every other country walk over America in trade."

sigh Always with the Trump hate. The money trails for Soros go everywhere. You watch them to see what they do with the money. Do they play ball with the agenda or not?

Why can't people get over themselves and look at the simple facts?

Let's look at a simple set of questions:

How many new wars were started before Trump?

How many new wars were started during Trump's term?

How many new wars were started after Trump?

This is all very simple:

MAGA doesn't start new wars constantly. Globalism does.

MAGA makes economies grow. Globalism shrinks economies.

The agenda of MAGA is cleaning out the corruption. If it wasn't nobody would have ever began supporting it. What would have been the fucking point? Voting for more of the same shit? LOL. The media wouldn't be attacking it with a passion born of a hellspawn. You don't get flack when you play ball with the corruption game. You get a fucking medal for bombing children like Barack Obama did.

EDIT: And as for letting Fauci do his little plague exercise, they played Trump into a corner with it... You try saying no to a "vaccine" when they're constantly threatening to impeach you and there's an impending plague. (or at least the hype of one that was grossly overplayed for fear... and duping people into deleterious "vaccines" that do more harm than good for the profit of big Pharma...)

And, likewise, Trump does not "cooperate" with the central bankers which is the value he's bringing to this table. The major conflicts being started by the US war machine dried up during Trump's term. That's a big part of why they removed him... Joe is delivering what they want: more wars.

And Merry Christmas to you... The only real light in this world is Christ's anyway...

Let me be precise, I'm opposing the globalists. Their parasitical manipulation of our politics towards these perpetual war agendas is the core problem here.

Putin is exploiting the chaos to make gains for Russia. Regardless of any disgust for Putin's expansionism or Xi Jinping's assholishness, they are nonetheless undermining the hegemony of globalism. When the West decided to boot Russia from the SWIFT system, Russia formed trade alliance with China which serves to break the Petrodollar and serves as a boomerang effect against the corrupt globalists. This opens the floodgates for others to likewise abandon the central banks.

All transactions being centralized by a single group of elite bankers is bad news. Their interests are humanity being chipped, imposing a CBDC, placing us all under a Social Credit System and forcing everyone to "own nothing and like it." That sort of thing cannot be allowed to stand.

To be absolutely clear, I don't like the fact anyone's people are dying. Much less because this conflict is in a perpetually traumatized region and this is some sort of perverse "parting gift" from the petulant elites to scorch the earth as they heave their last hellish breaths. The faster they can be made to shove the fuck off back to whatever hell sent them here, the better it will be...

P.S. I hate to have to bring it up here but I voted for Trump and against Joe. Trump kept Putin in check and I think if we hadn’t been robbed by the establishment this conflict would have never happened.

I’m not committing to anything because there’s propaganda going both ways here. What Putin does is his decisions. There are positive consequences and negative consequences. There’s no angels in war.

Err... I'm not RD, I was just stepping into the conversation with relevant info here. RD is the one moderating this board and he tends to be pretty good about not banning people unless they get rowdy. Anyway...

As far as Putin perceiving NATO as attacking him in this conflict, this is the result of NATO's continued attempts to expand their territory and alliances despite Russia explicitly requesting that they stay out of Ukraine. With the recent pushes, they're telling Putin they want Ukraine despite this agreement.

Even the normally biased Wikipedia admits these aggressive stances have been historical policy for the NATO alliance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations

https://www.conservapedia.com/NATO_aggression_in_the_Russia-Ukraine_war

In general, Russia is seeing this as an attempt to do what the USSR did to the USA in the Cuban Missile Crisis: Put threatening missiles on their border which violates their territorial sovereignty and could be used as a start for a conflict.

Likewise there's been shelling across the border into the independent territories of Ukraine that broke away from the central government in Kiev. Namely, Donbass and Lugansk, which are interpreted by Russia as an attack on those Russians who are seeking citizenship through referenda like with the Crimea referendum of 2014. Whether or not that referendum was fair is up for debate, but what is true is that these provinces do NOT like the "Orange Revolution" government in Kiev. Some claim that Kiev is promoting ethnic cleansing of Russians in these provinces. Whether true or not, that's being used to fan the flames.

So really what this is, unfortunately, is a hugely messy fiasco in terms of both sides wanting their piece of the Ukraine pie and not giving a damn about the millions that will die in the inevitable territorial conflict... The war hawks on both sides are really the problem here, I think...

The hands of diplomats will be tied because NATO has been openly attacking Putin while he held the line for 8 years. That gives him a causus belli. They shot themselves in the foot by being hypocritical. It’s hard to reign in someone who has a causus belli built by ineptitude on the part of their opponents. Not saying any of this is great but it’s kind of inevitable now. Plus Putin gains a lot against globalism itself which is what we’re fighting here in the west so a lot of people won’t be as motivated to change it here on the populist side. That is why globalists are pandering to Ukraine so much…

If anything I’m worrying the clueless elites would do something desperate and try to harm him.

Don't misunderstand my point. I'm not making a judgment on whether Putin is a good guy or a bad guy. His goals, however, are obvious and quite understandable to anyone with two eyes.

My point is merely that he's a manifestation of a different political system than the USSR. It's inconceivable that he's acting on USSR promoted state enforced atheism which his KGB fealty would have required him to promote. He's clearly backing Eastern Orthodoxy openly expanding in Russia. His motive is clearly turning Russia into a grand civilization state that resembles its reach when the Tsars were in power.

The issue is that our media is thinking in terms of "betraying globalism" and not in terms of "reigning in his civilizational ambitions." They act like NATO methods are the solution when it's merely serving to add fuel to Putin's rhetoric. So they're hoodwinking themselves into doing stupid things. Sanctions don't work when your opponent would just as soon "roll their own economy" and "ally with the Chinese" to say "fuck you" to globalism.

My only point is that he's not a frickin socialist anymore...

ICYMI the Holodomor you described in the Ukraine dring the 1920-1930s was done by the USSR (aka Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) not by the present day Russian Federation. That socialist system which murdered millions of people collapsed quite publicly in 1990 in an event symbolized by the Berlin Wall falling. The USSR was replaced with a more nationalist and capitalist system.

The Soviets were stamping all traditions out in favor of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin. To even mention Putin was once KGB is irrelevant in light of the fact that he's doing the exact opposite of what the KGB originally did.

True, Russia lives in the same geography, but has very different political systems and leaders. It's closer to the old Tsarist system now than it is the tyrannical socialism that characterized the 20th century. Putin is propped up by a capitalist oligarchy and the culture of Russia is being guided into reviving its classical Orthodox heritage. The issue going on now is about "civilizational reclamation" against globalist paradigms that have prevailed since Ukraine's Orange Revolution which was funded by George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and the rest of the American political elites to create a money laundering front for their shady deals like... you know... Burisma with Hunter Biden?

The fact is this is a proxy war. A war between western globalists afraid of losing power and the Russians trying to reestablish what they consider their historic civilizational boundaries. A proxy war a lot of people in the US and Europe don't really want to get dragged into because it's a powder keg that could ignite another World War.

Klaus Schwab is demonstrably ushering in the "beast system" and suppressing freedom. Elon Musk opens the door for freedom. Who knows if he's also involved with the beast system, but the "opening the door for freedom" is nonetheless "opening the door for freedom."

Part of this is how I view Tulsi Gabbard, by the way. She's playing the "good guy" and being attacked by the Democrat establishment for a while but I suspect she could also heel-turn if she ever got into a real position of power due to her WEF ties. Same with DeSantis and the TPP. The issue is not whether we trust them but "are they doing things in the right direction?"

The only one I think is sufficiently outside their control is Trump who not only goes the direction against what they want but also scares the bejeezus out of them enough they're STILL trying to impeach him.

Acknowledged. This is a broader topic for another discussion... I'm just making sure we Protestants aren't treated as a punching bag without context...

He is an experimentalist, at least according to the analysis of a psychologist I know. His motivation is doing what he can to uncover the shiny new things. He sees lack of free speech as a hindrance to his goals. It’s probably wise to have him fight the hard battles there because those goals align with the goals of all (sane) people. But be wary about his chips as we already are.

Indeed. Actually, this point reminds me of yet another parable of Jesus: Luke 16:1-14

Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’

“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

“‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.

“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’

“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’

“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.

“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’

“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.

AKA. "Sacrifice a little worldly wealth to someone who values it more than you to make a shrewd gain for a more eternal benefit..." Or "don't win a battle to lose the war..." in more Sun Tzu style.

Abridgment never suits me. Attempting to be blunt doesn't always encapsulate my point.

The criticism of the Protestant Reformation is precise and directed at a specific feature of the Papal office. Its tyrannical power grabs and its claim that it holds sole dominion over Christianity.

Specifically, citing the relevant text:
1. [The Papacy] asserts that by divine right [the Pope] is above all bishops and pastors.
2. That by divine right [the Pope] has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing and removing kingdoms.
3. That to believe this is necessary for salvation.

This article is not against the individual Popes, per se, insofar as they would be decent bishops of Rome and respect other Christians' autonomy. Nor against the members of the Catholic Church, per se, but against their leadership and its foundation in Medieval power economics. The case given is simply the statement that the office of the Papacy is an intrinsically pernicious office which has the marks of Antichrist from its very inception and it must be regarded as this in the capacity it acts. As further evidence, consider the Donation of Constantine which was the Pope's forged claim that he is the inheritor of the Roman Empire. These were malicious political power games not the Kingdom of God at their core.

the Church has been and still remains one of the largest forces of Good that this planet has ever seen.

The Church, yes. But the Church is the whole Body of Christ and not the Pope or his Magisterial claims. We Protestants simply took a broader view of what "Church" means as allegiance to Christ and the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures which testify about Him. Thus we don't tie it to a visible association with the Papacy.

This calls for discernment:

Then [the Pharisees] brought [Jesus] a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:22-37)

1. You suppose Elon is evil. The Deep State is also evil. Yet they oppose each other. Is the devil divided against himself? Then they are doomed to fail.
2. You suppose Elon is evil, yet the results are beneficial to undermine the corrupt Deep State. Judge by the fruits whether his actions are right or wrong.

Cesare Borgia. Julius II. Leo X. Count Tilly. Francis. Enough said.

1. Demoralization
2. Destabilization
3. Crisis <---- where we are
4. Normalization <--- where they wanted to be by now...

Unfortunately, it looks like the little rat-weasel succeeded.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/

Ah yes. Dr. Klaus Schwab's evil sidekick.

If this vaccine doesn't eventually go down as Nuremburg 2.0 I honestly won't have a clue how this species has survived... It is truly a mystery.

Well played, indeed.

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)

“We are Abraham’s descendants,” the [Jews] answered. “We have never been slaves to anyone. How can You say we will be set free?” Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:34-36)

There is an important key is understanding how free will operates. Because it isn't an arbitrary thing where we have the "ability to choose not to do" as the philosophers taught wrongly of it. Nor can it operate properly without a true reference to the eternal Word of God. For without God our will is merely bound by our flawed earthly desires which curve inward into sins that bind us to error. Rather, the will that is truly free recognizes its ultimate dependence on God's grace and lives its life according to that responsibility as best as possible.

Thus the "bondage of the will" by our sinful desire, by relying on grace, is ultimately replaced with the "freedom of a Christian" as we are now servants of God whose wills are being conformed by the Holy Spirit through His Word.

Or, in parable consider Luke 12. Particularly:

Someone in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed Me judge or executor between you?” And He said to them, “Watch out! Guard yourselves against every form of greed, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” Then He told them a parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced an abundance. So he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, since I have nowhere to store my crops?' Then he said, ‘This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and will build bigger ones, and there I will store up all my grain and my goods. Then I will say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take it easy. Eat, drink, and be merry!” But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be required of you. Then who will own what you have accumulated?’ This is how it will be for anyone who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:22-34)

Our natural will desires to accumulate and store for the hard times. It does not treat abundance as God wishes, an opportunity to be a benefit not only to ourselves but also our neighbors. For this reason God taught the Israelites in the Law that "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the LORD your God.’” (Leviticus 23:32)

He knows that the distribution of good can be unfair and it is up to the soul guided by His Spirit to discern this and act responsibly to the uneven flow of grace. Otherwise "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

I never quite got what was racist about the Houston Oilers...

And nowadays they are making documentaries about her on Lifetime trying to humanize her. It’s so nauseating how entrenched this all is.

Joe Namuth

How interesting that he's now advertising about the "uncertainty of the virus" for AARP.

Absolutely. MAGA's intent may have been as I said, but that doesn't explain the whole story here either.

The abuse doesn't destroy the original intent. (Abusus non tollit usum.) Here, the Biden administration is usurping powers established to protect from illegal immigration and using them to attack US citizenry. It's kind of like how suddenly all the Baby Formula is now located in border supply stations rather than supermarkets. The legitimate purpose is discarded to promote a corrupt agenda.

Somewhere Nina Jankowicz is singing a ditty to try and "discredit" Sentator Paul.

Hmm, this is how I parsed this:

Those corrupted by Kayeen [Queen bee, Hillary?] et al are going to keep doing their thing for now. But the intent is to provide a lifeboat [market niche] for those who aren't too keen to participate in the disaster. [MGTOW coming out of "Babylon"/great whore]

Those who are too stuck in triggered "survival mode" [red ray, concept from "Law of One" describing survival instinct/lower vibrations] (symbolized by oversexualization) are going to be boxed into a Virtual Reality so they won't need to be culled by force while they attempt to protect the corrupt "shareholders" like Alwaleed bin Talal and Soros who hold stocks to manipulate the economy for said "Queen Bee." [cf Helen/Trojan horse]

Finally, this is preparation for the return of the King [phoenix cycle] and although some won't be able to bypass the "survivalism" trap there's still going to be the overall move on to Christ's Kingdom...

