VC
Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.
To use social login you have to agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. Privacy Policy
AcceptHere you'll find all collections you've created before.
The Pharisees and the aPOPEphis both agree that the Great Mother, “Queen of Heaven,” aka Isis/Ishtar/Ashtarte, Lucifer in the transgender female form, is the one they serve.
wrong, that is not Catholic theology at all. You do not judge a religion by those that fail to follow it.
Queen of heaven is a certified pagan term for a goddess. And Mary is called the queen of heaven. I grew up Catholic and know all about the worship mass for Mary which also has pagan origins. Mary doesn’t want to be worshipped and I do believe they are tricked into worshipping Asherah the mother of all demons and Queen of the marine realm. Her husband is Moloch the child eater. While Moloch/Baals father is Dagon who is the king of the marine realm and is exclusively worshipped by the Vatican.
this is interesting- i am happy you see it= as an Orthodox Christian, we have disagreed that the Catholics are pushed to worship Mary a whole lot, I mean we do too, but even the Catholic elementary schools prayers more toward Mary than Jesus, I feel something sinister there. We many many holidays dedicated to The Virgin Mother of Christ, but I still wouldn’t be surprised the semi- satanic vatican fools its people..
@americaillusion
The Catulus Church is a fully Luciferian organization, and has been since it’s very foundations. It is the church of the antiXristos, as mentioned in Hebrews, 1 John and Revelations.
The Papa (father…) and his mignions are the priests of the transgender form of Lucifer, The Great Mother, the same who for millennia have spread Luciferian indoctrination throughout the world in the various Re-Legions (Re = Lord of Light Legions = Pawn soldiers.) of pagan Astro theology, and then culminated them into a “universalist” churches such that the emperor of Rome (the same as Rama the Solar warrior and Rammanu the Babylonian version of Zeus, the Illuminator.) could have control over the minds and souls of his subjects.
The name Vat-I-Kain comes directly from the “Great Mother” Vatika, who was the reaper of souls of the underworld that is half COW (Cattle Church), and the same as the Mother of Re, Vat/Bat in Egypt, the Bovine (COW) mother of the sun. And of course a wink to their progenitor, Kain. This is but another Re formulation in the long line of the cult of the “Queen of Heaven,” Isis/Ishtar/Astarte/Asherah. This title appears nowhere in scripture, except in Jeremiah 44: where the prophet tells us that all those who blow incense to the statue of the Queen of Heaven will be punished by YHWH. This is what the Papa, calling himself father and spitting on Yeshua’s words, does every SUNday for the MASSes indoctrination.
Furthermore the symbol of the Chai Rho, takes its name directly from the underworld ferryman Chairhon.
The kult of the great Mother has always been about one thing: blood sacrifice to quench the thirst of the Mother Earth. This is why in Berashit 4, it is referenced directly that YHWH sees the blood of Hevel has been spilled on the soil. Once you realize this, the constant inquisitions, heresy burnings, and extremely brutal nature of the glorified (and often fabricated) martyrdoms becomes clear.
They have, of course, substituted the name of Lucifer for YHWH in every language. This is why these serpents are called Na-Ha-Shim in Hebrew
Na = Not
Ha = The
Shem = Name
Literally “Not the Name.” In Hebrew this word together means serpents; the imposters, said “Tannaim,” in Hebrew that are “beasts of the sea.” Tanninu; same word with a diffeeenr suffix, and the origin of the Phoenician Great Mother Tannit (literally Ptah-Nit, Egyptian Luciferian deities put together to make a transgender great mother.)
This is why I’m every language they replace the True name, HaShem, with a false imposter: Berashit becomes Genesis, literally Janus (two faced deity Lucifer) is; the Ganes (Ganesha) is. It is why they refuse to use the name YHWH nor Elohim; in every language they have categorically replaced the ineffable creator with Lucifer:
God = Gad an epithet of Ba’al (Isiah 65:11) literally said “Ball god…” it’s the Sun, a big ball god…
Dios = Zeus the Illuminator Lucifer
Bog = Again the dualistic, Teo faced Lucifer
Allah = the Sumerian deity of gatekeeping the underworld
Even the name “Jesus,” is quite literally replacing Yeshua, with g-Zeus in every language, the letter G of fr33ma$onry, which is Gad (Ba’al) and Zeus the Illuminator. The Ancient Greek is “Ishua,” as you may know being orthodox.
As the scriptures say, it is with the word that the ineffable creator has given our existence. We are an utterance, a vibration of his word, his Truth, and this is the essence of the antiXristos, the Mirror Image imposter put in place of The Truth: it is Na-Ha-Shem, “not the name.” The serpent sitting at Mary’s feet while she rides the moon, just as Isis.
The cattle lick church was founded, from the very first moment, by the dragon blood lines of the Flavians Vespasian and Titus (You can quit easily verify that aPOPEphis Clement is their direct descendant), whom burned Jerusalem to the ground in 69 CE, and then stole and corrupted the scriptures so as to stamp out the Truth of Yeshua and YHWH, and to wield them in service of Lucifer imposter as Dios F-Zeus for the entire age of Pi-Seas, the beast out of the Sea.
Have you ever kissrd a girl?!🤣🤣🤣 you sound like the nerd in Ghostbusyers”
What an insipid insult. Make an argument or show us further you cannot.
Imma take a wild guess the gem prolly got so many honeys he bored. Ur watchin ghostbusyers, while he’s swashbuckling real info down ya throat and exposing the luminatis.
“Certified pagan term”? Just where did they get the trademark, I wonder?
You give too much authority to paganism. Christianity is primary.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven_(antiquity)
Plus in the article the goddesses mentioned are other names Asherah goes by like Ishtar/Inanna and Astarte.
Modern “Christianity” across all variations is Paganism repackaged, so your comment is not entirely untrue (it is primary). We are seeing more “secrets” being released so that other faith systems may find their truths as pertaining and interrelating to a whole which all might recognize, and thus embrace as a collective. Babel. Matthew 24:24. It has to be a convincing counterfeit in order for it to work such massive deception.
“…where did they get the trademark..” reveals your need for a certified “authority” comprised of other men, just as yourself, to place a stamp or seal upon a person or concept in order for you to recognize it for what it is.
But, in a very clear sense, your statement that “Christianity is primary” is demonstrably true, as it is drawing of all other religious practices into a oneness, a combined, big tent religion which worships what’s created and supplants the Creator and His true son with a false one they now feel so free as to erase and enjoy the shadow he once inhabited. The dark twin, the other face, the false aspect of JaBuLon, the two faces of Janus.
This portrait clearly displays the true focus of worship (Queen Of Heaven) vs the shadow (Christos – the thin thread by which they keep believers in the true Yeshua ensnared – he is considered the tagalong for purposes of recognition in which people are then deceived this is their same faith):
certify:
(transitive) To attest to (a fact) as the truth.
(transitive, law) To authenticate or verify in writing.
(transitive) To attest that a product, service, organization, or person has met an official standard.
These blankets have been certified as fireproof.
(transitive, archaic) To inform; to tell (a person) that something is true.
(archaic, reflexive) To assure (oneself) of something; to ascertain.
