I flip the racist card around to mock those who use it against me, but overall it's a contrivance fabricated by marxists, and it's not my choice of focus for an argument. Is that the sort of point you and OP are trying to make too?
Maybe it's just a poor choice in vehicle for the message. This girl (or at least this clip of her) is pretty cringe too. Whoo, ad hominem infighting instead of making a real point.
Really late reply here my apologies, busy weekend, but yeah I still agree with you on a ton of what you say. I'm Messianic (I tend to call it "first-century Christian"), and yep the Nicene council was when Christianity was paganized and subverted. They didn't even allow the original Jewish Christians to appear, because they still tried to follow Sabbath and the Torah dietary commandments and such. Which Jesus Himself did. I take Paul's letters with a grain of salt too, they have some wisdom as most preachers do, but they're full of human sophistry and I'm not sure if they needed to be canonized, because of the confusion his words have sown. I do believe the OT is God's Truth though, I'm not sure if you're saying that we can't be certain of those books either. The Law still stands apart from what Jesus replaced by becoming a permanent sacrifice to cover our sins (sin offerings, plus the temple is currently destroyed), and that was what Jesus was telling us to do, when he said to believe and follow him. Matthew 5:17-20.
I still can't get behind not judging good and evil acts, because without discernment and a desire to separate from evil and to teach our children the same, society becomes the lawless, hedonistic mess it is now. God says to purge the evil from your midst when it comes to the ekklesia/body of Christ (from ourselves mostly, but also if heresy like for example those pagan Niceneans comes in, or that it's okay to punish non-Christians for not believing, or that Jesus abolished the Law instead of telling us to abide by it, should you let any false aka sinful doctrines like these examples stand to leaven the whole lump?), so I can't reconcile that order with never being judgemental to some degree. But I agree that God's Holy Spirit is a powerful helper for discernment, which is why Jesus said this "helper" would come when He ascended. it's not our place to judge souls. Loving and treating neighbors as yourself is crucial.
And I know I dodged the question of translation issues, because that would take a lot of time that I don't currently have, to dig up references, so I'm sorry for that. There was one really good one from a Torah study I did last week, which I stupidly didn't write down, thinking I'd remember it. And I've seen some between the Aramaic and Greek versions of Matthew, ones that seem to be a scribal error. Perhaps I can get that all together for the future.
Heheh yeah, that's what I'm trying to say. I agree with you. It seems to be the human dogma and tradition (much of which came about under Constantine and the Nicene Council) which causes contradiction. I used to think that Paul's words were more contradictory than they are if you don't try to modernize and dogmatize the heck out of them. But like I mentioned, I'm learning new ways of seeing it, and understanding a little more clearly. So no, I don't know of a solid example of true contradiction within the Bible itself, between its parts. Only of churches/dogma with the Bible, much of which arose from Paul's tricky wording in his letters to churches, letters which he likely never would have even thought of as a candidate for including in Bible canon.
The dogmatic contradiction that the entire modern church is built upon -- that the Law died on the cross with Jesus, thus we don't have to follow it anymore -- is one. It's pretty much the one. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
There are passages in Galatians, Hebrews, Romans, where Paul's writings become near-riddles with the clever logic he's trying to use to make his point. Jesus saves, the Law alone was not enough because humans corrupted it, but this does not mean the Law is wrong, and Paul says as much. Paul says in Gal 2:16 "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." You have to know the contemporary culture, knowledge-base, and the original language (and also use your common sense) to get a better understanding of what he's attempting to say here, than just "oh, he's saying the works of the law alone don't save, therefore let's throw out the law completely".
Jesus through His death and sacrifice is our Redeemer, He covered our mistakes and trespasses the same way that the repeated sin offerings did in the Temple while it stood. He will be our Salvation on Judgment Day. But neither Paul nor Jesus Himself once say that trespassing is now acceptable to God. The Law was never revoked. Only the sacrifice was changed, and the Temple is now currently in our hearts instead of built of brick and stone. We are saved through our faith in God, His Word, His Son, His Works -- so if you have faith, you'd do as you're commanded, because that is how you show true faith and love.
So when Jesus spoke and talked about His own miracles that He performed in front of many witnesses, and the miracles of healing and exorcism and such that His disciples would be able to do, and when He talked of his own raising from the dead, and ascendance to Heaven to be with His Father, and when he did actually reappear with stigmata and then ascended, was lifted up into the sky.... Do you believe those "magic tricks and bullshit"? or no? Do you believe in the Law that Jesus preached and adhered to fully, which He knew full well to be founded in miraculous ways on Earth to the Israelites? The plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the cloud of the Lord's Glory and the Pillar of Fire that accompanied Israel in the wandering through the wilderness?
You can't really lay claim to Jesus's words and philosophy without the "magic tricks."
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but not the part of "not judging good and evil at all." Do you believe in the Law of God, and is it still in effect? What would you say to the fact that Jesus is the Judge of mankind? He was telling us regular humans to not be judgmental if we ourselves sin, yes. And that's essentially everybody. But even if we aren't to be judgers of souls like Jesus earned the right to be, we do have to be critical of our world and habits at a level where it allows us to judge good behavior from evil works, so we may avoid that evil and do good.