One of Trump's major selling points. Mine salt and fire it at your opponents. Meme warfare.

So I can’t really tell if this is Kayeen or not from the markers involved because it’s something too foundational to any society existing that the easily triggered are dispersed?

I guess I should just savor the small victory rather than looking the gift horse in the mouth to see if there’s Trojans inside?

EDIT: I guess this will have to suffice for analysis for now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKlqwAq7Lrk

What is he marketing, though? Is it free speech or transhumanism? I guess that's the billion dollar question...

There are no “death traps.”

Indeed. I would think it odd that God Almighty would tolerate such interference at that level so I thought it was worth getting a "second opinion" with which to counter these would be neo-Gnostics trying to subtly rehash the ancient Marcionite claim that "Yaldabaoth the Demiurge" is keeping the Logoi/souls away from the Source/Pleroma. In that vein, the "Old Man" was also clearly wrong about Christianity since he argued something like that too...

They are, for the most part, heretics.

Well, we've hashed that thought before so I'll be more concise. Some of the things you say are heresy are not being kept without a meaningful value behind the concepts. And they are inherent in the great historic traditions held in all major branches of the Apostolic Church. I hope that one of these days it would become plain enough to understand how to reconcile the truth inherent in those Creeds without falling into that garish label used to address contentiousness and divisiveness. Rather than an, as they are in fact, attempt to maintain integrity between the Scriptures. At the very least, per your assurances, we need not fear a "space pope" coming around with cord wood to forcibly correct us as many of our own have done.

for the sins of the world, but rather, because of them.

This has come up before, too. I think it might be worth trying to understand your exact implications here, too.

Our Scriptures plainly recorded that phrase in 1 John 2:2. Supposing we used your choice of translation it would say "He is the atoning sacrifice [because of] our sins, and not only for ours but also [because of] the sins of the whole world." (NIV, replacing relevant term) In some ways this seems to be a subtle choice that doesn't have much effect on the meaning. It's still an atoning sacrifice and it's still reconciling sin to the entire world by an act of Substitutionary propitiation.

In Koine Greek, the term in question is περὶ which is the word-root used by "perimeter" and implies the meanings "around" or "for" or "with respect to" according to our lexicography. I don't see that the meaning of "because" is forbidden in this sense, but how did you arrive at this choice of translation? What does the choice of "because" convey that "for" would not? Is the benefit simply to blunt the Calvinistic "whipping boy analogy" vision of Penal Substitution which is otherwise established by Isaiah 53's "suffering servant" and other passages?

A belief in Yeshua is neither a get out of jail free card nor a lotto ticket guaranteeing financial success.

Indeed, most Christians will reject "prosperity gospel" in that vein. As Christ is the "Advocate," not a "get out of jail free card." His promise of grace doesn't necessarily exempt from worldly consequences of misdeeds or errors. Only that falling into God's judgment will not result in condemnation without reconciliation and mercy as an available option. The Prodigal son at the very least suggests He's more apt to wipe the slate clean "as the east is from the west" though than having to rely on "indentured servitude." "Slow to anger and quick to forgive" as the Law taught.

you must now live in that hell that you have built for others until you can break those gates down with your own hands.

Might that explain people like John McAfee and Elon Musk with their questionable ties to Deep State money now working against that corruption? Part of that "restitution program," perhaps?

The “Old Man” is a reference not to the old sin nature of Christianity, but to Hubbard himself.

I miscommunicated here. This was a citation of some people claiming the the Arcturian Death Trap is presented to the dying soul as an "Old man beaconing people into the light" which is understood as a means to trap souls into reincarnating themselves and harvesting the energy they would have otherwise used to ascend away from Earth. Often presented with a clear implication that God is a delusion and meant to keep us in this trap. (Check out the post history of /u/ArcturianDeathTrap/ on conspiracies.win as an example) My mind has intuitively connected this claim with Scientology due to the similar claims made by them...

Anyway, more specific to Scientology... I guess the general idea of conceiving of spiritual techniques as a form of technology is sensible enough. In that sense, one could reasonably make an argument that even Christianity itself is relying on some "technologies" in its own practices. Physical ones like books, incense, buildings and iconography. And metaphysical ones like prayer, Sacraments, liturgies, etc. Regardless, the comparison to technology isn't a claim that I'm averse to per se.

My real issue with Hubbard's methodology boils down to a few things. The first is the scam artistry and cult-like behavior of his adherents. His practices didn't really lend themselves to a charitable understanding and tended to isolate adherents to inculcate them in ways that can be seen as predatory.

Furthermore, they beg a very incredible assumption that humanity is a victim of a bunch of traumatized spirits from an ancient war with Xenu. Are you implying that this is a metaphor for the Kayeen abusing our ancestors? If so that might at least validate the claim in a way that's better than blowing up a bunch of aliens in a volcano 2 billion years ago to create vengeful ghosts.

And, ultimately, they are NOT making friends by attacking Christianity and claiming it is a product of these alleged traumatized spirits which need to be 'purged' through their special $19.99 meters that are meant to remove said Thetans. It's kind of a dick move to imply that our God is just traumatic abuse memories to prop up their ad campaign. (To wit, they claim Jesus doesn't exist but is a Thetan trauma)

This is a can of worms. Isn’t the claim of L Ron Hubbard that God is a trauma implant by Xenu (Zhenu?) via Thetans? Why would anything he says be right?

Also this Arcturuan Death trap claim where the “light” and the “old man” are a trap by evil ETs (Kayeen?) to trick souls into reincarnation? What’s with that nonsense? I know how you aren’t against reincarnation but some of us are banking on Jesus’s promises about resurrection and Heaven.

It’s just a bit incredible to think an anti-God Masonic money grift should be regarded as having any validity.

What's your take on Elon? On the one hand there's these great moves like buying Twitter, SpaceX and Tesla. Then there's Neuralink...

Ukraine, as a conflict, is MUCH... MUCH... older. The Soviet Union literally starved the Ukrainians to death in 1933. The Khazarians are from the area of the Ukraine. This bears the marks of an old grudge, I think..

We’ve got to stop these WEF guys first, /u/garbotalk

Shills and sheep do not want truth. They want a beautiful lie and siren song that globalism is good. They do not want to know that the dollar's day as "reserve currency" is ending and that the continued push will only further alienate the rest of the world from US and EU hegemony tactics. It's all "good for business," but "whose business?" That's the real question one needs to dig into... which demons are profiting from these lies at the expense of the entire world?

Hmm this seems to be a follow up to the discussion about the Pope Paul VI audience hall and a meme pic Q had responded to which implied that the Vatican was in league with evil. RD has specifically said that it's meant to symbolize Naigaje oversight, if I recall correctly. By that I can surmise RD probably is saying it's a coincidence of bad architect designs...

With all that aside:

1. Historically speaking, Protestants tend to view the Papacy as an anti-christian institution on the grounds of its tyranny and false claims of authority above other Christians. From the codification of my own Lutheran tradition: The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. (and some Eastern Orthodox, to a lesser extent view the Papacy as heretical with regards to filioque and its claims of Supremacy...)
2. There does seem to be a "Deep Church" as Cardinal Vigano calls it which is pushing things like Vaccine mandates. (citation)
3. Pope Francis clearly is evil or at least complicit with the aforementioned evils.

So it's not hard to see why this kind of criticism that the Vatican has snake-like hallways and "creepy" architecture in the vein of La Resurrezione (where it looks like Jesus is at the center of a nuclear catastrophe) would have such a big mindshare.

Hmm. I could see doing that as an opportunity to revive independent party credibility. Gary Johnson lost that in my eyes for the LP when he caved to the Democrat agenda during 2016. Especially if she becomes staunchly against the WEF it could be helpful.

Looks like a Canadian MEP actually tried to ask the question about Klaus Schwab and got SHUT DOWN and "discredited."

I see, you think this is an attempt by the WEF/Democrats to falsely claim Tulsi is their ally. Hmm. Wouldn't it help this situation more if Tulsi went after them by public denunciation of them for their involvement in the current crises?

Enough to flip a governorship in VA.

Well if that's the case... why not ask questions about this person?

EDIT: Also confirmed the screenshot in this 2004 post still listed on younggloballeaders.org as an alumnus...

The "Liberal Party of Canada" eh? Good ol' Chancellor Palpatine here just delivered the "Declaration of a New Order."

In an ideal world.

Yes, and Snowden had a CIA background. Takeaway: there's a war between NSA and CIA over who gets dibs.

While I can’t pursue after a change of mind I still insist that the depths of the violations are remembered. No whitewashing the treason.

This is going to go wherever it wants truth or not. I’m just giving my notice of objection. People are obviously insensible to who really fought for them and who are the tag alongs trying to collect the spoils. Orange man bad evolved into Orange Man did nothing as the mantra it seems.

Those of us violated by the progressives’ “truth be damned” attitude are by no means compelled to forget not to ignore that. Nor to curry to the tag along’s ploy to pied piper away the movement for their own goals.

They violated the dignity of conservatives and Trump supporters for 6 years. There’s people literally in a fucking prison for falsely accused crimes on Jan 6. I’m not going to be a doormat to the assholes. They deserve criticism for propping up this corrupt regime that labeled us as insurrection for defending the truth of what really happened. Why do I have to bend over to their violations?

Ah the "Firey, but mostly peaceful protests."

... but this is what we get when half the population would rather sacrifice the truth to get rid of an unpopular person whom they were brainwashed to despise. Enjoying what you chose, guys?

Remember this, "Courage is fighting when it isn't the popular thing to do." Think hard and you'll know what I really mean...

It's not as though 75 million voices spoke out for a "ginger haired lex luther," as you call him, and were then suddenly silenced at 3AM and eventually labeled as insurrectionists who are claimed to be part of a "big lie" by every MSM organization in the country...

Just because one does not see light or photons in the absent areas does not mean they are not there.

Indeed, I reckon this might be like how there are 4 solutions to the fourth root: {1, i, -1, -i}

Hmm an interesting lead. Apparently Prof. M. S. El Naschie has a theory about e Infinity points that might be an interesting direction to dig here. Somehow I found talk of Cantor spaces that involve the Golden Ratio. Einstein was chasing an incomplete result by quantizing photon spin as he did.

The principle of inerrancy doesn't mean some of the writers' details couldn't be incorrect in some technical aspects that don't matter to the core premise. And, yes, I see the proper parsing of the involvement of particular "aliens" or "angels" as ancillary details compared to that core doctrinal principle.

Anyway, if you're trying to read the Bible as a perfect science textbook that's silly. That was not the reason it was given to us by God.

The clarity of Scripture is founded on the reason God gave it to us. It is inerrant because none of these alleged alterations would have ever impacted the necessary doctrine which brings Christians to faith in Jesus Christ. That principle is as logically unassailable as the Anthropic Principle is regarding the existence of the necessary preconditions for humanity. It can be assumed in the very existence of the Christian faith itself that the material on which it has been grounded gives valid testimony about God and Jesus Christ for those who confess Him. Otherwise such faith wouldn't begin to exist. And while the Holy Spirit does work on both sides of this message we would lose a great deal without having the established deposit of material. The existence of that message serves as a touchstone from which He develops and refines His work in future generations of believers. No transmission implies no content. That'd be New Age religions not a historically robust one like Christianity.

Think about it...

Without that, what would the word "Jesus" even mean to anyone? You wouldn't know the thousands of years of prophecies that we Christians recognize Him as fulfilling. You wouldn't know even what He said or did. There might be the common vague spiritual pullings that men feel but there wouldn't be a comprehensive understanding about God's work and how to facilitate it and share with others.

As to why these in particular... same deal...

The Gospel of John states of itself:

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)

Or, as it was stated by Paul regarding this:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? [...] Consequently, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Romans 10:14...17)

The point is the essential content of God's Law and the Gospel of Christ. This is not just us saying whatever the heck we want and trying to create some apotheosis of our own egos. It is a part of the Divine revelation process that has been in operation for millennia and we must have the humility to remain consistent with the material basis of that information.

Undoubtedly other people have their own revelations some of which may have common ground as God is working everywhere... but from our perspective this is the best expression that fits how God has revealed Himself to our spirits. The Holy Spirit created this signal and used it to build the understanding of the believers throughout subsequent generations. The written testimony that carries the deposit of the Apostles' faith in Jesus Christ and then forms the material basis of the doctrines that we receive and teach as Christians. And this teaching is further extrapolated on through later expositions and challenges in practice which are mediated by the preserved testimony of the Apostles and the Prophets.

What about the contradictions between texts, and even within the same texts?

That's more about those technical details. It's balanced out in the "analogy of faith" by understanding it from God's perspective.

I'll close with some of the more direct citations of this principle from my tradition -

Smalcald Articles Part 3, Article VIII 10-13:

we ought and must constantly maintain this point, that God does not wish to deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments.

It is the devil himself whatsoever is extolled as Spirit without the Word and Sacraments. For God wished to appear even to Moses through the burning bush and spoken Word; and no prophet neither Elijah nor Elisha, received the Spirit without the Ten Commandments.