The very system, itself, certifies its message, over and again, as you have been repeatedly shown and as you personally continue to demonstrate. You wish to claim it is caterpillar into moth or some such metamorphosis, but it is plainly the same old system spreading it’s metastasis and you are either too invested personally to acknowledge or you promote the falsehoods yourself from a position of advantage.
Emunah to your words here @Igageharleya
May I take my measure now and multiply it heartily as I continue to learn.
To restrain myself to my former point, LG, I spoke of trademarks ironically, precisely to show how outlandish this kind of logic is. These accusations of paganism in Christianity depend on the hidden premise that paganism is a creative force in the world, capable of putting its imprimatur on everything that it brings into being, so that once a given symbol, title, image, etc. has been used within a pagan rite or practice, that same symbol or title or image can never be used in a non-pagan context or a non-pagan way.
This is equivalent to an absolutization of paganism, and a reduction of the true faith to a subsequent and purely negative reaction to the primary act of paganism. That is not only impious, but it turns the truth precisely on its head.
The idea that Christianity “drew all other religious practices into a oneness” is both visibly false (traditional Christianity today is almost universally suspected and even loathed by non-Christians, and is one of the few forced standing against the emergence of a One World Faith) and historically untenable (Christianity conquered paganism, it did not adopt it).
I won’t address your analysis of the word “certify,” as you were the one to use it, not I; I have no dog in that fight.
@JBL
When a Re-legion takes a veritable multitude of its symbolisms, ritual practices, professed beliefs, names, iconography, and even saints directly from pagan use for thousands of years beforehand over a large swath of geography and cultures, especially when all of those symbols, rituals, names, etc directly and overtly contradict scriptural commands, then it is paganism, no matter the branding they’ve slapped on it.
Surely you are correct that just because pagans use something general once, does not automatically make it pagan. Yet this is so far from the case: this church of abomination admits it absorbs pagan practice! The very title “Queen of Heaven,” has no scriptural basis whatsoever, except to be called an abomination in Jeremiah, and to be called an abomination regarding Astarte in Solomon. How then did it stop being a pagan abomination? Is that because the Papa, calling himself father directly contradicting Yeshua’s words said so?
The title, iconography, and ritual practice surrounding the Cattle Lick Queen of Heaven has been taken directly from pagan practice in Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, Ireland, Gaul, Anatolia, Akkadian’s, and China with precedent of 1000s of years prior. This isn’t an ancillary reality, but the foundational core of the Cattle Licks doctrine, and it is (and has been for thousands of years before there ever was a Papa in Rome) a PAGAN
TITLE FOR LUCIFER WHICH SCRIPTURE CALLS AN ABOMINATION, WHEN THOSE IN EGYPT BLOW INCENSE TO THE STATUE OF A FHE QUEEN OF HEAVEN.
You draw things backwards and fail to acknowledge a critical point.
“…paganism is a creative force in the world…” – of course it is, although your words diminish or dismiss this truth. The point here is that all mankind has been made with creative or destructive authority – this is not a confined phenomenon to a single people or population with like beliefs, this is the human natural state.
The drawing in reverse is the fact that Paganism did not need to influence Christianity, as it was Paganism that morphed to give birth to it. This was Paganism wishing to change it’s stripes in order to claim an authority it couldn’t before, which further emboldened them to violently enforce it on overyone.
I think that the demonization of Christian beliefs, in particular, are a way the cabal continues their mind games. This assault appears to be because it is the “one true faith” and reaffirms and solidifies this idea in the minds of its followers, but it is a manipulative sham to cause adherents to settle in further, believing they must be right. Christianity is heavy on the “blind faith”, and while people can find a legitimate peace and covering this way, if their hearts are pure, it’s not really the adult, developed relationship the Creator wishes us to aspire to.
It’s like all the hoopla against Trump – he is every bit a part of the cabal, yet they act as if they despise him utterly, and the masses became divided in ways unheard of before he ran for office. It is manipulation.
I have not in any wise lost my faith, I have solidified it and I know that Yeshua is the Truth of YHWH and I have entire faith in both. I also have long known that the Father is able to find any of us wherever we may be, in whatever system we have attached to. There are truths in every religious system, as there must be, as belief requires plausibility or it does not pass.
Another way the “manipulative sham” plays out in Christianity is the teaching of “The Rapture”. This was yet another stand-down soft order – a pacification which caused a smug apathy and nonaction amongst followers.
@igageharleya
What irony there is in an adherent of a “universalist,” church of pagan practice, created by solar worshippers, claiming that they are the one thing stopping a world universal religion. The Cattle Licks are the original universalist one world religion; of paganism! You have laid forth very clearly the Truth here.
The Luciferians running the farm are aware, that just as an electromagnetic DI-POLE, or an alternating current Tri-phasic system, they must create an Us Vs. Them scenario in the minds of the masses in order for the system of human mass control to remain stable. A person can hardly walk with one leg, a bird cannot fly with one wing.
Likewise this strategy of Bi and Tri-polarity is frequently used to flip and spin people around on the ideologies they conciously claim to follow, and thus very weak, and ultimately lost in their allegiances to corrupt cult organizations that are their own demise. An easy example: In US, the republican cultists (it is a cult…) hating on the phrase “my body my choice,” for decades regarding abortion, while the Demokratic kultists touted it with great fervor. Yet, once it was time for nano-technology shots for COVert IDentification, the used their levers to flip and spin the ideology in a chiral inversion, and suddenly Repulikains were using the phrase, while the DemosKratos were trying to force the others against their will… The effect being that the cattle yell over the fence at one another, and nobody really pays attention to the corporate farmer preparing for their slaughter.
Take this (the blindness of someone so intelligent, yet so deaf) as a lesson in the power that this strategy wields over the cattle who have swallowed the poison pill; while you speak clear, and evident Truth to them, they are as zombies, and by trying to hold onto their life, they have lost it forever.
I hate this all. It is such a sad and sorry waste.
Forget about the blessed mother, according to gem you’re not supposed to believe in Jesus either he’s some kind of imposter of yeshua or whatever
@trevor
The second commandment is clear “Graven Images you SHALL NOT!”
How many crucifixes, icons, statues, and other graven images of G Zeus, bloody and gruesome, and the Great Mother do these imposters make, and spit on the commandments of YHWH? Dare I say billions…
Indeed such an abomination is the imposter, the G Zeus of the Roman (Rama = Solar Warriors) Tannaim (imposters.) For all those that read the Torah and the Bible, these things are clear.
Jeremiah 7:18 ” The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.”
Jeremiah 7:18 ” The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.”
disrespectful, full mockery…
I’m sure the evil pope loved it
Must be signaling something. .maybe the anti– has just been born
He was a long time ago born, I think. The context of our days is fit for his coronation already. Zelensky is maybe signaling that he will stick to the plan and do his “work” in order for the anti-christ to take his “rightful” place. He is reassuring the pope they are on the same side. He is a high-heeled belly-dancer, a comediant and a jew so, yes, of course he is blaspheming and trashing the values and the religious identity of the ukrainian people (that is Orthodoxy). If he still managed to fool so many people than he is truly a better actor than I initially thought.
It doesn’t take much to fool people. The pope is wearing a kippa.
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/strange/2023/01/cabalist-jewish-racism-is-behind-covid-vaccines-ww3-2480560.html
Or he s about to be revealed.