God judges, and Jesus will be upon the White Throne at Judgment Day. Judgment is still a massive part of biblical truth. And it is difficult to claim that you fully love God if you do not obey Him, and listen to the commands/laws He gives -- ie, learn to define good from evil, keep yourself holy and clean, and don't cast pearls before swine. How do we know a swine if we do not "judge" it to some small degree? How can we love our child if we don't "judge" and correct his bad behavior? Letting a boy run rampant in sinful ways to his own destruction is not love.
There is, but with some caveats. At least for me, recently. And sorry I'm not the person you responded to, this is just a topic I'm very much into. I used to be very anti-Pauline for many years, and it still irks me a lot that he would word things the way he does, because those attempts to be some sort of philosopher with a ton of sophistry in his letters -- instead of simply preaching Jesus and His laws and Way to the world plainly -- tend to get twisted easily. Granted he was trying to take the Bible to those outside of the house of Israel, and he was more or less raised "at the feet of Gamaliel", meaning he knew the Pharisaical traditions and manner of arguments well. He was a lawman/lawyer, a politician for want of a better word. I can only speak for myself, but I tend to view him as I would a preacher, and I take him with varying amounts of salt.
The only reason I've become more open to accepting his words recently (because he does have some good and encouraging things to say, and interesting ways of framing Biblical ideas), is because I joined a real Messianic/Hebraic congregation instead of doing only self-study of the Bible, and they get really deep into the Aramaic of the Peshitta, and the Greek and of course the Hebrew. The way they explain how Paul's sophistry can easily be twisted into what has become modern Christianity and the various English translations (Which Peter warned about!) but also how if you read the overall message and context, Paul is trying to say that he's not here to override the Gospel at all. It's frustrating that foreign translations would have so much effect on meaning, but of course they do, and here we are.
Reading the whole context while paying mind to the original Aramaic/Greek words, reading more literal translations, and speaking with people who can make sense of the "dead to the Law" lines and point out the translation-interpretation issues which plague them, has really helped. I have a lot to learn yet, and I could never claim to understand everything correctly. But yeah those translation issues, where the contradictions become too great to ignore, are reinforced by millenia of dogma and tradition, like a feedback loop. You interpret the Bible one way, so you translate the original languages that way, then your followers do the same, and again. Modern Christian churches of course wouldn't want to stop being Catholically Christian, they wish to keep preaching Lawlessness and Trinitarianism because it's comfortable and safe, and to keep pagan Easters and Christmases instead of God's own Holy Feasts -- even though the two are so antithetical to God's wishes that it hurts. (Easter is a fertility ritual linked to ba'al worhip, and Christmas trees are esentially the asherim (tree-idols) that God commanded be cut down from all Israel.)
In the end, Jesus's words trump Paul's. I still focus on Jesus and His teaching of His Father's Law first.
You also sort of ignored the entire section of my post where I was agreeing with you. But the fact that no-one in colonial America was even considered a lifetime-slave until Johnson sued for ownership of Casor in 1655, and that Johnson was a former indentured servant himself who served his term and became a free man, proves your point is moot. African slaves and Irish slaves were both considered indentured servants. Only after that lawsuit was there legal precedent for lifetime ownership.
I suggest this article as a rebuttal to the semantics: https://www.lombardiletter.com/did-america-have-more-irish-slaves/21187/
"No-one thinks blacks deserve reparations"
This is the "popular" narrative that's being pushed, and regular everyday people give legitimacy to it for being on mainstream news. Big tech and big corporations are pushing for it. Half the government is pushing for it. My own sister-in-law pulled the race card on me last year because I dared to talk on the violence connected to the BLM marches and she knows I don't have a racist bone in my body. She just thinks that black people are oppressed and deserve even more governmental favoritism than they currently enjoy to make up for the past. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd say that's not "nobody". This is why you're frustrating so many people with your vague arguments, picking fault with a simple meme-graphic and then pretending the root issue doesn't even exist.
You are likely not wrong about a lot of things, but you seem to be debating for the sake of debating and missing the entire point. If you have links to share? I'd say share them with everyone if your aim is truly to debunk the meme posted. Otherwise, that meme is as trustworthy as your own word right now. You're just some rando on the internet, same as everyone else. This why I'm trying to stick to principles and concepts. Can I even trust what I just read on Wikipedia? Are we to go that far into historical nihilism? Disprove the meme with some sort of evidence, and I would gladly hear it.
Firstly, them being political prisoners is not really a great thing to use to justify the act, or to say they somehow "had it easier".
Secondly, yes, you are correct in that the general rule back in that era when it came to western nations, that you didn't own a slave for life. It was indentured servitude, bondservants, tied by debt which could be paid off. I don't really have a problem with this, because it beats the current system of "throw them all in prison and make them stamp plates and dig ditches and make the nation pay for it." When it was done correctly, you could have your debts taken on by someone who could afford to pay them, and then you worked their fields or the like until your debt was repaid through that labor. According to the Bible for those in Israel, they were to be released at national seven-year intervals, sabbath years. It seems perhaps that Westerners took on that standard of ethics in a way.