Neither was John the Baptist conceived without the preceding word of Gabriel, nor did he leap in his mother’s womb without the voice of Mary. And Peter says, 2 Pet. 1:21: The prophecy came not by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Without the outward Word, however, they were not holy, much less would the Holy Ghost have moved them to speak when they still were unholy; for they were holy, says he, since the Holy Ghost spake through them.

Luther's On the Bondage of the Will:

But to be brief. The clearness of the Scripture is twofold; even as the obscurity is twofold also. The one is external, placed in the ministry of the word; the other internal, placed in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures, but he that hath the Spirit of God. All have a darkened heart; so that, even if they know how to speak of, and set forth, all things in the Scripture, yet, they cannot feel them nor know them: nor do they believe that they are the creatures of God, nor any thing else: according to that of Psalm xiv. 1. “The fool hath said in his heart, God is nothing.” For the Spirit is required to understand the whole of the Scripture and every part of it. If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world.

This whole idea that the New Testament is inerrant and wasn’t edited or changed before sending runners out to the homes of believer/cultists is asinine.

I said this in another place to address the same discussion.

inerrancy is about God's work

that is... God isn't lying to us...

we can absolutely trust the promises of Scripture that Christ died for us

etc

it's basically the only bulwark we have against some jackhole saying they have absolute authority because they have the magic sauce of the Apostles given by the Pope or bishops with an unbroken chain of history

and not all interpretations of using Scripture in this role necessarily mean traditions can't refine our understanding as long as

they don't contradict the original source

it's only the idiots think "just me and mah Baahble"

we'd be idiots not to at least learn from other Christians that wrestled with this content before us

but unseating that tyrant the Pope has a cost...

and that cost is recognizing that the Holy Spirit speaking to us in the Scripture MUST be inerrant

even if the writers weren't always on exactly the same page in all their motives

And earlier...

the Bible HAS to be an anchor in Lutheran teaching...

the Lutheran confessions are adamant about the Bible being the inerrant Word of God

yes...

it is adamant and I agree with the adamancy in the sense that "the Holy Spirit isn't lying"

the matters such as Naga#24 are separate from The Holy Spirit's stake

we kind of need that anchor because otherwise how else do we know God?

it invalidates the entire project actually

if you question the testimony of the Bible entirely, you eject the testimony of Christ in the Bible...

but if you realize it's told from an imperfect lens of people's perceptions... you still have God guiding their understanding...

and that's the part that is "inerrant"

the key is understanding the intention of the term...

what's the stake of "inerrancy"... treating the Bible as the only source of knowledge? Clearly not or else science wouldn't exist...

(and some idiots may be OK ejecting science but it's not a good strategy... I find it actually stupid when people are willing to do so)

it's really a contest of how to maintain the integrity of the message against the implicit challenge of the Cult of the Almighty >Accident that uses science to attack the religion and the Bible

because we know they don't have our best interest at heart

"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many are called, but few chosen." (Matthew 20:16)

They all do. And they know we know.

The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them. (Elena Gorokhova, A Mountain of Crumbs - often attributed to Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

If (when) incontrovertible proof comes I think we'll adapt just fine. We religious people aren't the idiots the Deep State imagines us to be.

Interesting. I'm humbled to have such a vote of confidence.

I reckon that it makes sense to use this power sequence for Φ or 1.618033... as that is the positive solution to x^2 -x-1=0 and its inverse is actually the other direction 0.618033....

I can definitely see thinking toward an idea of a Φ based system as a possible alternate base system but I think the main issue with this is that because Φ is, at its very core, an mean between sqrt(5) and 1 (hence its naming as the Golden Mean) it is not susceptible to the common tricks to simplify the irrationality into a usable digital format like we have for π as 4*arctan(1) which maps to an inverse Taylor expansion.

Hmm... at any rate, this is all an interesting path to consider as well. Thank you.

a partial truth

So I'm not meant to parse RD's "full of shit" as a total denial of the truths Relativity reveals but rather as an expression of its inadequacy for the larger paradigm we're meant to discover. Fair enough.

I guess what really doesn't make sense in this is the subtle difference I'm sensing here psychologically. Why is Newton considered more "adequate" than Einstein when his theory clearly explained less? It feels like there's a bit of a disparity in the response there... Is this meant to be understood that Einstein broke more than he fixed and his answer is wrong in other respects?

Einstein also didn't take into account that when you look at these particles they behave accordingly via entanglement through your own entangled consciousness.

Given that science tends to do its damndest to say consciousness doesn't exist. At least since some point in the mid 20th Century. I guess it's not surprising this kind of thing would be missed.

It is relativity of "you" expressed upon another at the quantum level.

A reflection of that ancient Alchemical principle of "as above so below" manifested in the self-similarity of the small parts and the large parts. I can get behind the thought I guess even if I can't really math it out at the moment.

We do it all the time and do not even realize it.

What's boggling here is how one even observes and measures such a phenomenon at this level. I can get visualization but the Copenhagen interpretation isn't meant to be understood as us manipulating reality just by thinking good thoughts. There's got to be some clear distinction between an imaginary event versus changing an actual physical property right? I don't think it's likely we're destroying worlds because we imagine a world being blown up...

Space is a different kind of matter that we do not recognize yet

That seems sensible enough. I actually am currently on the thought that the issue with Einstein would be in the fact that he's got time in 2 pieces in the equation. As the delta of the calculus and also as a dimension of his Minkowsky space. So how is he manipulating time twice? If space itself is another problem I guess it begs the issue of what he's missing there.

Most higher being ships here are capable of escaping our solar system's "time bubble."

Ah, so that's our "gravity well." Am I right to suspect the transport uses something from the sunspots that acts like the negative energy that is being proposed to be needed for Alcubierre warp bubbles to "shrink the distances" in the conventional sense? So somehow we're getting that effect without the Casimir effect that the scientists currently seem to be digging into?

There are also forces out there that affect the photon differently in countless other systems, very different from ours. Their spin and behavior are different.

Different enough that the physics works out another way or would this appear similar to our classical senses and have to be something seen in more subtle effects? I have a hard time suspecting that the laws are all that different in most places. Perhaps different densities of background things like dark matter...

time calibrated and synchronized. Ezekiel's Wheel is a representation of two clocks, united as one

It almost sounds like there's an effect worse than jet lag...

It's quite clear what you're saying here: "Einstein's theory of General Relativity is mathematically wrong." I think even our best scientists would probably agree that something is incomplete about Relativity because it can't yet be properly synchronized with Quantum Mechanics. Maybe from the perspective you are claiming here as an ET that could even be true.

If you're saying something to be helpful, then gloating about your superiority would be counterproductive, though...

I know you express reverence for Newton but I think you do realize that there are things that are more accurate to the experimental evidence found in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Given that your perspective is supposed to be more comprehensive, I would have to assume that your model would also be able to explain the results of gravity wells (i.e. time dilation gradients) on orbits like those of Mercury without anything in this equation. And the fact that clocks clearly run ~~slower~~ faster in less gravity. And incorporate the clear proofs that Energy and Matter are linked which are observed in Nuclear fission and fusion reactions.

Somehow you do this without Relativity but reach what must be presumed to be at least comparable results since we exist in the same universe. Presumably in a way that would allow something like the Beacon to be possible.

The challenge you keep posing is how to figure that out while we humans have no clue about what that would entail. It seems inevitable that Newton must be incomplete also because a lot of the allegations of what your Beacon claims are founded in Quantum Mechanics which has completely overthrown the "particle" model in favor of the "wave-particle duality." Likewise, fission and fusion as stated before. Two of the fundamental claims this Beacon requires are founded on the very theories you claim are crap.

EDIT: Corrected a word for my pedantry.

It’s a style issue like with Comp Sci. Some languages use 1 based like Pascal indexes and some 0 based like C.

It’s not even the whole thing: E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2

That momentum term is necessary to describe light because it’s massless.

Fair enough. Hopefully I haven't overexerted my mentor there.
😂

Even the mathematicians on this world aren’t mathematicians.

I see. For mathematics to be truly a "measure of all things" it would need to involve more than just numbers, wouldn't it? So, I guess for those not so pigeonholed as the aspirant mathematicians of this world, it is more about Renaissance minds who find the connections that help them understand everything.

I guess I just always thought of that as the role of theology. By following God's Way we are having to understand the whole "Great Chain of Being" and "all truth is God's truth." Of course, orthodoxy of any kind can be a big limitation if you don't try to understand the intention of what the orthodoxies are defending. Religious or scientific.

Einstein was full of shit, you know

Well, in a way, he kind of was. But even a pile of manure can have value as a fertilizer.

A lot of what he said was based on other people's insights and summarized them in a way that was useful enough to settle some questions like the nature of light and the effects of mass on time and space while raising others like how gravity even fits into the same universe as electrodynamics. The patent clerk aggregated information which was his role. He missed some vital things that others filled in, though.

I guess the main problem we have now is that the shit about banning FTL needs to be cleared out fast.

Hmm... You actually wanted me to post that half-baked hypothesis? I guess I'm just a little insecure posting theoreticals being that I'm not actually a mathematician.

analysis paralysis due to the influence of Aristotelian and Pythagorean thought and thus, a mischaracterization and rejection of the Void.

The Greek perspective reminds me of the person calling themselves "u/free_will_of_choice" on the "win" boards who defined everything through the concepts of "Flow" and "Form" and "Energy." With the "All" correlated with an impersonal "flow" to which all "dead forms" return and the "One" being the individual person's "free will of choice" with individuals exist as "form resisting flow" subject to "inspirations" and/or "temptations" from "flow" with no conception of "good" or "evil." For some reason being unable to see God acting as "One above All" because he's blinded by his perception of every individual is "All in One. (alone)" He really hated the idea of "creation from nothing," too. Couldn't seem to parse the idea of a "void" with "all potentiality." An odd duck that one.

Alpha and the Omega.

Ah doctrine of the Logos. Fair enough.

Void and Infinity.

Our conception of “The Void” is not empty.

This seems to reflect thoughts I'd had before about the difference between a "dead void" (null?) and the "void with all potential in flux." It seems obvious that in Quantum thinking the idea of zero is more like a ground state where all things are in flux. This is very different from a state with absolutely nothing (nullity) which encapsulates the Greek idea of "nihil ex nihil facit."

The Hebraic/Kabbalistic concept of Ayin Sof ("Infinite") is defined from the words Ayin ("Not") and "Sof" (limited) and is used as a referent for God. The Hebrew usage is founded on seeing "Void/Nothingness" as veil for Yesh ("Being") and God's "infinite potential" rather than through the Greek's horror vacui ("fear of the vacuum") which assumes nature hates a void.

We have several versions of what you refer to as zero/zed.

So your issue with 0 is not that it is wrong but that it's insufficiently descriptive to define all the necessary options inherent in the concept. Kind of why our math treats 1/0 as "undefined" and "asymptote." The zero we normally have seems to be what you call the "connector" and acts like the "Origin/Matrix" of the number line. However, there's also a "dead zero"/null and the "living zero"/void which acts the infinitesimal, a mirror of infinity.

Perhaps this is the hole into which "root of negative 1" is starting to fill for our mathematicians acting as the "90 degree/right angle" which allows other dimensions to exist.

Something like this?

On that train, I was sort of thinking of what might happen if one models the 2d spiral of e^ix using "phi" somehow so it doesn't go into another dimension. Instead of the otherwise undefined concept of "root of negative one." That seems to create a loop which wraps "from infinity through infinity/2 to 1 to 1/2 to 0 to -1/2 to -1 to -infinity/2 back to infinity again…" and the origin is its asymptote. Perhaps a model for quantum superposition states can exist in this construction which is like our "Bra/Ket" notation in Quantum Mechanics but uses prime fractions instead? You'd avoid the issue of the "ring" never touching the "origin" by having these different "modes" of zero instead.

EDIT: Also, Calculus seems to presuppose other undefined modes of 0 as "limit as x->0" from above or below and through the contorted rules of L'Hopital which handle the removal of "infinities."

But these are those same tribes who removed the work commanded by Elohim unto the woman, whose labor was to name the herbs and the trees and all that grew forth from the Earth.

Well, they were told to slay the mekaseppa/pharmekia. "Suffer not the [poisoner] to live." We're seeing the evil of the pharmekeia with Fauci and the abuses of the Pharmaceutical industry now. It's a pity that this term couldn't have been split more precisely and left the honest herbalists alone, I guess. Too much "chop down the Asherah pole" thinking neglecting that the herbalists serve a purpose.

ADDENDUM:

Quarks can be readily pulled from that “zero” which we use to represent it.

That seems like the strong nuclear force and its "rule of thirds." You pump enough energy in and matter comes from energy, perhaps... Well our scientists did recently show that "feature" of Einstein where matter can come from energy is feasible.

a man’s issue has been falsely represented in religious texts as his “seed.”

Philosoraptor: If the Bible came about from Naigaje guidance given to Akhenaten to teach humans to manage themselves and keep basic "health and safety codes" then why did it imply to the ancient Hebrews the exact opposite of your own scientific allegory of reproduction?

Why does זֶרַע (zera) in Hebrew have a clear connotation of masculinity? Wouldn't your people have been in just the place to prevent just that error? Or was that intentionally done?

And thus we're left with "matrix" as a field and the "seed" being sown into it. A feature of Hebrew linguistics which even the Son of God Himself kept when discussing with us. And thus we're stuck with that just like we're stuck with "lambs and sheeps" as metaphors for His sacrifice and, more cynically, for dumb flocks of idiots... que sera sera "Ehyeh esher ehyeh"

We would not continue to call an atom by its indivisible lineage.