Some years ago, i had come across an antic gazette dating from the end of the 19th century where Ms Blavatsky made an announcement to her followers.
(She was a famous occultist and her teachings were taught in a school where the pope John Paul 2 studied while he aspired to be an actor…)
In this article, she announced the birth of the great great grandmother of the anti C.
I calculated he should be born in the 70s.
I really think he s been among us for a while and about to be revealed.
The current state of the world, the possibility of a ww3, the rabbis asserting the existence of the moshiach among us right now and his imminent presentation, the red cows being reintroduced in israel as well as the sacrifice ceremonial clothing and equipments recently fabricated, the school of priests who has recently opened to train them on how to perform sacrifices (which havent been performed since the 2nd temple 2000 years ago) are just some of the examples that make me believe so.
In any case, I dont see how the world, in the desperately degenerated state it is in, can make it any longer.
He is here already.
That actor turned president looks like a landscape gardener It’s theatre folks. Last week in Rome , he met up with Pope Francis who offered to facilitate negotiations. Zelensky was furious as he only wants help to keep the war going.
They’re all following the family plan.
A clear Black Sun/Son reference lining up with Lyuba Yakimchuk’s reference to the hollow sun during the Grammys last year in her mocking rendition of the Our Father or the Lord’s Prayer and the 88/14 tank export from Germany to Ukraine earlier this year. The blacked out spot where Jesus should be is making it clear(er) the intent to supplant him and introduce the Antichrist instead, who in a way is also present in the icon since he is the darkness, the negative, etc.
FWIW, there has also been at least one alleged Marian apparition where the message was clearly designed to introduce Marian worship by positioning her almost directly on a cross. This was the “Lady of All Nations” (the title alone suggestion the world communism the Antichrist is working towards). The Vatican has asked Catholics *not* to promote this apparition.
@chud
Look below at the papa worshipping his pagan statue of the Queen of Heave; what an abomination that spits second commandment these Luciferians are.
Here’s a long, and fully cited, although incomplete list of the Mary “Great Mother” Worship the Cattle Licks have declared directly against the scriptures themselves. As you once said, it seems the Papas either hate the scriptures or can’t read them… Better to practice magical cannibalism based on a completely literalist reading of a fanciful translation, yet to disregard and directly contradict thousands of other scriptural commands.
They worship Lucifer, with the serpent that lurks below the veil, and convince the cattle to bow before the Di-Hevel himself by playing pious.
1. Mary is the all holy one (CCC 2677)
2. Mary is second only to Eve (Mystici Corpois Christ, par. 110
3. Mary is to be prayed to (CCC 2679) equally (and in practice more) than YHWH
4. Mary sits at the right hand of Christ (Pope Pius X, 1835-1914, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 14) Pope bowing before stature of Mary
5. Mary is Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (CCC 969)
Mary is the great mother of the members of Christ (CCC 963)
6. Mary Queen over all things (CCC 966) including Heaven
7. Mary is the one who brings eternal life by her intercession (CCC 969)
8. Mary makes atonement for sins (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, page 213)
9. Mary crushed the head of the serpent (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)
10. Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966).
11. When considering the Church, there is no better way than to look to Mary, (CCC 972).
12. Catholics mus entrust themselves to Mary’s prayer (CCC 2677).
13. No man goeth to Christ but by His Mother,” (Vatican Website: Encyclical of Pope Leo 13th on the Rosary, Octobri Mense, Pope Leo 13th, 1903-1914).
14. Mary ascended to Heaven directly
It goes on and on…
This is not worshipping a pagan statue… Who cares about those pesky commandments about murder and worshipping idols?
Let’s burn the witches, rape the kids, and definitely worship statues.
>”Cattle Licks”
I’d never heard of these before you mentioned them. What are they exactly?
>”As you once said, it seems the Papas either hate the scriptures or can’t read them… Better to practice magical cannibalism based on a completely literalist reading of a fanciful translation, yet to disregard and directly contradict thousands of other scriptural commands.”
I said this? You must be thinking of some other chud.
>”[long list of pssages concerning Mary]”
I looked up a few of these and your list does indeed look accurate! I couldn’t find where it said to worship Mary, though. Are those in a separate list?
I’m trying to pinpoint when, precisely, our society shifted from recognizing a thing for what it is to requiring a system to “identify” itself via specific, self-attributed labeling for what it is in order to recognize it. This is the reason for all the tortuous language convolutions nowadays – if you dance around reality, no one has to acknowledge it.
Every one of those points is Mary-centric, yet you pretend this is…what, exactly?
What is worship?
Worship is the highest thing you give your time, energy and attention to. It is where you invest your faith and trust, it is whatever you most glorify and praise and believe will return to you good for it. It is whom or what you meditate on, that which takes precedence over all else in your life.
Some worship their careers, some money, some social or organizational standing, some assets, and on and on. Where your treasure is….
Why, having been given the son, do we beseech his mother and hold her in higher esteem? The one to go to to “get results”?
Do you not understand that, by calling Mary “immaculate” you immediately deny her son? His holiness is only made possible by hers, according to this “immaculate” concept.
Therefore, prayers and worship are directed towards Mary and her cohort of “saints” because either the masses believe she (and they) are more directly reliable than the Messiah, they are hedging their bets, or because the masses believe the Messiah is too busy or unconcerned to acknowledge their personal prayers to him. Or they are fully aware of the deception and embrace it. Either approach (and others may exist I am unaware of) negate Messiah.
>”Worship is the highest thing you give your time, energy and attention to. It is where you invest your faith and trust, it is whatever you most glorify and praise and believe will return to you good for it. It is whom or what you meditate on, that which takes precedence over all else in your life.
Some worship their careers, some money, some social or organizational standing, some assets, and on and on. Where your treasure is….”
Pretty good. I probably agree with this.
>”Why, having been given the son, do we beseech his mother and hold her in higher esteem?”
No one should hold her in higher esteem. I completely agree. That would be insane, yet some probably do.
>”The one to go to to “get results”?”
A Catholic or Orthodox Christian would tell you it’s because, being his mother, she is a particularly powerful intercessor. They don’t understand intercessors as being much different than asking a friend to pray for them.
>”Do you not understand that, by calling Mary “immaculate” you immediately deny her son?
[I assume you mean “one” rather than “you” because no one is using me as their standard.]
No, this does not follow. “Immaculate” is a necessary condition for being God, but is entirely insufficient on its own.
>”His holiness is only made possible by hers, according to this “immaculate” concept.””
No, this isn’t right. The Catholic and Orthodox understanding is that Mary would have received grace prior to giving birth to Jesus, so her holiness is contingent on his.
Well, thank you for setting me straight as to fine points of Catholicism despite your demurrals of having no dog in this debate. I would ask you to clarify or flesh this out, please, “No, this does not follow. “Immaculate” is a necessary condition for being God, but is entirely insufficient on its own.”
I’m reasonably certain Catholics see Mary and the “saints” as bit more significant than just “asking a friend to pray for them”. There is a reverence and faith in them which transcends strength in numbers.
Most Catholics I have known wear some amulet (St Christopher’s Medal) or other charm and are highly averse to removing these tokens even for a moment from their bodies because there is attributed more than just a remembrance to these items. They are held and rubbed in times of prayer, just as the rosary is. The rosary is a rote, repetitive prayer, prescribed to be repeated a set number of times depending on the significance of the offence it is supposedly paying debt for.