Now, obviously the biggest issue with it all, was that it was possible to abuse that system by forcing your fellow men into debt maliciously, and thus into servitude. But a servant was still "supposed" to be set free once he'd served his term. But in 1654-55 in America, a man named Anthony Johnson sued for the return of John Casor, a slave who left his plantation because he claimed he had been kept far past his contract. Initially Johnson lost, but the next year he won an appeal, and Casor was returned to him to be owned in perpetuity. He then became the first man in America to become enslaved for life. This was the precedent that set the cases for further wrongful ownership of other men and women across the country.
The twist is, Anthony Johnson was a black man, a former indentured servant himself. According to Wikipedia, he had four other slaves at the time, all white. This debate is less about the method into which people fell or were forced into servitude, and more about questioning: why should black people deserve reparations more than any other race, for something so far in the past? They are not accountable as a race for the cruelty of one man in 1655, but white folks aren't either for the small percentage that owned those permaslaves. There were slaves and slavers of all colors and creeds. White westerners were nowhere near alone in the immorality of reducing humans to no more than property.
$60,000.00 = 6 million cents 🤔
It's OUR level of offense, you individualist bigot!! You will own nothing, not even your own opinions, and like it!!!
I noticed it too haha, guess somebody just had to hit the typo quota for memesmithing 😆
Store brand is better than that crap, coke is just too syrupy. And it's still just sugar water anyway. If we all cut it out cold from our lives it would be no loss whatsoever to society. Perhaps even a net gain.
What was he expecting? It was a cockfight, his just lost!
Do you sleep with these men? If no, then don't fall for the hypersexualization or the Marxist name games. Once upon a time, it used to be much more socially acceptable to be affectionate and emotionally connected with those of the same sex as yourself. Within families, and without. It was socially acceptable for men to look up to their fellow men and appreciate them with affection. When everything began to be hypersexualized, when every close same-sex friendship in media became "queerbaiting" and a litany of benign words and phases became innuendo and "phrasinggg" jokes, it essentially ruined the ability for platonic relationships to form in nonsexual innocence.
Perhaps you simply look up to and admire such men, and compared with women who would choose to be slobs so they don't have to compete in the marriage realm, it's only natural you would gravitate toward them. They are good role models, and perhaps good friends. And it's hard to not interpret those feelings as sexual when the world bombards us with titillating images constantly. Tldr.... There are different types of love, and painting these feelings with the broad brush of "bisexuality" is such a sad debasement of it.
Your first paragraph hit hard. I know that exact feeling, pulling yourself away from your network, because you don't want the backlash from the conservative things you post to reach them too. The whole process is insidious, to where we even feel the need to create "social distance" ourselves, with how bad it is.
Listening to the quislings make arguments akin to "you can have all the truth and facts in the world on your side, but you have to look at how you're tarnishing your image and ours" makes my skin crawl with rage. And this is the next generation of lawyers? These are who are meant to defend wrongly-accused citizens in court? "Sorry sir but you sound angry so all this evidence proving your innocence doesn't count, we deem you a mentally unstable person and mentally unstable people are often capable of committing crimes, therefore you are guilty." God help us all.
Oh and for God's sake, how many times did Lin say "return my money and you can take my name off the building", and they dodged that simple solution like dog shit on fire? "Think about how you're raking our reputation through the mud by association", they say, blatantly ignoring the fact they could end it in an instant by refunding him.
Garbage people, garbage lawyers, garbage logic, garbage ideology.
No, they're just choosing not to be spiteful even if they have reason to be. It's simple internet decency -- dare I say netiquette -- that too many people lack nowadays. It's still findable and the source is shareable without saying his name, and tbh it might martyr him somewhat. I want to say good on them for trying to stay above that mess.
Patriotism is not an organization, it's an idea :P
But yeah leadership needs to be local, cellular. Think of how Antifa works, like it or not it's annoyingly effective. The internet is great for spreading ideas virally, but the only way any of us will make an enduring difference is in our own home towns and states.
And we have Jesus, whether others follow Him doesn't matter. It matters that we stay true. Become the light on a hill, and others will gather to it in dark times.
The return of the Messiah Jesus Christ, and the beginning of His 1000 year reign? Yes please, sign me up.
The presidency is not a lawmaking position. It is that of an executor. He refused to be a dictator, and I don't think it will ever be in him to be one. At certain points, his voice was all he had.
The GOP are the true snakes, they've been nothing more than a paper tiger for the Dems to progress their agenda against for decades.
That's awesome and inspiring to hear, keep up the good work! The phone is the next hurdle for me too. Still working on that, but I'm getting much better at just leaving it in another room. I honestly mostly only read non-MSM news and op eds on it when I do have it in hand, but even then that time can get away from me when it starts.
I've been doing some Schoolism art courses and I'm learning to knit and play violin hehe. Got some lingering home improvement projects done too.... Also finally started going to church to fill the socializing gap Instagram left, in a much healthier way 👍