After all, you'll have to forgive us that we don't have an Orwellian structure to rewrite millions upon millions of copies of our historical texts to suit the latest scientific revisionist fervor. The received use is a received use whether or not it agrees with your scientific preferences.

This is the difference between poetic license and the drudgery of accounting principles

Indeed, our vision of God appears to be much more poetical and less mathematical than yours. Which I guess is just how the cookie crumbles. But the shepherds have to keep the integrity of His message and can't swerve on a dime like that.

“Zero is simply nothing unless it can transform into One.”

Has someone been talking to you "giving birth to one from the sea of zero," I wonder...

It disappears into the void from whence it came.

"The constructed miracle that becomes zero."

The linear and one-dimensional to the multifaceted.

It seems our mathematics does that with the root of negative one which arose from the anomalies that arise in geometry when you try to solve cubics.

It may be sake but it sure tastes like.... well you know what...

What are they bribing Psaki with to be a punching bag and the butt of a million jokes?

While accurate info I suggest caution with Judge Napolitano. He’s been accused of some abuse too and is a rabid anti-MAGA guy.

TL;DRs or "summaries" can encourage intellectual laziness if used too often. The point of a discussion is to ask relevant follow-up questions about things we don't understand. It's how you learn and grow intellectually.

TL;DR. That's what questions are for, isn't it?

My original post didn't have the stuff in parentheses. That was the attempt at using unrefined language as you said.

Reviewing the content, I found that the words included meanings that could be badly misunderstood and was forced to clarify by using precise language that expresses the meaning correctly.

The problem is that common words are "noisy" and include a lot of WRONG meanings alongside the right meanings. The complicated words avoid that problem.

Sexagesimal has some intrinsic superiorities with prime factorization. It incorporates bases 2, 3 and 5 implicitly meaning there are fewer of those nasty "repeating decimals" in divisions.

That shotgun hits more than you intend. (EDIT: Clearly your referent was directed at Fauci and the "never marry priests" that use Christianity as a cash cow through indulgence hawking. Opposing that shit there is something I don't have any objection to you doing in the least. But I have to emphasize that your spread hits more than what you intended...)

First of all, the Kayeen must chuckle at the unwitting intimation that "All your gods are just mushrooms and cannabis." (gettin' krunk is how it was before the Fall? The "spirits" must just be a good binge eh? Nah, God persists with or without substances...)

While the oral history comes from a dark time without much archeological evidence and thus the debate about the true referent of Moses shall ever include such plausible anathemas, I can also point to the sober minded "incels" who actually take this religion shit seriously even if they don't all need to rely on mind-altering substances to keep ourselves from overstressing because this world is a shithole. (And substances like beer aren't horrible, but not for everyone either... Moderation in all things, though... otherwise you become a drunkard)

Theology must be built on Scriptural inspiration and precedent rather than unsourced speculation. Such a red truth as yours may even possible but it would be immaterial to the point of the doctrine this historical understanding has generated. (Also, isn't there a "Garden of Eden" stories on all other worlds? What of that?)

That sound teaching about guarding one's core desires from alienating oneself from due reverence to the Creator is of infinite value. That concept of the ancestral inheritance of the warping of our basic desires that culminates in those self-centered tendencies is likewise valuable. Finally, the understanding that this warping also impugns and constrains human reason without the act of Divine grace through the Redeemer which was rightly upheld by St. Augustine against Pelagius. (The importance of the teaching is emphasizing Jesus's point about concupiscable desires and how they undermine a relationship with God, not the elitist warping of it into a cash cow through indulgence hawking and prosperity gospel)

For otherwise you simply promote the poison of the demonic Kayeen and their elite pets that men have no faults or imperfections. You direct men away from seeking the mercy of their Creator and to their own wrestlings with their own vain ego's attempts to create righteousness by their own vain presumptions of merits in their own selfish desires. (Summarizing my point, the "Original Sin" dogma or its Eastern corollary "ancestral sin" serves a very important purpose in keeping ourselves humble and disciplined... fuck the elites who try to manipulate that system, though)

Not one person in this entire thread has asked why the vast, overwhelming majority of bacteria and viral contagions resolutely refuse to flower under laboratory conditions.

Is there an implication that exists like maybe viruses are persnickety about their environments? Whenever I see this point raised on certain boards it's most often in terms of criticism or denial of the germ theory of disease or a denial of the existence of viruses. facepalm

Indeed. Putin is definitely using that ex-KGB experience for good use dismantling the "ideological subversion" techniques.

God concept has nearly always been promoted as the proprietary property of the aristocratic ruling classes.

Ah. Civil religion. It's a double-edged sword because if it cuts too far one direction it is turns religion into a tool of the state or other political forces. But if it cuts too far the other it undermines the freedom of worship.

The principle is enshrined in the US via the SCOTUS interpretations of the First Amendment with regards to "ceremonial deism." This principle is what attempts to achieve the subtle balance of allowing politicians to use "God talk" without triggering the Establishment clause and remain free to talk without censorship. The danger here is that religions can try to manipulate politicians if they are allowed undue influence.

The Communist Party of China attempts to achieve the balance in an alternative way. With "state atheism." This prevents any religious influence at all on the state at the cost of making them insensible to the concerns of the religious who are being abused by the state as the bulldozing of Christian churches and the persecution of Falun Gong attested to.

Temples were, in fact, the first banks, as no one would dare steal from the gods.

Quite understandable. Which is why Jesus is known to have cast out said money changers in our Temple of God in Jerusalem...

“God” MUST by virtue of these authorities fall into these easily disposable associations so that the argument can either be extolled or dismissed.

The idea of something which has never had a beginning and will never have an end is beyond the comprehension of those who can only conceptualize such a thing as inanimate or “dead.”

Which is precisely the opposite of what reverent theologians have attempted to do. There's a reason why theologians have always maintained that the "God of the Philosophers" is not the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." To prevent the notions of politicized secular philosophy or mathematics from overruling the revealed teachings that show God's living character to us.

From our perspective, the forms of deism that we have had arise in our religions have always been rationalistic and not ever expressed in a manner that allows God to be a living character beyond our own reasoning. Such as the French Revolution's "cult of the Supreme Being." Our religions are built upon the recognition that God is a living character in distinction to being an unconscious math equation.

As Numbers 23:19 attests to a certain immutability in His nature: "God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" Likewise, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)

Yet, it is blasphemous to conceive that the very existence of the temporal was necessary to give such an entity perspective

I think it is fair to say God chose to create a temporal universe but His command is expressly given to men in Christ that we are to "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48) Wherefore, we must at least understand perfection as a goal to be sought and potentially attained by the children of God being led by the Spirit along His Way.

Our issue would arise in what is actually changing such that God could limit what He knows. If this limitation exists in an eternal capacity, it poses a problem since God's nature cannot change. However, if such ignorance can be limited to a temporal capacity I think it would pose fewer problems theologically. We have plenty of Biblical evidence for this kind of temporal limit: As Proverbs 25:2 says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Likewise, Isaiah 44:8 says "Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

However, logic doesn't always convey the subtlety needed to express God's nature with the nuance that a historical record of His actions does which is why we rely on the Scriptures to establish the normative understanding, but it's important to understand why we have this category distinction. It's important to understand why the idea of omniscience exists in theology. Due to the issues with philosophy, we must base our definitions on the Biblical definitions first and understand the logical implications in terms of the revealed nature of who God actually is. In that vein, to properly define omniscience in the Bible:

Thus we start by defining omniscience:

Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

Luke 1:36-37 "And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.”

I think it would be unobjectionable that God can do anything possible by some means as long as it is truly His intention from your perspective, right?

The logic of omniscience follows as this: If it is possible for God to do anything He wills, then it is possible for Him to know anything He Wills to know also.

And, here, I think you're really arguing against the mathematician's definition of omniscience as having all knowledge at one point due to carelessly equating God with an infinity rather than understanding the particular character with which He acts on creation. This kind of actual omniscience assumes an infinity of knowledge that is determined and fixed which cannot be expanded by other actions. And doing that may be counterproductive to understanding God's actual nature as a living God rather than a dead principle or force. The theologian's definition should probably be understood more as "potential omniscience" which is expressed fully only in His eternal nature not in his temporal revelations.

Following from this dichotomy we can also derive the theological distinction between "God as He has revealed Himself" (deus revelatus) and "God as He is concealed in all things." (deus absconditus) Since God clearly doesn't reveal all He knows and claiming otherwise is provably false in many ways, including mathematically.

That also fits within the sense of Jesus's words in Matthew 24:36: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" and "God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19)

But, as stated, His eternal character, at least, must be unchanging. And that's where we get into the question. To what extent is everything above the temporal determined? If it is absolutely determined we have Hypercalvinism where God arbitrarily chooses to predestine souls to work against Him. However, if He's somehow limited His determinations it allows a kind of compatibility for freedom which permits agency to act within the natural order. The latter is generally preferred by most theologians. However, Calvinism is still a raging debate even now because we also understand free will isn't absolute or unlimited but can be bound by actual limitations that prevent it from expressing arbitrarily in all cases. Such as how an addict might be bound to choose an addiction rather than being able to willfully overcome them without assistance. Likewise, how God's grace must work to aid everyone to come to communion with Him and have faith.

For such a limit as free will to be the case we can infer that God has actively chosen to give the capacity and limits the knowledge that would prevent it from being meaningful. As "God does not foreknow by accident but by necessity" as "all that He hath purposed shall not be thwarted" this has implications. Namely that even He doesn't necessarily know the final judgment until He actually does it. But that gets into complicated questions about foreknowledge, predestination and the role of predetermination on one's choices.

Suffice it to say, understanding the binding nature of some desires is critical to expressing free will without contradicting Divine Sovereignty and His power to save by His own Will acting even before the sinner has a chance to repent.

And that's a good illustration of how corruption isn't necessarily a partisan issue.

I never once said "America owns the world." Nor have implied that we could not have transgressions in our leadership. What I am observing is merely the selective ignorance towards transgressions of one party is biased.

If your purpose is catharsis, you don't do well to drown your patient in formaldehyde.

You always tell us how bad we are and don’t even notice the attempts to reform. We’re just the “whore of Babylon” and never once is the “beacon of liberty” acknowledged for the good it has promoted.

So “you’re all evil and China is all good” appears like your statement from the perspective of the doctor of psychology.

And what the hell do you mean by, “the alleged sins of oligarchs?”

You want me to drop the legal CYOA and benefit of the doubt that their "plausible deniability" warrants? Fine. The apparent sins thereof.

"Test the spirits to see if they come from God." A spirit who serves God has nothing to fear from honest inquest. Personally, I think RD will be fine because it seems having a "thick skin" is required to even do this in the first place.

If it’s not about China taking Taiwan why so silent about Chinese abuses? It’s always about the alleged sins of the Western oligarchs. That feels like favoritism from the perspective of psychology.

Freedom of will begs a question of "freedom to do what?" For not all desires are equivalent in nature. Some desires imply benefits and some imply harm when applied. In a more sociological sense this metric clearly applies to family and community and society. Thus we can see "harm to my family" or "harm to my community." When this is expanded to the spiritual sense we find religions.

One could interject that there are multiple cultures and so-called gods that are worshiped. Usually these are lesser entities which present themselves as universal but are really finite. The meta-analysis however is the God that represents as "the Being causing all of reality" and this perspective is thus a holistic analysis that strives toward the absolute.
In the sense of Christianity our vision of "good and evil" is ultimately an application of one's relationship with Almighty God and the rest of His creation. Having "harm" represents a disconnect from the Creator which results in spiritual suffering by "missing the mark" of the Creator's Will (aka "sin") and possibly harming others. Having "benefit," likewise, is what constitutes salvation and involves reconciliation and communion with God.

In that sense, my tradition can observe 2 major strokes of "will" one can be bound to: A "grace bound will" which is regenerated to align toward God's Will and the "sin bound will" which aligns against God's Will to pursue self-centered desires or desires that alienate others from God. Both of these natures are acting in contention in every individual.

Through Christ, we receive reconciliation to God for our actions done according to sin (thus accomplishing "salvation" or justification) and through the Holy Spirit we may also repent of our errors according to sin which motivates us to live in a way that better reflects God's intentions. (a gradual process of sanctification that follows) The goal, therefore, is to maximize the reliance on grace as much as feasible.

From my perspective, simply discussing "natural law" or whatever analogy of God's Will one uses alone is flawed methodology because it presumes that we can perfectly represent the Creator. We are instruments but flawed instruments of His Will. Likewise, it wrongly assumes that His Will is so rigid that it doesn't accommodate graciousness towards transgressors. Thus "the sinners die in their sins and only perfect people may live." Jesus saying "be perfect as your Father is perfect" is told in a "Middle Voice" which implies God's leading and our being led to cooperate through grace. The necessity of forgiveness and reconciliation is apparent. We are all flawed and we all transgress. So we reject those who appeal to law alone. One of the primary failings of Satan in our beliefs is that he uses the law as a tool to aggrandize his own perspective above God and tricks people into destroying themselves by failing to understand God's intentions with the Law.

Edit: Now consider China's rewrite of the Pericope Adultera to say Jesus stoned the adulteress. Where's the reconciliation? Where's the promise of mercy to those who repent? In the standard translation it says "go and sin no more" not "I condemn you for I, too, am a sinner" as the CCP blasphemously rewrote it. Ultimately it is this promise of mercy and reconciliation that is the subject of contention...