Matthew 6:7
Not that this is unheard of in Protestantism, only they will favor a cross charm, or a dove, or even at times a star of David.
>”I would ask you to clarify or flesh this out, please, “No, this does not follow. “Immaculate” is a necessary condition for being God, but is entirely insufficient on its own.””
Being immaculate means something or someone is “without blemish.” In order for someone to qualify as God, that person would have to be more than without blemish; it would require being omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, Creator of the Universe, etc.
>”I’m reasonably certain Catholics see Mary and the “saints” as bit more significant than just “asking a friend to pray for them”.
Whatever their practice, their theology is to acknowledge Mary’s special relationship to Jesus and ask for her help in obtaining grace from him on their behalf given her special relationship to him. It is understood as analogous to asking a friend to pray for them, but because she is the mother of Christ, they do have a greater respect for her (or at least ought to) than other intercessors, dead or alive.
>”Most Catholics I have known wear some amulet (St Christopher’s Medal) or other charm and are highly averse to removing these tokens even for a moment from their bodies because there is attributed more than just a remembrance to these items.
It sounds to me like you may be describing superstition. If so, I can’t answer for that.
>”Most Catholics I have known wear some amulet (St Christopher’s Medal) or other charm and are highly averse to removing these tokens even for a moment from their bodies because there is attributed more than just a remembrance to these items. They are held and rubbed in times of prayer, just as the rosary is. The rosary is a rote, repetitive prayer, prescribed to be repeated a set number of times depending on the significance of the offence it is supposedly paying debt for. Matthew 6:7″
It sounds like you may be describing superstition. If so, I have no reply for that. By their own theology, they shouldn’t be giving in to superstition. The Orthodox have a similar criticism of some Catholic practices.
Ahhh. I think I see now. My apologies to rtu (if there was ever a distinction).
Do Orthodox not use rosary? Do they not believe in relics of saints?
>”Ahhh. I think I see now. My apologies to rtu (if there was ever a distinction).
Do Orthodox not use rosary? Do they not believe in relics of saints?”
Orthodox will use a prayer rope or “chotki.” They do believe in the use of relics also. The repetition of a prayer or prayers is not a problem for either Catholics or Orthodox. Both, similar to the point you were making, do warn about saying prayers in a ‘dry’ way. I have read at least a few saints, Orthodox and Catholic, who warn against saying prayers lifelessly or without love for God, saying that this may even be more harmful than not praying.
What do prayer ropes or chotki or rosary mean to these believers? What do relics signify?
A prayer rope, chotki, or rosay should be a way to keep track of the prayers said, and also to remember God’s mercy towards them. For some, they become fashion accessories. The relics of a saint are a way of being physically close to someone who is close to God.
Okay, but if you are “keeping track of the prayers said” by counting beads, how is this not mindless, rote repetition? Is our Father an automaton we feed the set number of coins into to extract what we are seeking?
I pray solely from the feelings pouring forth from my heart, directly to the Father, and know that Messiah intercedes for me in my imperfection.
In fact, I may err in the other direction, by not praying so often as I should if I don’t feel it within me. I get disheartened and I clam up. This is also error.
We, each individual, can be close to the Father, without need of someone we esteem higher than ourselves. This is still a search for an intercessor. Yeshua IS our intercessor. We need no other. Comfort and agreement amongst the brethren is good and bolsters us, but this is, quite simply, chain of command.
Let’s pretend for a moment that YHWH is our Father (which He is). How might you approach a beloved father in your life now, if you wished to entreat him? Would you go and repeat words and mantras, rubbing beads? Would you bring along a couple of friends you’re sure he likes better than you to finagle on your behalf? Or would you go, sit at His feet and cultivate a relationship between YOU and HIM?
Go to Him, try Him, see if I lie or am mistaken. Just try it.
>”Go to Him, try Him, see if I lie or am mistaken. Just try it.”
What I do is irrelevant. If you have the impression that I am answering for myself, that is not what I’m intending.
>”Let’s pretend for a moment that YHWH is our Father (which He is). How might you approach a beloved father in your life now, if you wished to entreat him? […] Or would you go, sit at His feet and cultivate a relationship between YOU and HIM?”
There’s nothng opposed to this view in Catholic or Orthodox theology. They might add that you should approach the Father as well as the Son, or that you’d be foolish to ignore his mother if you were to visit him, but I’m not aware that they have a prohibition against doing just what you describe.
>”Would you go and repeat words and mantras, rubbing beads?”
To reiterate, both Orthodox and Catholic would warn against this approach.
>”Would you bring along a couple of friends you’re sure he likes better than you to finagle on your behalf?”
What I would do is irrelevant.
In concept, if I knew someone didn’t like me but his mother and his friends did like me, and I needed his help badly, I would of course ask his mother and friends to try and get him to help me. That would be the smart thing to do.
If I knew someone didn’t like me but I needed his help and had to make a good impression, I would be very polite to his mother and his friends while visiting him. That would be the smart thing to do.
I fully agree!
>”Okay, but if you are “keeping track of the prayers said” by counting beads, how is this not mindless, rote repetition? Is our Father an automaton we feed the set number of coins into to extract what we are seeking?”
“Mindless” and “rote” are modifying the word “repetition.” The prohibition is not against repetition, it’s against “mindless, rote repetition.”
>”I pray solely from the feelings pouring forth from my heart, directly to the Father, and know that Messiah intercedes for me in my imperfection.In fact, I may err in the other direction, by not praying so often as I should if I don’t feel it within me. I get disheartened and I clam up. This is also error.”
The Catholic and the Orthodox would have no problem with this statement.
>”We, each individual, can be close to the Father, without need of someone we esteem higher than ourselves.
Catholics and Orthodox would point you to John 14:6 on this one. How you understand that verse and what you accept may be different, that would just be their view.
>”This is still a search for an intercessor. Yeshua IS our intercessor.”
Catholics and Orthodox would agree that without the Messiah there is no redemption, making him *the* intercessor in a very real sense.
>”We need no other. Comfort and agreement amongst the brethren is good and bolsters us, but this is, quite simply, chain of command.”
Catholics and Orthodox are unlikely to disagree substantively. In fact, the Orthodox have a very strong tradition of this. You are likely to find elders among both who would add to your statement that although we need no other intercessor, we may receive benefits from other intercessors, simply because they consider it an act of humility not to count yourself worthy of approaching the King on your own.
As an orthodox, I pretty much agree with the analysis you’ve made. Mature and objective observations and I thank you for that.
There are, I’m affraid, some here that spent too much of their time studying the occult and it is very hard or almost impossible for them to distinguish things anymore. When one looks at dirt all the time everything else suddently looks like trash. They admire the “beauty and wisdom” in buddhism or other religions, but somehow real, unspoiled christianity must be satanic in their conception. Theology? Sacraments? Priesthood? Martyrs? Saints? Respect for the Mother of Jesus, the Logos? Jesus?( because they have a problem with the name, too). Prayer ropes? (I could go on forever). It is “paganism”, “satanism”, “cannibalism”. They understand nothing or simply cover their eyes and ears because the “precious hidden knowledge” they pretend they have lifts up their huge egos. They are too arrogant to let one explain so that they could reconsider things from an insider’s perspective. I’ve read lots of nonsense here in the comments. At first I felt outraged because some are blaspheming a lot, but now I just feel sad. These people don’t want to know more. They “know”!