From the ontological perspective of my faith it’s an analysis of the “harm” and “benefit” in a spiritual sense. Objectively it’s a threat to the order of Christianity that I express as a Protestant which relies strongly on freedom of religion and the capacity to keep faith in an organized fashion that reflects the corpus of doctrine we have as an exegetical framework for the Bible.

That’s probably true to say that the Bible is not necessarily the earliest presentation of beliefs. It’s an anthology of many works that compile a tradition of faith that likely has antecedents in other human (and alien?) cultures. Spiritual experiences have some underlying commonality in being humans trying to interact with a truth greater than themselves. And astronomical phenomena tend to be very consistent markers between cultures. So astrotheology isn’t avoidable even if it’s not the complete substance of faith in my opinion.

The Bible is one text for which there is a large number of manuscripts that can be cross referenced. The variations that exist are minor typos and the occasional mistake in words. The silver scroll of Ketef Hinnom doesn’t substantially vary from the received version of Numbers 6:24-26. Generally the Bible is very stable. It’s not accurate to say it’s just been rewritten. There’s a lot of force against blindly rewriting the Bible because it’s used in such s prominent way and there’s a lot of Spiritual protection at all levels of the religion.

That being the case, emphases have definitely changed over the time period of Judaism and Christianity. There’s more focus on faith now than using force to compel obedience.

I do often wonder what will happen to the “chosen ones” that sided with the evils when all of this plays out.

Hopefully it’s better than now. But defining that is a more complicated discussion than I can fit into a single post.

Not like the Chinese have planned. Chinese legalism and the Gospel of Christ do not mix well. We had enough despairing souls caused by legalistic behaviors in the Moral Majority era.

China would probably say we do a pretty good job of persecuting all our brothers and sisters ourselves

Maybe they would but it would be lying propaganda against American Christianity.

China has done the following things that the US has never even conceived of doing:
1. Imprisoned people for believing Christianity or other religions (Falun Gong, Uighur Islam) without state sanction and control.
2. Demolished countless religious buildings.
3. Rewriting the Bible to suit the overarching legal philosophy of the state. (e.g. rewriting the Pericope Adultera to imply Jesus stoned the adulteress rather than forgave her)
4. Created state-run organizations to act as controlling bodies for the Church. (Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church, Three Self Patriotic Church)
5. Introduced propaganda into other countries to subvert the general vision of Christianity to be more Marxist.

America has, by comparison... (in some corrupted areas likely due to CCP infiltration through plutocracy, bribery and corrupted oligarchs, I might note...)
1. Shut down churches due to an overblown and grossly misrepresented pandemic.
2. Some corrupt places have had sermons "reviewed" for political content by judges that neglect the Constitution.
3. Popular media (a large chunked owned by CCP interests) presents messages of sex and substance abuse that are against many traditional Christian values.

The threat comparison differs greatly. In America at least there's a free choice of what faiths we are permitted to keep. Meanwhile, China is an Orwellian hellhole that is exporting its methods control to other countries. I salute the brave Christians who have to deal with that monstrosity directly. My goal is to use what freedoms I have to speak against the CCP being a monstrosity.

No country is all good or all bad.

And I wasn't claiming that the US was all good. I acknowledge that countries have dark sides and do bad things.

However, if we in the US hadn't been brutally robbed of our Presidency by senile liar with backing from CCP allies we might have continued our popular retaking of the government at the top levels and actually been able to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Instead we're having to replace the corrupt system from the grassroots level as thieves like Gavin Newsome continue to subvert the will of the people. And Taiwan is left dangling in the wind as a result. China participating in that act of thievery is another act of aggression that has not gone unmarked.

the terrible things China does.

Maybe Taiwan is de jure an example of territory that was once really part of the main territory of China (if that wasn't propaganda from an earlier history of expansionism) and both sides contest themselves as rightful rulers. The ROC government is an exile from the previous administration and naturally maintains its original claim. But de facto Taiwan represents another country that has moved in its own direction. My point here is that Taiwan is illustrative just as Hong Kong was illustrative. They promised to protect the democracy of Hong Kong and have instead overthrown it. China clearly has no intention to respect the freedom of the people even in their own lands. It simply overthrows them and places a jackboot on them until they conform to the overarching atheistic philosophy of "Communism with Chinese characteristics." And for that I despise them.

Worse, it uses the train of Orwellian propaganda to subvert other territories. Feeding that beast another territory like Taiwan won't help anything. It will merely embolden them to take yet another territory by subversion. Or, do I have to remind you of that Orwellian insult to reason that claimed "Tibet was always part of China?" There is no bounds to such bold territorial claim fabrication.

Which country will be its next victim? Korea? Vietnam? The Philippines? Japan? South Africa? Australia? The EU? The US?

Give them this land and the CCP will NOT stop there. Like their predecessor the Soviet Union their design has the potential for a world empire advanced by sneaky and subtle subversions of the local government through such manipulations. Is it a wonder Russia has doubled down on protecting its religion and culture from external influences in the face of such subversions?

As it stands, China's behavior represents an existential threat to the long term survival of Christianity and Western Republics.

True if big. Problem here is that I don’t like China persecuting my Christian brothers and sisters.

So you’ll subject millions of innocent people to CCP tyranny to suit that territorial claim because Britain did bad stuff 100 years ago and the CIA abuses it for a proxy? How gracious. This is why people think that you are pro-CCP, my dude. The blood of innocents is more valuable than paper.

I don't like the idea of surrendering US allies over to proven enemies of freedom. The CCP/CPC (whatever the idiot Sinophile shills are calling it these days) abuses in Hong Kong and torture of Uighurs more than demonstrates what they'd want to do with Taiwan if they ever had control. Their "one china" policy is an INSULT to reason. They don't own people who have had their own independent country and society for nearly a century despite their evil protestations. And throwing the Taiwanese people to the jackals to save the US from a conflict is not a good look on the US when we've promised to protect them as allies.

Debate if you must, but your words which brought us down this trail was you returning to this statement:

It is infact the sort of rhetoric a deep state operation out of the CCP would be saying and pushing

I've clearly stated this is not the case here. The recurring insistence is the harrassment.

I don't make the claim my argument is purely logical. My point is that suspicions don't have to be. The fact that one has witnessed an association doesn't DISPROVE a connection either. I can suspect the neighborhood dog of dumping on my lawn when I find leavings. But obviously opinions aren't proof claims. That's my only point.

The criticism was fine. I addressed it by stating clearly what was an opinion.

Harassment is not ok.

Believe what you want, but if it falls apart under logic, you have a problem, that you will be unable to convince anyone of your beliefs...

To wit, it's an opinion. People are free to take those or leave those as they choose.

So you want to test me, eh? The right to have a differing opinion is clearly a personal boundary. You're transgressing it by trying to use logical binding techniques. It's psychological abuse.

Enough games. I've identified your kind many times before...

Yeah, mate, you are. This is psychological manipulation 101. You aren't respecting personal boundaries. Now off with you before I have to report you to the authorities.

And the same applies to Tulsi, see how that works.... It's called a double standard a very bad logical fallacy

First, you missed my point. Associations can be a valid cause of suspicion when there is a known agenda. The stated agenda is the "Great Reset." You have not addressed my point about the WEF being invitation only. You've merely thrown logical syllogisms at me as though I'm ignorant.

Was my statement an accusation of wrongdoing or a claim of proof? No. Then it's not "guilt by association." Am I imposing a standard of legal penalties differently on one person versus another? No. Then it's not a "double standard." Away with the lawyer games.

How did I form my statements? "Cynicism," "mistrust" and "suspicion." These are statements of my opinion, are they not?

I hate to break it to you but I'm not a robot. Reason has its uses but it's a flawed tool and this can be demonstrated with silly things like using white shoes to prove ravens are black or generating self-referential questions that a logical machine cannot solve.

In the case of interpersonal dynamics making personal opinions based on more tenuous connections is still quite reasonable. I have proof that she attended the WEF. She wasn't going there for a social visit. Maybe she was influenced and accepted parts of their plan? Can I assume she did not? No. And it's unreasonable for you to demand I cannot suspect she might have. Suspicions are suspicions. They are not proof.

Regardless, this is a pointless debate. I have a right to form my opinions however I want even if you don't agree with them.

Contraposition: Your folly is assuming no association can ever be a valid cause for suspicion.

Then you are a fool.and don't know anything about her and supporting the freedom hating authoritarians you claim to oppose so much

You're joking right? Skepticism regarding your favorite candidate makes me an authoritarian?

For instance - you hang out with weird demented aliens pushing CCP Propoganda - would that make you a Communist?

Given that I actually argued against a fanboy of the CCP in one of these threads you refer to...

The problem with your attempted equivocation between Tulsi's attendance of the WEF and my attendance of RD's forum is that the WEF is invitation only. RD doesn't appear to discriminate with people. Even people like me who disagree with him about things now and then.

So... if we want to play apples to apples. When has Tulsi ever denounced the WEF's "Great Reset" plan?

I don't intend to besmirch Tulsi but I don't trust her. Not a bit.

Sure, I'm taking into account the fact the Democrats hate Tulsi. I don't think it's sufficient to address my problem.

The WEF is an existential threat to freedom per se. It has published a "Great Reset" plan which involves the dissolution of private property and replacement of property with renting. Such a system is entirely unacceptable.

Tulsi's attendance to that very forum is a serious red flag. Does she agree with their agenda? If not, I haven't seen her denounce the "Great Reset" plan. Considering of her fellow attendees like Dan Crenshaw, I am quite wary indeed.

The company she keeps: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/k6pgvc/2004_young_global_leaders_presented_by_globalist/

Alexander Soros is the son of George Soros, a known bad dude. Rothschild? Don’t get me stared. Dan Crenshaw is a perfidious RINO who attacked free speech and gun rights. Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook, a known tool of espionage. Klaus Schwab who ran the event is at the head of the WEF which is promoting “you will own nothing and like it.”

I’m allowed to be mistrustful. She’s definitely connected to questionable things. And seeing how badly the Democrats are acting now I find mistrust to be the default.

Don't forget Macron is behind Vaccine Mandates and the Yellow Vests even now march through the streets to protest him. He's also backing unlimited Islamic migration. He's condemning US "wokeness" for the optics. Macron is still a puppet.

Compare to: https://www.reddit.com/r/reptiliandude/comments/pzsapr/dr_of_truth_vs_lawyer_of_lies/

Point of contention. Why is Rand Paul on the list of these 35, but he's a good guy fighting Fauci? I think this article is looking to tar Rand Paul by lumping him in with known evildoers like Fienstein.

lol. How did Futurama know?

Fair enough. I get that RD's views would be very different than ours given his position. It's a bit like the Babel you can get when you're both describing the same object in a different language.

Christ is His number One son. He has other sons and daughters in His kingdom, but none more honored than Christ who sits on His right side.

It feels like if RD had his druthers the Arians would have been picked in 325. From the perspective of the Orthodox Church it wasn't something we could reconcile with our Scriptures and theology of salvation so we rejected it at Nicaea. This was a long time building. Isaiah said only God can be Savior but Jesus is the individual causing salvation. And it's understandable we have to see Him as a different persona of the same Entity from that. To fill that gap we relied on Wisdom/Logos Christology and eventually this formalized as Trinitarianism.

I wouldn't even really have a problem with saying that the Holy Spirit works through fractals. God's mechanisms are not a thing we were taught in Scripture. But my experience with the history of the Church with Orthodoxy, Catholicism and its evolution doesn't lend itself to being comfortable with denying the persona of the Holy Spirit. There's too much weight of history invested on that topic. After all, the Schism of the Eastern and Western was partly built on that very issue. The Orthodox rejected adding "and the Son" to the Creed was because they felt dual procession undermined the Holy Spirit's personality.

Anyway, it's just my position knowing how all this stuff developed. I guess I'm just a bit of a stick in the mud here.

lit a fire under your britches.

Well, as long as you aren't going to go on a Unitarian Space Pope crusade against us heretic Trinitarians, I can go hang up the key to my panic room.

subjective truths.

Since I subscribe to a modified form of the subjective theory of value where we inevitably perceive the objective through some kind of subjectivity, no offense could be taken. Real experience is real even if someone less charitable might try to explain it another way.

Yeah scoping that is important. Joel Olsteen eschewed the necessary authority that matters from my perspective.

Where in the Torah does it compel men to wash anything save the soles of their feet

I think most modern scholars associate this to the Jewish mikvah tradition from the First Century at places like Siloam. But it's fair to say there could be a cross-pollination from the Pythagoreans like you say. The point I was saying above is that our doctrine of Baptism has served my need of evicting a spiritual attack and the shared understanding my Church maintains shows this as one of its functions. That is, "remember your Baptism" is used as a synonym for repentance.

There has been much corruption of this religion here since it’s inception into humankind.

Do not be offended by my comments about these doctrines being heretical to what Yeshua actually taught.

If by "heretical" you mean "somewhat different in weird ways" I might even give you the whole point. I wouldn't be surprised if we got the squinty eye for some of our teachings today versus the First Century.

The objection is your choice of the words "heretical" and "corruption" which imply harm and evil. Are you saying that we are bad because our standards evolved in ways yours did not? Are you saying God wants to punish us for having different ways than you? Are you taking into account the different evolutionary process by which our "tree of life" has assumed a different shape? And do you understand the picture of God's work that we received through our presentation?