@crisspf
Would you like me to show you all of the Luciferian solar worship symbols your patriarch wears and carries, symbols used to worship the Sun continually for 1000s of years before there ever was a Rome? To discuss the mass genocides in the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine empire? Shall we discuss the commandments of Moshe violated constantly? The commandments of Yeremiah? The commandments of Ezekiel? Or the words of Yeshua trampled as if they were nothing?
Should we discuss the open admission Catulisism absorbed and continued pagan practice and local deities as “saints”? Shall we discuss the dress and name of your priests taken directly from Babylon? Shall we discuss the celebrating of holidays in accordance with Mithraism and other pagan practices?
I am well versed in cattle lick and their offsprings (Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc.) theology, history, lexical choices, and ritual practices; there is a long and deep rooted history of child raping, genocide, lies, corruption and deceit, all veiled under mountains of false righteousness from the gentiles that trample the outer court. I do not speak from ignorance, but from a deep experience and lots of primary sourcing.
The vast majority of my studies and dedication is not to the occult, but to the scriptures in the original languages. You may not realise, but I hail from the same line of David, the same root of Ishi, the Aryeh Yehudah; the Occult is referenced throughout scriptures, as it is a corruption and twisting, much like the cattle lick doctrine, of the original teachings of my people; instead used for the use for personal gain (the papacy is the wealthiest organisation of the planet.) that have co-opted and destroyed what was once called The Way.
>”I am well versed in cattle lick and their offsprings (Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc.)”
I know you are “well versed,” but for what it’s worth the Orthodox do not consider themselves “offspring,” or any sort of spin-off, from the Catholics. This is because the Orthodox view the Catholics as having abandoned the true Christian faith in 1054. From the Orthodox perspective, this means the Catholics were the first Protestants, and the Protestants were merely the logical extension of what the Catholics had done in 1054.
🙏
@chud @crisspf
By this reasoning, then I can reason that you are making the argument that everything prior to the schism of 1054 represents a unified Cattle Lick church, including all doctrines and practices. Crisspf has scolded me for claiming to “know,” yet you seem unwilling to have a serious evidence based discussion regarding any of these topics which may invite a certain nuance of reality regarding the first 800-900 years of shared history of these two organisations. Why the total avoidance of these topics?
I recognise crisspf did first give some “history,” regarding Constantine, a lone church source itself, which is presumably biased in offering interpretations and opinions in its own favor regardless of the evidence strength. Thank you for giving this. It is still quite absurd, due to the significant attestations via multiple sources of the executions by Constantine of his family. The family was so murderous, that they had no male heirs except distant cousins by the 3rd ruling succession; there is no historical debate surrounding these facts.
Likewise there are 1000s of artifacts of Constantine issued after his “conversion,” which continue to extol Solar worship in direct, name, form, and symbolism, including coins, relics, and documents. More esoterically, there is a mountain of evidence, albeit which requires both inductive and deductive reasoning, thar can demonstrate the direct elements of Luciferian Solar worship, including the kults of Isis-Horus-Osiris, Mithras, Kybele, Serapis, Janus, and most of all l, julius Ka-SARos (it means “spirit of the beast,” in the ancient tongue, referencing the Saros cycle) and the cult of Solar emperors. The papacy directly even took the title of KaSARos and made it their own from day 1: Pontificus Maximus.
My point here is that both of you seem unwilling to have an objective, nuanced, profound and extensive discussion of the topics I am bringing forth, ignoring them entirely, while having a superficial discussion extolling all of the virtues of Eastern Orthodoxy based solely on nicely worded modern clerical documents regarding the exoteric (publicly professed) theologies. I am willing to listen to what you say, and have respectful forthright discussion in search while evaluating your words openly; are you willing to return the same?
>”As an orthodox, I pretty much agree with the analysis you’ve made. Mature and objective observations and I thank you for that.”
Thank you very much! I’m glad I could represent Orthodox theology fairly and in way that seemed accurate enough to you. I think Orthodoxy is one of the most compelling “proofs” (poor word choice there on my part, I know) that having knowledge is not the same as seeing. Your faith still produces saints among both scholars and those who never finish grade school, and all of them have the characteristic combination of simplicity and subtlety in their speech and writings that the Orthodox are known for.
>”There are, I’m affraid, some here that spent too much of their time studying the occult and it is very hard or almost impossible for them to distinguish things anymore. When one looks at dirt all the time everything else suddently looks like trash.”
Your words here remind me strongly of St. Paisios’ observations on people falling into the categories of flies or bees.
>”They admire the “beauty and wisdom” in buddhism or other religions, but somehow real, unspoiled christianity must be satanic in their conception. Theology? Sacraments? Priesthood? Martyrs? Saints? Respect for the Mother of Jesus, the Logos? Jesus?( because they have a problem with the name, too). Prayer ropes? (I could go on forever). It is “paganism”, “satanism”, “cannibalism”.
Yes, it is curious. And interestingly, some of it flies in the face of the symbolism in the Bible itself. No one, for instance, will question how sacred and powerful the Ark of the Covenant is, but it’s unthinkable and offensive that Mary, who literally contained the Messiah within herself would have a special role? Yet this is a very common objection I hear out in the world when people discuss Apostolic Christianity. I am sure you yourself have heard it more times than you can count.
>”They understand nothing or simply cover their eyes and ears because the “precious hidden knowledge” they pretend they have lifts up their huge egos. They are too arrogant to let one explain so that they could reconsider things from an insider’s perspective. I’ve read lots of nonsense here in the comments.
Yes, that does seem to be a real danger for all of us who start down the rabbit hole. As you will know better than I: “Being a theologian means first and foremost that one is an expert in the wiles of the devil.”
Just as a technical observation, there is a lot of inductive reasoning happening on this site (which makes sense based on the nature of it), but it seems sometimes to come at the expense of deductive, and can therefore spin out of control.
>”At first I felt outraged because some are blaspheming a lot, but now I just feel sad. These people don’t want to know more. They “know”!”
Yes, I think it’s interesting that Apostolic Christianity is often discarded so sloppily not just here, but all over! The Orthodox have gone to great pains, literally, to maintain the original deposit of Christian faith unchanged for over 2000 years. The Catholics, meanwhile, have created possibly the most comprehensive explanation of any system (poor word choice again from me, since much of it is also not systemic) of thought spanning both theology and philosophy and the relationship between the two, yet neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism are worthy of careful study from those who would see behind the veil?
@Igageharleya
Since the dawn of humanity, the masses have always chosen the murderer, liar and their Ba-Ra-Abban, and hated The Truth, Yeshua. They choose to worship the sun, because it’s big and shiny, rather than than YHWH, who be all existence, to whom the sun is but a grain of sand.
Also, since you mentioned Constantine in so many other comments on previous topics… I will repost my comment here:
give me that one or two, or tens unspoiled source/s where it says that Constantine, the christian emperor strangled his wife for fun. …and was she strangled, or was she slain, or was she drowned? Was it for fun or was it something else? You said “all of his close family members”. For someone so calculated, so precise, you should probably know that his mother, Helena ( doesn’t that qualify her as a close relative?) was not killed by her strangler-for-fun-imperial-son and lived quite a long life dying of old age (82). All of his close family members becomes not all of his close family members. Could it also be that “strangled his wife for fun” is actually slain or dead by other method? and was it for fun or was there some other reason? (because some historians, a few centuries old historians disagree with you).
Also regarding Constantine… he was not born christian. He became! That means he lived quite a long time among pagans. Becoming christian and emperor might have made things a bit more problematic in terms of forcing christianity on his very people. They were pagans! Pagans did force idolatry on christians, tortured and killed them in horrible ways for not betraying their faith. Christian leaders, the real christian leaders have not. A christian Constantine could and would have not imposed the new faith on his people the same way his predecesors did with their gods. The new faith, the new way had to make it’s own way to people’s hearts. To be assimilated and followed willingly. People had to be convinced it was the best way. … In time! That is what assimilation is after all.
“Roman opinion expected of its emperors not innovation but the preservation of traditional ways; Roman propaganda and political communication were conditioned, by statement, allusion, and symbol, to express these expectations. It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine’s coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive “Unconquered Sun,” was eliminated just over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius.”
Some of the ambiguities in Constantine’s public policies were therefore exacted by the respect due to established practice and by the difficulties of expressing, as well as of making, total changes suddenly. The suppression of paganism, by law and by the sporadic destruction of pagan shrines, is balanced by particular acts of deference.
Allow me to give you a different example of motive behind actions, of context and of consequences.
Was Vlad the Impaler a criminal of war? Maybe! And no, he is not considered a saint (in case you wondered). So, was he a criminal of war? It depends on how you want to see it and what suits your purposes best. Are you a muslim or a christian? You want to win by all costs or be fair, consider the context, see the purpose and the effects? So, was he christian? Yes! Did he kill? Yes! The Otoman Empire was a menace to his country and to all christian countries in East Europe. He was a defender, not an offender. Without him and a few other small rulers Europe would have been muslim now. It would have been Quran, not the Word of Christ.
“Any saint has a past, any sinner has a future”.
Was King David of the Old Testament a rapist? And a murderer? Yes! He did, though, repent and he has given us the beautiful, powerful, God-inspired Psalms. Past gives one’s future even more value when the sins are followed by repentance and by the change of one’s ways.
Was St Mary of Egypt a prostitute? Yes! Was St.Moses the Black a killer, a robber, a rapist? Yes! But the robber and the killer repented. The prostitute turned to Christ. The thief on the cross repented. He entered Heaven as Christ promissed. Saul of Tarsus repented. He became the Apostle and the martyr. St.Cyprianos was a sorcerer. He repented.
…Some of the greatest men and women of christianity had a “past”, sometimes a very dark past. Christ made His way to their hearts and provoked the big change because there was an honest search of something called Truth. And the Truth, the Way, the Life found them and changed them forever. Without us knowing their past and their 180 degree change we would perhaps not have enough courage to believe Christ can and will forgive, will receive, will unite with us when and where there is repentance and an authentic will to change.
The name of the church known as “Catholic,” or in Latin “Catolica,” is a reference to its namesake Vatika (Etruscan), Vat/Bat (Egypt), whom are solar cow deities of Luciferianism called “The Great Mother,” and “
Their name is taken directly from the Umbrian word Catulus, which was long used and adopted in Latin, inland which means in no uncertain terms: sacrificial animal, animal Property, usually Bovine. The traditions of Bull/Ba’al worship are well attested in Luciferian Solar Rites of Eurasia, from Gnossis in Crete, to the detestable Moloch of Canaan, to Vat/Hathor in Egypt, to Tannit in Phoenicia Carthage, to the White Heifer of the Minotaur, to the Sacrifical bull fighting of Spain (a true Catulus), to the sacred cows of Hinduism in India. The tradition is very old in Luciferianism, and the universalist church of the great mother’s blood lust chose the name for this purpose: the Luciferians tell you what they are doing; they see it as consent if you play along.
The word Catulus also appears through French, as Chatel: which specifically means property that are living beings, from which the word “Cattle,” in English comes. The word “Catalogue,” takes the same root, literally it is a “Cattle Log,” a book full of all of the types of animals owned by a master. And thus the “Catolica” church chose its “universalist name,” as a catalogue that brings together all of the sacrifical animals, the Cattle, under their mastery. That was the point from the first day.
The term “Lick,” comes directly from the Ancient Greek λειχω “Lick-O,” which means quite literally “to lick up.” And this they created a “universalist” Church where to bring all of the Cattle, the people they consider the living property of their master Lucifer masquerading as a Mar-Yam (Mar = Sea Yam = Ugaritic Sea Beast deity, it’s the beast out of the sea, quite literally….) in order to Lick Up his salt.
If you have ever been on a farm, you’ll know just how much Salt Licks attract all of the animals. The Sumerians talk a lot about this in their texts for farm raising in 5000 BCE; it’s not a new technique. And this they have created a Salt Lick for their Cattle, a Cattle Lick Church.
The word Church itself comes from The Scottish Kirk through the templars, originally referencing the deity Cersei. If you’ve read Homer, then you will know that Cersei lures men into her house promising sustenance, and feeds them a poison pill that turns them into a$$es. This is what the Cattle Lick Church does.
A very interesting etymology, thanks! It’s amazing how much names can reveal. I want to try!
Ok, here goes: Protestants have “protest” built into their name because they split off from the Catholics, which means they are defined only through their relationship to Catholics. I guess that makes Protestantism a lot like a parasite.
Hey, this is fun!
Where are you getting that this is a Protestant vs Catholic debate? All major religions have been seeded with lies. I understand that the Catholic portion stings you, as I have had to come to some deep realizations myself. It’s not easy, nor fun.
You are continuing to focus on a single insult you personally relate to and refuse to acknowledge the bigger picture.
What do you mean? I’m just testing out my etymology skills.
Sure, rtu. Hoping you will someday see.
You’re assuming the “Catholic portion stings” me. It doesn’t.
Well, you continue to do them a solid, regardless.
@Chud
This is quite accurate.
The protestant as parasite? It makes sense. They cut off on a few points but retained most of the rotten core.
@igageharleya
I would not define Protestantism as a “parasite,” of the cattle lick church. It is true that its name is chosen, as a method of defining itself in relationship to its origins of protesting against some of the most abominable aspects of its parent, such as Indulgences and Mass Genocide. As an allegory, the parent didn’t like being stood up to and called out for its abusive alcoholism, and so it kicked the questioning child to the curb and kept right on beating all of its other children who silently take it.
This is to say, Protestantism is not a parasite, but more of a child that rebelled against the crueler nature of its parent, the Cattle Licks. Is a child a parasite of its parents?
The argument is a common one made in logical debates as was popularised by some books in the 1980s and 90s (gives you a clue as to this person’s age and background.) The argument of the parasite child is made, as in the womb the developing child sucks off of the nutrient and energetic resources of the mother, and after birth continues to feed off the resources of its parents until it reaches full maturity; usually around 18-25 in modernity. Calling this child a parasite, as if it were a tape worm starving you, is of course quite a backwards characterisation.