Here's my point. We need that vine or anchor of connection of doctrinal authority in order to maintain the integrity of our faith. Your boy Newton was a Socinian. He didn't care about that kind of integrity because he thought Servetus was rebuilding the Church and he was fine with doing whatever he wanted to suit his interpretations. But for those of us who honor the history of our faith and try to keep it with integrity doing this is a major issue.

What is the objective standard you're using to make your judgment? I'm fairly sure you've said you think the "rule of thirds" is too limiting. Maybe, but what does that mean to us as Christians? Jesus taught us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We do this in obedience to Him. Our creeds encompass this teaching. Is there a way that Trinitarianism could exist which wouldn't cause problems for your objections? And is there a way to repair the very crucial soteriology or ecclesiology that arise from our doctrine?

Otherwise it comes off that you are merely talking at us from on high like some grand Space Pope that sneers at our primitive cultural expressions of faith in God as garbage to be cast out. But somehow you also sneer at the progressives who cast out all tradition to suit their stupid narratives. Which is it? Do you respect tradition or do you take a stinky dump on it? It's a bit rude to sneer at tradition trying to adjust and preserve itself from something that undermines its integrity. The onus is on you to explain what you're trying to do with this.

Yet people gasp when we comment at how most of his inspirations were the result of his inability to promptly pinch off a proper loaf.

Heh. Poking fun at Luther is fair. He's a flawed guy too. My objective is preserving the critical message not necessarily making the individuals involved into whitewashed tombs.

As long as we can get along without burning each other in holy fire for our disagreemeents I'm fine. I just don't like the feeling that our history is being ignored and mocked by those who don't have to live it out and aren't part of it.

1 John 5:7

Yes. No modern scholar worth their salt would ever claim this wasn't a later addition. Probably from some Trinitarian commentary that was accidentally imported into the text. Sir Isaac Newton and Thomas Paine acted like this was some kind of linchpin for the doctrine of Trinitarianism but they acted in ignorance of the centuries of doctrine that went into Trinitarian thought.

The Scriptural testimony that is relied upon is Christ's statement about Baptism.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)

Apostolic Epistles merely confirm and develop His testimony.

Paul for one, did not suffer women to teach.

Even if true, it would only show Paul wasn't a modern feminist.

The context of the region of Ephesus is pretty specific here. He's speaking to people converting who lived near a temple to Diana, a major Greek goddess with a strong tendency to feminine idolatry. The probable context is that he was rebuking women trying to claim that they were created before men and therefore should be worshiped as goddesses.

He hated the idea of women dressing up for church

Likewise, it's generally interpreted that he's speaking against gaudiness because it's a form of vanity. But you can certainly spin it as misogyny through your feminist lens if you wish.

the disciples were horrible beggars and it was a prostitute who made sure that their stays at the inns they frequented were paid for.

If you want to inject the idea that Mary of Magdala was important, fine. I feel like these are all red herrings to the original point.

Just for a quick summary, here's the outline of my points
1. Didache and early Church Fathers testifying to Logos Christology.
2. The Cappodocian Fathers and perichoresis
3. Tertullian and the formalization of Trinity as a term
4. Council of Nicaea and the dispute vs Arianism
5. The Pneumatocmachi controversy (refinement to the Niceno-Constinopolitan Creed)
6. The East-West Schism
7. The Protestant Reformation by and large KEEPING the Trinity doctrine

Yet, here you want to condemn me because I don't subscribe to Johnny Come Lately Miguel Servetus and his disciples?

Heresy? I call your accusation slander. I’m not sowing dissent for selfish gain at all as you wrongly accused. I am only maintaining the doctrine that I know saved my soul from Satan’s attacks 21 years ago through Baptism and the Gospel.

You’ve got a lot of gall to accuse heresy of those defending their experiences of God’s work in their own souls. Where were you when the Son of God taught us this Baptism formula? Or when the Church Fathers were tasked with explaining the relationship between the Father and the Son to Jews accusing them of violating the First Commandment by following Jesus? Would you rob us of that history? Do you mean to deny the Gospel’s promise by cutting the teachers that published the work of God to all nations off from their own God and Savior? If you want to think we err that’s your freedom but you can in no way rob us of Christ.

So you like Sir Isaac Newton cleaving to the ideas of Miguel Servetus. Neither of their presentations convinced me that a Unitarian vision of God is sufficient to describe the salvation I know I received from Christ crucified and the Holy Spirit defeating Satan in Baptism.

Unlike the zealous Trinitarians of the past who erred by violence against disagreements I simply debate on the merits of the doctrine and my knowledge of my own soul. I’m not the one slandering a thousand generations of saints who taught like I believe that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. (Quicumque vult)

I’m not the one attempting to call the religious devotion of another trash despite knowing that God “plays along.” Persist in your people’s “Deistic” traditions if that’s how God called you but we must remain faithful to the call He has given us. My “drift” is merely hoping that you understand that we are not observing this for no reason but it’s a part of the currency by which we approach God’s Kingdom.

Hmm. I’m not sure that I had connected this to Ananias and Sapphira but it makes some sense. The context we have canonically received was the Pharisees claiming Jesus’s work was done by an evil spirit. We typically understand this as the “sin unto death” of which one does not repent. So implying an active war against the office of the Holy Spirit which brings repentance. I reckon these ultimately involve knowingly bearing false witness against God’s work for the reason of harm to His people and alienating others from Him. Something like this is done knowingly and with no intention to repent even after death.

With the Trinity it’s not about brainwashing as you say, however. It’s a matter of consistency with our current which is received from Christ. We see an economy of personal aspects “dancing together” in God’s Nature as a necessity under the principle of salvation itself. As you seem to imply the Father can’t directly interact with imperfect creatures without mediation. For this mediation He must visit us through the Son’s ministry and the Holy Spirit’s work of causing a possibility of repentance.

You cannot overthrow the means by which you received a blessing without undermining the blessing. You catch my drift?

Jesus said that the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. How can one blaspheme that which has no personality?

Perhaps it’s fair to say He’s limited some aspects of Himself when acting in Theophany like He evidently is in the person of the Son and the Holy Spirit but that is not the same as not being a personal aspect of God. It’s obvious God takes on limits to Himself when engaged in Theophany. But it’s not the same as necessitating depersonalization.

To be the foundation of all reality must imply being All in All. And He cannot deny Himself. God might elect to utilize selected points of ignorance in specific contexts such as with the Son not knowing the time of the end. I can concede that. Even with that a totality His Nature must be able to indivisible fulfill the “I Am That I Am” from which all else flows.

The crucial doctrine here is what Jesus taught us from the Baptismal creed: we are baptized in the name of the three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) and also (as Jesus affirms in the Great Commandments) taught that The LORD our God is One. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

What boggles me: How can He be called impersonal if the Spirit is making decisions? It wasn’t the Apostles who chose to make tongues but He who gave them the tongues.

i.e. Why I’m not a pneumatomachi. I’ve seen Him operate. He chooses we receive or resist depending on faith.

Despite my cynicism about her history with the CFR, Tulsi gets a point for this.

I tried that and he effectively said “I never told you who the Stutterer was.”

Hymn: “Abide With Me” verse 3 -
“Come not in terrors, as the King of kings;
But kind and good, with healing in Thy wings:
Tears for all woes, a heart for every plea;
Come, Friend of sinners, thus abide with me.”

From the theological perspective, we Christians are worshiping the Logos as a (personal) aspect of God's Nature that is personally incarnated in Jesus. We just cut the fat out and say "Jesus is God" since we also understand God as an indivisible essence. That archetype of the Logos is present in all believers through faith.

I suppose the older analogy that the Hebrews were gearing at can be expressed with the Jewish mystical concept of the primeval Adam. (Adam Kadmon) In Christianity we have two modes of this principle as St Paul clarified: the "first Adam" fell into sin (for which the Jews prescribe a tikkun olam or "repairing of the world") and the "second Adam" that is manifest in Jesus Christ who reconciles us to God and gives us eternal life through His life, death and resurrection which then reflects in our life of faith.

So you need an atmosphere to stop them. It would be nice to have a magnetosphere as well, but your primary danger are these particles which cause people to lose their minds.

You know that reminds me. There’s some people that wonder how the Apollo astronauts escaped the Van Allen radiation. Makes you wonder if there wasn’t more to the story than we’ve been told. Like how the Lunar Lander encountered UAPs.

Huh that's an odd way of putting that... I see a 39 or an 11?

Edit: Hmm south one doesn't have a crowbar but it did have Ivermectin. (I'll have to remember that one if they aren't checking for animal licenses)

Yellow Vests are based.

Watkins. As in Ron Watkins? CodeMonkeyZ?

The “Word” (Logos) as described in the Book of John actually describes the Golden Ratio.

Good to know. Clement of Alexandria does appear to call Philo "the Pythagorean" in The Stromata. (citation )

Such beliefs were a much more popular idea among the Hebrew common folk than you’ve been led to believe.

Esoteric Judaism still has a reference for gilgul ha neshamot.

Christ doesn’t go into a scathing denunciation of the metempsychosis (reincarnation) concept.

True enough. There does seem to be a strong preference towards ἀνάστασις (anastasis) in the Bible though. Perhaps a subsequent unbiased analysis might have to include a "both, and" approach rather than an "either, or" approach.

To their credit they’re at least not championing a military industrial complex that props a corrupt, child-fucking oligarchy hell

Drat. There goes my pet hypothesis that the DS is funding the Young Earth Creationism movement to make Christians look dumb.

Regardless, some of us conservative Protestants accept evolutionary theory as valid despite the popularity of Ken Ham in our circles.

Yeshua the Christ I know, but who the fuck are you?

Simon Magus eh?

Because those who are calling you heretics wrote the damn book on it and blinded themselves in the process.

There's heresy (division for the sake of contention) then there's heresy. (disagreement on a point of understanding) Policing for the former sometimes wrongly gets coopted into condemnation of the latter.

As my heresiarch said "Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem spiritus. ("the burning of heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit") Of course, the Pope didn't like that statement nor the fact he had upset the royal gravy train of fleecing the German peasantry.

could you offer any resources that sufficiently explain Arianism, or it's differences from what is now orthodox Christianity?

I can give a synopsis from my knowledge of the history of theology. Arianism can be distinguished from Nicene orthodoxy in that:

1) It teaches there is "a time when Jesus did not exist." (lit. "a time when Jesus was not") Specifically, before He was born.

Nicene orthodoxy understands the implications of the first chapter of the Gospel of John's to mean that Jesus is the Word of God and He existed as God before He was incarnated as man. "In the beginning was the Word... the Word became flesh... John bore witness... grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

2) It teaches that Jesus is "like the substance of the Father" (homoiousios) but not the "same substance as the Father" (homoousios) as orthodoxy teaches.

That is to say, Arianism says that Jesus is like the most powerful angel of God but not actually God Himself. They are effectively implying Jesus is the equivalent of the Jewish concept of Metatron.

Nicene orthodoxy effectively believes in the form they had received of the developing beliefs of proto-orthodoxy:

1. Starting with the Jewish understanding of Jesus as a Messianic Savior and the Baptismal creed Jesus gave in Matthew 18:19.
2. Rejecting adoptionism and recognizing that He must be an aspect of God to be able to work of salvation as Isaiah said only God can be a Savior.
3. Applying Philo's concept of Logos Christology (envisioning a First Century Jewish interpretation of the "Word of God" mentioned throughout the Old Testament as an aspect of God Himself) into Jesus's work. (see the Gospel of John's first chapter)
4. Developing an early proto-orthodoxy through a general Patristic consensus that the Son and the Holy Spirit are operating like aspects of God or "hands" or eventually "persons."
5. Gradually formalizing this understanding with other premises like knowing God cannot change. This results in recognizing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a personal economy existing in God's own nature.
6. Finally, culminating in that the debate in 325 with the Arian faction that was crystallized into the Nicene Creed.

Note: There were some issues with imprecise terminology. For example, "modality" implies the same personal distinction but it resulted in an error that had to be rejected due to the false implication that God "ceases to be one person when He becomes another." Perichoresis cannot involve any person of God ceasing to be... only a distinction between which personal form God chooses to take in a particular instance. Such as recognizing the Son dies on a cross but not the Father. (Patripassianism was the error implying that the Father suffered on the cross)

Generally speaking this synopsis should give the feeling for the evolutionary track that proto-orthodoxy had to take that led up to the debates.

Ah, so it was. I missed that he had already linked this...

Thunderf00t

Found citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdz18ibX7rE

Ah the Mobius topology. Got it.

So it's not steady state, just constant emanation?

Talking shit about their own drug eh:
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Let me see if I'm about on target with where the error in Aristotle's paradigm of syllogisms lay.

Aristotle isn't useless since his methodology is sufficient for humans have some logical truth analysis but his syllogistic methods are not sufficient to avoid critical errors that generate problems for math, science and other principles inference. The flaw probably lay in how disjunctions are constructed, right? (And since we build inference on "denying the premise and/or proving the consequent" this affects implications) The consequences might be stuff like:

Liar paradox: "This sentence is true. The previous sentence is a lie." = "indeterminable"

False premises: "If [false premise] then [anything]" = "true"

Law of non-contradiction: "([premise] and [not premise])" = "false"

"a third option is not given." (tertium non datur) Presumes both of the options are mutually exclusive.

"Devil's proofs" - "you can't prove it doesn't exist because you haven't eliminated all possibility, therefore it does."