Thus, we see in Protestantism, through this allegory, if a child (mischaracterised as a parasite) that it is a bloodline descended from this rebellious child that stood up to the abusive parent and was cast out of the household. It still carries the embedded DNA of twisted cattle lick ideology and practices, with a somewhat softer hand in general. Not every great grandchild is exactly like great grandpa, but they certainly carry his tendency towards alcoholism, even if they try to change.
As such, in many ways the potpourri of Protestant “denominations,” often has built in many of the same twists originally introduced by the Flavians -> Constantine into the Solar Re-legion of G-Zues, while introducing their own variations on motif; as many descendants in a family often carry common traits (may look alike or have certain behavioural tendencies) coming from their or common ancestor, but they are not all identical.
>”The argument is a common one made in logical debates as was popularised by some books in the 1980s and 90s (gives you a clue as to this person’s age and background.)”
It’s exposing when you say things like this. It shows how willing you are to exceed your evidence only to arrive at an error.
Right.
Chud says “Protestants can’t read.” Chud says “protestants’ name mean they are parasites of Catholocism.” Now Chud acts like he’s exposing me. At least its entertaining.
>”Chud says “Protestants can’t read.” Chud says “protestants’ name mean they are parasites of Catholocism.”
Correct. I said both of these things.
>”Now Chud acts like he’s exposing me. At least its entertaining.”
You should re-read what I wrote. _You_ speculated about _me_ as a person. What I wrote in response with had nothing to do with you as a person, but about how you work. Why is this personal for you? It isn’t for me.
@chud
You are claiming to know “how I work” here based upon one statement regarding Neurocognitive processing, which may or may not be accurate, and can’t be proven either way due to the shroud of anonymity of an Internet forum. It’s somewhat ironic that you admonish me for “overstepping the evidence.”
The broad brush assumption you are making about “how I work,” is unfortunately erroneous. It appears, although I have no way of verifying, that you may (or may not) have a motivation regarding personal experiences and/or beliefs which lead you to yet another erroneous broad brush conclusion in a line of erroneous broad brush statements such as “Protestants can’t read.” This time it is about “how I work.” I suspect the possibility that it may be that you don’t like the message, and may seek to discredit it by these means.
However, I freely admit to know absolutely nothing of you for certain. These are mere suppositions, based on a limited set of data points.
The previous comment you have taken issue with is directed to @igageharleya, who is training (and quite talented) to read sub-concious patterns in speech, and is discussing that certainly the linguistic patterns you have used so far,as well as your implied cultural references, do give some idea around your cognitive thought processes.
These ideas are always subject to re-evaluation as more evidence becomes available; that is “how I work:” I evaluate evidence, form theories in accordance with how strong the data is (always keeping an awareness of when the data set is limited or the patterns are weak) then look at how well the theory describes the data set as more data becomes available, and then monitor how well makes predictions in the future. I then consistently reconsider the underlying theoretical framework I’ve developed, and adjust or completely reformulate it in a search to come closer to approximating reality. This requires both inductive and deductive reasoning in healthy measure, and a strong ability to admit when I am wrong, or do not have strong knowledge or data regarding something.
This doesn’t mean I believe to know all about you; far from it, I am aware that I know next to nothing right now, the data is weak, and even when asked , you repeatedly refuse to give any answer and call it irrelevant. Yet, your words, references, patterns do however give certain data points regarding your concious and subconscious processes which show some trend and pattern, although for which it needs a lot more data points for evaluation.
So far, you have expressed and repeated broad brush vitriol against Protestants, without any backing evidence and which are clearly false (I’m pretty sure most Protestants in western countries are literate), showed great reverence for “apostolic Christianity,” and Eastern Orthodoxy and yet admonished me for “how I work,” by supposedly overstepping my evidence using inductive reasoning.
Another pattern so far is that you have continually refused to discuss and/or ignored any evidence and lines of reasoning I have brought up regarding the Aryeh Yehudah (who have written all of your scriptures, from whom Yeshua is born) and the founding, symbolism, ritual, genocidal nature, hierarchical structure etc. of Gentile Christianity and its deep connections to much older Luciferianism traditions, bloodlines, symbols, rituals, etc. Let us not forget it was founded first by the bloodline of Vespasian and Flavius Titus, and then made officially as the state religion by a Solar worshipping genocidal maniac (choked his wife and killed his kids) who chose a Babylonian Solar Demonic symbol to represent his Church.
You have simply ignored all of this discussion or called it “irrelevant.” Meanwhile, you have admonished me for “overstepping evidence.” The obvious contradiction and double standard is evident.
Meanwhile you have gone into great detail with others extolling and praising the great virtues of “apostolic Christianity,” and Eastern Orthodoxy, without any deeper discussion regarding the original scriptures, history, etc.
If you are really looking for Truth, I am willing to take the time to have a deeper, serious, and evidence based discussion regarding all of these topics.
>”You are claiming to know “how I work” here
No, I didn’t. I said _you_ are showing how _you_ work here.
>”based upon one statement”
Yes, it was an observation about one statement.
>”It’s somewhat ironic that you admonish me for “overstepping the evidence.”
If you followed the last two things I just said, you’ll see you’re doing it again here.
>”The broad brush assumption you are making about “how I work,” is unfortunately erroneous. It appears, although I have no way of verifying, that you may (or may not) have a motivation regarding personal experiences and/or beliefs
See above.
>”which lead you to yet another erroneous broad brush conclusion in a line of erroneous broad brush statements such as “Protestants can’t read.”
They can’t.
>”This time it is about “how I work.”
No, just the one statement. It was specious.
>”I suspect the possibility that it may be that you don’t like the message, and may seek to discredit it by these means.”
Suspect away.
>”The previous comment you have taken issue with is directed to @igageharleya, who is training (and quite talented) to read sub-concious patterns in speech, and is discussing that certainly the linguistic patterns you have used so far,as well as your implied cultural references, do give some idea around your cognitive thought processes.”
Cool.
>”These ideas are always subject to re-evaluation as more evidence becomes available; that is “how I work:” I evaluate evidence, form theories in accordance with how strong the data is (always keeping an awareness of when the data set is limited or the patterns are weak) then look at how well the theory describes the data set as more data becomes available, and then monitor how well makes predictions in the future. I then consistently reconsider the underlying theoretical framework I’ve developed, and adjust or completely reformulate it in a search to come closer to approximating reality. This requires both inductive and deductive reasoning in healthy measure, and a strong ability to admit when I am wrong, or do not have strong knowledge or data regarding something.
That’s very admirable. I accept that this is your way of working.
>”This doesn’t mean I believe to know all about you; far from it, I am aware that I know next to nothing right now, the data is weak, and even when asked , you repeatedly refuse to give any answer and call it irrelevant. Yet, your words, references, patterns do however give certain data points regarding your concious and subconscious processes which show some trend and pattern, although for which it needs a lot more data points for evaluation.
Okay.
>”So far, you have expressed and repeated broad brush vitriol against Protestants,
You mean to say “factual assertion.”
>” without any backing evidence and which are clearly false (I’m pretty sure most Protestants in western countries are literate),
You ask me if I’d like to engage in a nuanced conversation, but you’re missing the nuance here. But if you’d like me to respond in-kind: You’re “pretty sure?” How insulting! I personally am _certain_ most Protestants are literate in the West.
>”showed great reverence for “apostolic Christianity,” and Eastern Orthodoxy
Thank you!
>”and yet admonished me for “how I work,”
See above.
>”by supposedly overstepping my evidence using inductive reasoning.”
I was talking to crisspf when I said that. What makes you think I was talking about you?
>”Another pattern so far is that you have continually refused to discuss and/or ignored any evidence and lines of reasoning I have brought up regarding the Aryeh Yehudah (who have written all of your scriptures, from whom Yeshua is born) and the founding, symbolism, ritual, genocidal nature, hierarchical structure etc. of Gentile Christianity and its deep connections to much older Luciferianism traditions, bloodlines, symbols, rituals, etc.
Hmm… that name does sound familiar. Have you mentioned him before?
>”Let us not forget it was founded first by the bloodline of Vespasian and Flavius Titus, and then made officially as the state religion by a Solar worshipping genocidal maniac (choked his wife and killed his kids) who chose a Babylonian Solar Demonic symbol to represent his Church.
I will make a note of it.
>”You have simply ignored all of this discussion or called it “irrelevant.”
It mostly is.
>”Meanwhile, you have admonished me for “overstepping evidence.” The obvious contradiction and double standard is evident.”
If that’s how you see it, then that’s how you see it.
>”Meanwhile you have gone into great detail with others extolling and praising the great virtues of “apostolic Christianity,” and Eastern Orthodoxy,
I find others show a greater ability to stay on task in a conversation, even when disagreeing.
>”without any deeper discussion regarding the original scriptures, history, etc.”
I’d be willing to have that discussion in the right context.
>”If you are really looking for Truth, I am willing to take the time to have a deeper, serious, and evidence based discussion regarding all of these topics.”
That is to your credit, and I thank you for it.
@chud
Let’s follow the goal posts as you try to move them:
1) You say, based upon disagreeing with an interpretation of one sentence in scripture that “Protestants can’t read,” then you use the obviously highly simplistic etymology of the name “protest” within the name of Protestant to unequivocally state “Protestants are parasites.” Now you claim these are well founded factual assertions. Right… sure. Can you provide stronger reference evidence and expound on why these are “factual assertions?”
2) I made one statement regarding the possibility of making some inferences (without stating what they might be) to another person, about your apparent neurocognitive processes in speech patterns, with regards to generalised culturally contextual information that appears to be present in what you have written, and you boldly claim:
“It’s exposing when you say things like this. It shows how willing you are to exceed your evidence only to arrive at an error.”
When I address this with significant nuance, you backtrack and state:
“What I wrote in response with had nothing to do with you as a person, but about how you work.”
Both of these, to anyone reasonable reading them, take one statement I made about the possibility of making inference, and then extrapolating your interpretation of that into
1) a strongly worded statement about my character.
and then when confronted and disarmed regarding that you move the goal posts to
2) a strongly asserted overall statement about “how I work.” Which still, to any reasonable person reading, continues to be a generalised statement about my character extrapolated from a singular data point, which is not supported by facts.
It is also in line with your pattern of other far over generalised strongly asserted statements such as declaring “Protestants can’t read,” supposedly based on a single verse’s interpretation, and “Protestants are parasites,” supposedly based on a single etymology of “protest.” It shows a very particular communication pattern and thought process.
Now that I have addressed this twice, you’ve moved the goala third time and said:
“Yes, it was an observation about one statement.”
Ok right. It was, with a then twice reiterated generalised assertion about a facet of my character based on that one statement. If you are able to make these strong generalised assertions, are you capable of bringing forth more evidencr and data to support them?
You also seem to claim to be able to unilaterally declare what is “on task,” and what is off task, in a DI-alogue (two way). It appears to be a tactic, so as to be able to side step anything in the conversation that has been brought up that might be less than positive and require significant nuance regarding the origins, symbolism, rituals, translations, etc. of Gentile “Christianity,” and their strong and pervasive connections with rape, genocide, paganism, Luciferianism/Solar Worship, etc.
That you are unwilling to discuss these things does not mean they are on or off task, especially since any discussion with the aim of understanding scriptural interpretations, Gentile doctrines, rituals and practices as they exist currently. clearly necessitates discussing the history, origins, rituals, dogmas, transgressions, esoteric practices, symbolisms, and bloodlines involved in Gentile Christianity. How else do we contextualise and understand the present state of things?
You can try to unilaterally claim these things are “off task,” as if you were the authoritative school teacher running a guided classroom discussion, but it doesn’t mean much except that it is simply your unilateral opinion, and from a reasonable vantage point, it strongly indicates that you are simply unwilling to discuss them for specific personal reasons.
I knew we’d find some common ground.
>“ The name of the church known as “Catholic,” or in Latin “Catolica,” is a reference to its namesake Vatika (Etruscan), Vat/Bat (Egypt), whom are solar cow deities of Luciferianism called “The Great Mother,”
Their name is taken directly from the Umbrian word Catulus, which was long used and adopted in Latin, inland which means in no uncertain terms: sacrificial animal, animal Property, usually Bovine. The traditions of Bull/Ba’al worship are well attested in Luciferian Solar Rites of Eurasia, from Gnossis in Crete, to the detestable Moloch of Canaan, to Vat/Hathor in Egypt, to Tannit in Phoenicia Carthage, to the White Heifer of the Minotaur, to the Sacrifical bull fighting of Spain (a true Catulus), to the sacred cows of Hinduism in India. The tradition is very old in Luciferianism, and the universalist church of the great mother’s blood lust chose the name for this purpose: the Luciferians tell you what they are doing; they see it as consent if you play along.”
You see you can create quite a novel starting from one word. You extract and distort, then combine elements in such a way (convincing way) that someone a little bit more naive, or lazy, or weak in his faith, or outside the Church is being taken by surprise by your wordy avalanche and “buy a boat because of writing skits”.
It amazes me that you simply ignore the greek origin of the word.
Also,… Catholic Orthodox (orthos+doxa= straight/right opinion) Church = Universal Right/Straight/in truth Church.
I agree that some “shepards” are wolves. they use and abuse both faith and people. I also want to underline that Christ’s teachings are open, not occult and available to both educated and illiterate people, rich and poor, all colours and nations.
Mary, the Holy Mother of Jesus Christ is the one we give our respect to, and not some pagan godess or some luciferic woman predestined to be the mother of the anti-christ. We know whom we give our respects to. We esteem that particular, unique, special woman who was and is Mother of Christ. To the orthodox and also true catholics she is our Emperess, the Holy Virgin, the spotless dove, most beautiful flower in the gardens of heaven. We love her and treasure her because she was that one, outstanding woman worthy to carry in her womb God incarnated (and please, take your etymologies and insults elsewhere). Orthodox believers do worship Christ, yes, Jesus Christ (=Iisus Hristos = Iesous (Ιησους) Christos (Χριστος) = the Son\ the Logos , not Mithras or Horus or whatever Zeitgeist impostor you sell us here. True and in Truth believers KNOW whom they worship and show esteem to.
they blacked out DeSantis like this today on yt. 😒
Got a link handy?