"Hempel's Raven" where one can infer "ravens are black" by claiming the contrapositive "a non-black non-raven."

CMB is the radio waves. Is there any idea on their origin without the Big Bang theory?

It's true that Einstein didn't like the idea of inflation either so he added a constant to try and remove it from the equation. But as later experiments showed there is inflation going on at a rapid rate.

So what replaces a big bang here? I surmise by no big bang you mean there was no "absolutely dense singularity" at the beginning of time.

But theologically we have a "beginning of time" and God "created all things" so how does this fit into the model?

So the cosmic background radiation (source of the static radio) when matter condensed happened earlier too?

The fact is, this “universe” is much, much, much older than you have been led to believe.

Older implies a finite number. So I think we can say your claim doesn't drag us back to Hoyle's steady state model which is where the objection that drew up the Big Bang came from. It arose from the priest George Lemaitre rebutting the steady state as it seemed like a godless construct to those who believe "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

So it is that you are saying the 13.9 billion year Big Bang model (10^9 ) is insufficient. Perhaps the mysteries of the so-called "dark energy" are what expands this further? Is the CMB's dating at least accurate?

In my experience many theological conservatives have several thought tracks that make it difficult to be ready for this:

There's the lot that assume "all aliens are demons." I've seen some Eastern Orthodox clergy peddling this. Half truth but likely half wrong. I think we can call this the "all Aliens=Demons" anti-pattern.

There's those that say it's going to be a False Flag operation like Project Blue Beam. A lot of people on conservative boards (whose names I shall not mention on Reddit because of the corporate Gestapo) have this opinion. This can be called the "Aliens are fake" anti-pattern.

There's the whole "That's not in the Bible" response of the older conservatives. The main fruits of this pattern are that whole "Cain married other children of Adam" and "the sons of God and daughters of men refer to Cainites and Sethites" hermeneutics. This is the "we're not going to interpret the Bible in a way that's compatible" anti-pattern.

And then there's Francis. He's a different can of worms. I strongly suspect he's working with the bad ones which is why he's so chummy. In a broader sense, that is probably the "All Aliens=good" anti-pattern.

Personally, I'm of the "aliens are creatures" and "I don't really trust them much given what's going on" and "still waiting for hard proof" patterns.

If a vaccine accumulates spike proteins in the marrow and the proteins clog up the marrow to the point that your Red Blood Cells cannot be produced effectively... what would that do?

Sounds like the next step might be an array of drums.

NIH had an article describing the details of magnetic Nanoparticles in vaccines as of 2014. I’m reluctant to post stuff like this here because the site mods are ban happy if you don’t toe their COVID narrative.

What was Fauci’s relationship to Gates?

Did Fauci have a hand in AIDS/HIV?

Why are humans the only mammal that is not subject to a routine anti parasitical regimen?

Why do magnets stick to the injection site?

More riddles to ponder…

Funny you should mention ball lightning. I was told by someone in “win” land that “FTL and other effects are to do with exotic vacuum objects and SR (strange radiation)”

Also “Nan Madol” (ruin in the Micronesia area) was mentioned.

"Ball Lightning is the key to it all”

Hint: Sometimes what's important is not what you hear but what you don't hear.

... They did it knowingly when they were deleting that information and knowing that they wouldn't have to give you, the people, images...

I'd say distracting from this thing I'm talking about is the highest priority for certain individuals right now.

"retired" CIA operatives as media executives...

Heh heh. Also, Barack Obama specifically legalized domestic propaganda with the Smith-Mundt act. Something that the 'fact checkers' all label as "false" because they're part of that system.

Gates of Hell some people have nicknamed him. Gates of Hell indeed. Jesus save us from Gates of Hell. Burst the Gates of Brass and the Fetters of Iron, O Lord.

Agreed. They choked on evolution because it said things they didn’t like… like two sexes exist, and evolution doesn’t stop at the neck, and a Bell Curve exists in aptitude’s as well as physical endurance, and also there is good data for paranormal phenomena like NDEs.

The collapse of the old progressive rationalism will hopefully give way to a much smarter and more God friendly science.

God seems to have quite a few surprises for the woke left coming up. The globalists overplayed their hand. People are waking up to their scams and returning to either populist nationalism or ethnic nationalism in response to the failures of pure scientific rationalism.

I never liked this lab grown meat trash Bill Gates and others are pushing. This just makes it all the more disgusting.

Hmmmmmmmmmm: https://youtu.be/Jix7Yx9UL18

Drums. Interesting spiral design too. Now I wonder if we can do this with light...

Well, I don't know what was wrong with your first statement:

Please tell me what my goal is, who my buddies are, daddy.

But now that you've narrowed the criteria to:

Whose interests?

I guess I can infer you do know that your ideology is involved in the deed I'm describing. Heh heh. Yep. Can't deny that one.

For now, I'm assuming its being led by the Middle Kingdom... but I'm not the one investigating this thing.

But don't worry, it's still plausibly deniable. After all, you can say you just didn't want to sound like a jerk. Heh.

There you go again, conflating the personal with the political. I don't expect that your ideologues would tell you what they do. In fact it's probably in their interests that they don't because you "don't need to know."

Ah but I can understand psychological manipulation, my friend... and it won't work on me.

I can see how it's being done now. Your course has been really quite instructive about how socialist ideologues are being programmed in universities. First, they reject your philosophy because it's against their upbringing. Then you can manipulate a false claim that someone is obsessed with control which they viscerally reject because they don't want to see themselves as authoritarians. Next, you claim their rebuttal is a projection which they also understand as a form of psychological manipulation. This generates a double bind form of cognitive dissonance. Eventually you'll offer the faint praise of "you'd make a great communist" which operates like a "carrot and stick."

This is all very informative. Very informative.

Now that I've probably depressed you about your recruitment prospects, let's set down some facts:

1. Statements about oneself are not projection.
2. Statements about observations are not projection.
3. Statements made from the basis of common knowledge are not projection.
4. Falsely claiming someone is projecting is gaslighting.

The identity threat concept doesn't bear reiteration.

By the way, if you wonder why I care... get this... a gaggle of your corporate buddies decided that stealing my country's highest office was a good idea. I don't think that's very nice...

You keep going back to this "control" thing... I told you what I am:

"gadfly" - an annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.

-

You've assessed me as a long term threat

Give it a rest with the "personal is political" meme. I'm opposed to your philosophy not your person. You eat, drink, breathe, and shit just like everyone else. I don't care about that.

I do, however, reject Karl Marx's baloney thesis and its myriad of insane derivatives and cousins.

Review the tapes of the discussion.

Your initial responses to me were: "Nah..." and "I don't think I will" were neutral. That's all well. As reptiliandude rightly pointed out, your reaction at that point could have simply been because the book was too long. But as I continued to dig into socialism, you made the quip: "Let go, m8. You're not in control, here."

Since when was this discussion about control? At that point it becomes clear I hit a nerve.

The thing about "control" is this. I do not control you. You do not control me. But your statement about "control" has a subtle barb buried in it. Identity preservation. The real difference in our discussion is where the locus of control lies. My locus of control is inner self and always has been. You mistook my recognition of socialism as a threat to my independence as a control threat. Socialism isn't a threat to my ideological framework. Socialism is an external threat to my physical security. My words are "don't tread on me" not "do what I tell you." I frankly don't care if other people disagree with me. But I do relish being a gadfly at times. And I do take umbrage to people abridging my personal freedoms.

So, circling back, if you were in that position... Someone who was confident in their socialism and thought I was wrong could think "this guy is irrelevant" and move on or simply say "socialism doesn't work like you think" and gotten into random details. Or, if you somehow aren't a socialist, you could have just as easily said "I am not a socialist" and moved on. But you didn't.

Why does this have to be about "control?" As I said, I never once asserted control. As reptiliandude always says "Your currency is your own."

Your responses indicate that you have an external locus of control rooted in some kind of idealization of socialism and you have a need to silence criticisms. How does the fact that I'm a "free market" advocate actually damage your right to think positive things about socialism? People badmouth things all the time. Everyone has different opinions and some of them won't agree with you. Part of being a mature individual means realizing that honest disagreement exists.

Just because I think you are a potential long term threat doesn't mean I care that you have silly ideas. Just don't try using those silly ideas to justify taking my house and property, okay...

I do enjoy the laughs, for which I thank you.

But I reflected the truth back at you and you didn't like it...

You're not in control here, and you don't like that.

You can't control yourself so you try to control others by being able to describe them.

Who is the one who said: "It makes you easy to control?"

I specifically said that "I never said I was in control of anything."

GOTCHA. You see, it can't be projection when I said it myself. I specifically denied any attempt to control anyone. You, however, just proved you're a manipulative sociopath. Congratulations.

Yet here you are telling me what I think. I specifically stated that my ethos is libertarian. I wasn't lying. Your opinions are your own. I think that a little time looking in a mirror might help you realize something about your own behavior, though...

You know what's funny. You think you're actually educating me about the effect of emotional "noise" on logic. I hobnob with a psychologist daily. I know damn well what emotions can do.

So what if I told you that I specifically chose not to reign in my emotions? What do you think I've managed to demonstrate about you, Mr. GoadsALot?

Oh gee. Spare me the drama. I put in the effort to read your citations. The least you can do is address my observations about them fairly without an ad hominem claiming I'm just spewing nonsense. The definition of a "diatribe" is a discussion. Is that not what we're doing? Why should that be considered anomalous?

If you feel that I made a mistake in representing your positions then by all means, address those mistaken assumptions. Where have I misrepresented you? Then I'll either have to correct my mistake or present a counterargument that demonstrates an inconsistency in your rebuttal. Did I not do the same thing when I was presented with your citations? I clearly admitted what I felt reasonable from your citations. Did you expect me to just think "oh noes... my opinions be stupid... I must flleeeeeeee..." Really?

What did you expect me to do? Surrender and concede the entire discussion to you just because you cited some things? Surely you understand how a debate works. Just spin the chessboard around and understand that it's not my job to agree with your claims or to defend your positions either.

I honestly don't agree with socialism and I have no good reasons to do so. The best you can hope here is that you might convince me that socialism isn't as bad as I thought. My job as your debate opponent is to rebut your claims, not to mollycoddle or succumb to them as though you are an infallible arbiter of truth. I mean, I cited things before and you didn't agree with me... Have I somehow compelled you to agree? Obviously not because you clearly remain opposed to e

And to wit, I did concede a fair bit to you in the previous response. Did you notice that I admitted captialism is not all perfect and that it can become corrupt? Frankly, that was a "freebie" because I was feeling charitable. Sure, I happened to compare it to socialism, but a decent debater would recognize that as a concession to the argument even if it isn't a surrender. But as they say "you give an inch, they take a mile." That's sort of why it's easier just to assume that you won't be charitable and move on.

Now, on the topic of conservatives... what's wrong with people having "conservative" opinions? Conservative merely means "preserving historical and traditional views." Everybody is not compelled to agree with you just because you're a socialist. Hell, I don't even agree with conservative opinions all the time. Calling me a conservative is not even really accurate. I don't identify as one and never have. In fact, my actual position used to be libertarian but now it's become more fluid because I've seen it has some things I don't agree with either. Regardless, my perspective tends to revolve mainly around libertarian and classical free market ideas. Not sure why that matters, though. The entire point here is that you are pigeonholing me and that's ignorant.

What I have always maintained is that using reasonable discussion is preferable to the alternative of emotional or vituperative reactions. If I hadn't, you saw the alternative since I led with it.

Excellent, now that you've actually addressed one of my points of contention and provided citations to work with I can refine my response from the assumptions I had to make before. Thank you for your effort in sharing that.

Now, your sources seem to conclude that the alleged propaganda of the West is misrepresenting the situation and that the Holodomor is actually more of an accident coupled with ineptitude rather than willful malice. OK, that is fine with me. I don't have any commitment to the idea that Communists were sitting behind closed doors going "mwahahaha, let's sacrifice millions." But, your information does not really remove my point of criticism.

Allow me to build my contention off what you've acknowledged here. There was, in fact, a famine and people were not able to gain food resources in part because of socialist policies. Ineptly managed or not, the socialist system itself contributed to the problem. Most especially by preventing alternative actions that may have mitigated the disaster. What sort of alternative actions? Consider that 'corn under the snow.' Do you really think that would happen in a free market system? Of course not. Some enterprising citizen would put in the back work and dig up the friggin corn to sell it to their neighbors for a marginal profit. The Communists, however, would have punished that and taxed it to extinction because of their regulated and controlled system. Even so, such a behavior would've saved people from dying were it implemented. On those grounds, I can make the contention that socialism is harmful to the citizenry simply on the basis of its managed economy alone. Indeed, my friend's Russian professor made very clear to him that the "boots on the ground" situation was indeed that stark.

And since you made the case that it's mismanagement and ineptitude, I think it's also worth noting that this situation isn't unique. Mao's cultural revolution also exhibited this feature. As did many other cases of socialist implementation. Why should such a perfect system introduce such flaws? Because, it is my perspective, it is a flaw inherent in socialism itself. It fails to take into account a very important element of the universe. The element of human behavior and choice. It simply treats an economy like a machine that can be tuned and fixed. The failure to accommodate human choices and freedom is a failure that results in dehumanization and subjugation of the will to the leaders of the system. That isn't an accidental side-effect but its natural rule. The only real contention you can add against this is that this may not be intentional but a side-effect of the ignorance of the leaders when to loosen the control levers.

But that really sums up the thrust of my criticism against socialism in general. The very core paradigm seems to involve the supposition that the individual is not permitted to act for himself but may only work with respect to the collective. That is inherently false. Self-interest is a valid necessity that contributes to man's ability to survive. In socialism, those principles are taken out of the hands of men and given to the system. You do not own the means of production. The state does or society does. You are thus perpetually a slave to society as, your own philosophy alleges, the workers in capitalism are slaves to the capitalist. But Marx was incorrect. In capitalism, the workers do have freedom. They have the choice to continue to cooperate with the owner or not. They may reject a corrupt boss and choose a better one. At least as long as the system operates as it's intended. When we reach a situation where we have a few large monopolies that's going to generate another problem which I'll address later...

With socialism, the worker's actions are always taxed and managed. Always owing society, never receiving any benefit except the common dole. There's no incentive to work well. And this takes away a vital freedom of man to make decisions for themselves and makes them slaves of the legislators' will. In fact, I'm actually referencing Frederic Bastiat's The Law here. Man must be free to be man, not a slave to some system of control devised by bureaucratic fiat. There's instances when this sort of regulated system can be useful, but making it the general paradigm of society undermines respect to the individual's own freedoms.

Workers in capitalism in its proper sense are technically leasing their own time to someone else. And that's something your system if implemented makes infeasible. As was demonstrated above, your managers told the workers not to harvest and so they just sat there and didn't harvest. There was no incentive to do so because they wouldn't earn any money doing so. The entire system of capitalism would have addressed the problem by having workers acting on their own intiaitive and selling food to their neighbors regardless of the economists in Moscow.

Furthermore, the other point in in any socialist's argument always seems to involve the fact that capitalism is nearly always being usurped by the Crony elite class. This, however, is a slanted position that is actually a sort of confirmation bias against Captialism. I would fully concede to you that "Crony Captialism" as RD called it is evil. But, as I said to him, I think it's actually part of the same poisonous tree that I see underneath the principles of socialism. As stated above, monopoly is a problem for a free market. It disincentivizes the benefits of the system by removing competition. It's ultimately this "control system" which infringes on man's freedom of conscience and decision that I find problematic. I don't want you telling me what to think or what to do for my own life. I am an intelligent person and can make those decisions myself. The real unfortunate fact is that some degree of management of decisions may sometimes be necessary where ignorance actually prevails. But a real question is how much and why we need that regulation. Diversity of thought is not evil, it's simply an effect of having different minds.

Part of the inequality problem, however, is that not all people have equal aptitudes. Some excel more than others and reap an economic benefit because of that. Which creates an uneven Pareto distribution that generates my aforementioned "greed and envy cycle" that ultimately leads to a collapse into either corrupt Crony Capitalism or socialism. Neither of these stopgaps fix the issue but create their own set of problems that undermine human liberty. I'll even agree with you if you think Bill Gates is an existential threat, but I won't agree that the mechanism that unwittingly allowed him to exist, because he was able to abuse something most people at worst try to use for their survival responsibly, is necessarily the problem.

Anyway, hopefully my more precise criticism will help you to tune your responses to my objections. What I'm objecting to is not exactly just socialism per se but rather the whole vain presumption that economic calculation can effectively or correctly be done by the centralized system. It's trying to manage an infinite problem with a finite mind. And I oppose many kinds of government on that same principle.

Yes. However, as our forum patron pointed out, you might have reasonably objected to my original citation due to its size rather than its content. To which I stated "I'd accept the Cliff's Notes." Therefore, I would prefer something succinct if possible.

If you actually wanted to reason, you wouldn't have made it a point to undermine the basis of reasoning from evidence by handwaving it away as capitalist pig dog lies like you did when you said "Bad history. Junk in, junk out!"... As I said, you cannot reason with someone who is unwilling to engage with evidence.

You've made your entire argument about ignoring the volumnious citations of documented evidence which demonstrate the harmful track record of socialism. What else could be left except preparing for the probable necessity of self defense against an aggressor who won't accept reason should you ever attain the power you so desire?

Don't mistake my knowledge of your existential threat for an emotional reaction. It's more like "if you try to steal my property, you're a thief and I WILL defend myself."

You may as well replace socialists with demons in that diatribe.

My reaction is very simple. You refuse to acknowledge the facts of history and poison the well to keep anyone else from acknowledging that history as well. There's no reasoning with that kind of perspective. You've simply declared that you're right and everyone else is wrong... then you project this as though I'm the one doing that.

It quacks and floats on the water? But how dare I call it a duck...

Your issue is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that socialism can be and often is very pernicious. You seem to think "capitalism lies" is a logical rebuttal to the testimonies of millions of victims of those wearing the mantle of your preferred economic system. What compounds this is that you double down on your bias and refuse to address any such criticisms to support that delusion which assumes your economic system is impeccable.

That's not going to make me think you're not a lunatic who, if given power, would rob me and my family blind and murder me to promote the delusion that everyone can get free stuff without work. Why should I think otherwise? The entire program has been a game of "blame the white people" and "blame capitalism" so we can create a false justification for our envy. The entire problem with the means of production is someone has to do the fucking work. And you're outsourcing that to everyone whom your economic system deigns OK to crush and violate. Explain to me why this is not the case.

There would never be a large enough sample size to satisfy you socialists. Killing off the entire planet would still be answered with "socialism was never really tried." It's not enough that you're envious murderers but you're also calumnious liars who willfully slander anyone who doesn't believe your pie in the sky baloney. From my perspective, you are an existential threat. Your entire goal is the destruction of my civilization to suit your mythos.

Oh, so it's the old revisionist historian claiming their alternate history is reality. Tell you what. How about you talk to all the victims of communism that have escaped your bloody hell holes and told their stories.

See, I have a basic problem here. I can't reason with someone who is denying reality. You have a nice day, guy...

Don't get me wrong. I actually agree that Crony Capitalism is horrible. And I would have even agreed with our guest about that too if he'd actually listened to my point but he apparently decided to become reactionary (yes, I can use their words...) instead.

Indeed, Monsanto is evil. Indeed, Bill Gates is evil. And Google and Facebook are censorious tyrants, although I'd note that their tyranny is largely in favor of his preferred socialism. Part of the problem here is that the major "stockholders" of big business are generally Chinese socialists but I'll get to that later. Large corporations can indeed be warped to the point they can hardly be even recognized as a free market system. And for that, I've actually taken to calling that corporate socialism.

The horrors of socialism are far less extricable from the normal course of operation as a system of force than those of capitalism where force cannot be used without the recourse of citizens. These problems of a free market are eminently correctable without resorting to total destruction of the system. (Even now, I think there's a distinct chance to right the ship...) People can rise up against the system before it gets to the point of unsalvageability. There's the power of verbal dissent, boycotting, elections. There's also legitimate recourse to the governing laws if they can be harnessed by diligent citizens. All before it ever has to get to the "ammo box." As you now see various States are having taking the role of stepping up against the Crony Capitalists in lieu of the Federal Government. And that really illustrates the genius of separation of powers. I suspect that if the US can't right itself, England is just plain screwed at this point though. 1984 and Ingsoc appear to be a prophecy of what happens if it can't fix itself.

In capitalism there's the possibility of having actual competition. Unfortunately, there is an unregulated situation with "corporate mergers" where corporations are allowed to grow into the kinds of metastatic cancers that can kill the capitalist system itself. But we also should have been watching the kind of people who were playing the game. Socialists are biased and will inherently seek to usurp capitalism in its intended form where people are striving to benefit themselves and their communities by turning it inward on itself. Frankly, we should have been suspicious when China sang the song of "socialism with free market characteristics" that they were playing the long game of such usurpation. The signs were there in Hollywood for decades. Don't think I didn't notice Joss Whedon making Chinese his second lingua franca in his works. Evidently few seem to have moved about it overtly until 2016 and by then the bureaucrats were selling "orange man" out in 2020.

Under socialism, the sheep live in disarmed "gun free zones" where the Bolsheviks can fleece them and starve them without any recourse on their part except to devour the dead or to just plain die . That is exactly what happened during the Holodomor. See how workers' unions can end up like the Teamsters' Union that murdered Jimmy Hoffa and hid his body to this day. Socialism is scary and for good reasons. They're not some godsent solution to the problem either. Whether or not that could sometimes be harnessed for good, it's not a system I think is ever safe from evolving into the godless Soviets and corrupt mafias. In a free market, we have the option of going our own way and building our own systems. In socialism, the state jackboots forbid that.

Regardless of the flaws of both systems, the universal problem is that greed and envy create cycles which disrupt the flow of civil service and dissolve into petty corruption. The metastasis of that corruption has infected "international government" aka globalism to the point it has now become an instrument of the Molochean mafiosis.

I would have even accepted skimming the Cliff's Notes. The point is that socialism is demonstrably bad... really bad. His reaction said everything. He's clearly enamored with it.

Do you mean to imply I'm wrong because I've actually read the history of what your fellow ideologues have done?

Things like the Holodomor in Russia? Mao's starvation and book burning campaign? Khrushchev' corn campaign? All the confiscated land, stolen property, murdered peasants? All of your Pravda propaganda used to destabilize Western civilization?

What am I missing here? You want me to claim you're the good guys when it's been socialists doing those things?

If I sound "authoritarian" it's because I've found it's the only way to get you tyrants to leave us alone. When we're nice and libertarian you use your mind warping propaganda to usurp our institutions from within and warp our societies with your perverse economic theory. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is code for "rob the rich" and "give everything to the indigent," or more precisely... the indolent.

You are the ones pushing a system of tyrannical middle management economics upon the world as if we can't be trusted to manage our own property without Karl Marx's bullshit thesis. You are the ones pushing this agenda against my free market against my freedom to own my own means of production without your oversight. And it's high time we defend that free market from your intrusions.

Nice projection, dude. I never said I was in control of anything. If I were, you'd still be singing "Orange Man Bad" in CHAZ.

Frankly, I don't need to be. Your own false god, these globalist elites, will be doing that.

Summarizing Yuri Bezmenov, since you refuse to learn... the Soviet takeover strategy: (which is now being implemented by the Chinese backed Clintons, Bushes and Bidens...)

Demoralization. For this step in the process, 15 – 20 years are needed. That is the amount of time required to educate a generation. Helping along the way are media and teachers who have become sympathetic (consciously or unconsciously) to the theoretical causes of the subverting nation. Bezmenov claims that the USSR was surprised at how easy this phase was in the US.
Destabilization. Following the earlier phase, this is a two to five year period to change the target country’s foreign relations, defense, and economy.
Crisis. Perhaps six weeks of chaos as a climatic turning point.
Normalization. This stage changes the appreciation of what the status quo looks like. Bezmenov’s description of this phase also includes military take over.

We currently are in this protracted Crisis since they seem to have made COVID their basis for the "Great Reset" and their coup against the electoral process. But when the "Powers that Be" (read: the Socialist leaders backed by the Central banks) normalize this madness you rioters have helped created, you radicals are going to be the first target. Hell, you'll be the target even if the conservatives take power but at least conservatives will try to be merciful. (It's really their weakness if you ask me... you subversives are a threat to freedom no matter what because you're brainwashed on stupid ideologies that scapegoat white people and rich people as your "villains.")

That whole "I don't think I will" bullshit you just pulled is keeping you from realizing that your paymasters have warrants for your execution. Enjoy it while it lasts because your "summer of love" will come crashing down one day...

Sarcasm won't change the fact that if the left wing takes power you'll be on the chopping block. The Revolution always eats its own.

I’ve been sort of watching since Brexit so I got a little by osmosis. The problem seems to be the aversion to ideology has made it so popular moves have to work around the establishment conservatives. They had to oust Theresa May to move Brexit and Boris is how they did that. But now it’s looking like Boris Johnson is outliving his usefulness.

Labour is basically their equivalent of the Democrats down to having analogs of AOC like Jeremy Corbyn. They really would not benefit from the Labour angle. I mean look at Joey Bribes here in the States for a preview of their agenda.

Persistence in delusions is insanity. Enjoy yourself until the jackboots come.

You’re delusional if you think socialism is good. Read Gulag Archipelago. By the way your socialist overlords will reward all you SJWs with death first during the normalization that Yuri Bezmenov warned about.

Sargon of Akkad's take on (Tory) conservatives... they have no direction. They're just "against." As Aaron Tippin sang: "You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything."

Unfortunately, the alternative that tends to edge into this vacuum is the stupid socialist garbage which is intentionally evil and promotes the enslavement of mankind to the will of middle management. Even "capitalism" itself is one of their Trojan Horse terms meant to tar and feather the free market with a slander that it's about making people "cattle" rather than about individuals and families trading to improve their standing in the economy.

Dr. Steve Turley has suggested that globalist/modernism which promotes a "one size fits all explanation" of reality through scientific rationalism is gradually being replaced with a post-modern paradigm focusing on national or culture-cented paradigms. How do you see the impact of this on transforming the scientific community to understand the world more appropriately?

Oh by the way. Cuomo also wondered about the abuelas... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/cuomo-says-unvaccinated-people-could-wind-up-killing-your-grandmother/

Rich considering that Cuomo killed a ton of them

That number is... much higher... than what people know.

communities dot win / c/ Conspiracies/p/12iNUqv1FP/theres-a-3-month-long-backlog-wi/c/

Link obfuscated for reasons.

I don't know if it's "Merry Copium" or the Phoenix... but a there's an "audit" going on if you know what I mean...