|
|
Post by ShadowSouL Likes This on Aug 17, 2023 5:45:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Aug 18, 2023 6:30:26 GMT
Cult leaders are dime a dozen, many have been far more successful than Jesus in the short term. There is nothing special in claiming Jesus was historical. Christianity was a perfect storm of Jewish Apocalypticism, Greek literature influence, Paul welcoming Gentiles into a Jewish sect, Roman political changes, and Christianity's flexibility and adaptability. Jesus didn't create Christianity, Paul did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2023 15:26:51 GMT
Eh, 4 out of 5 of these points are very weak:
Point 1- Ehrman goes on to argue that we don't have this information for nearly every single person in the ancient world and therefore its absence for Jesus is in no way significant. Interesting this article does not include that part of the quote.
Point 2 - Um, Paul does not dismiss James and Peter as nobodies and he refers to the Twelve. And there are some parts of Paul that could be argued to show some knowledge of Jesus' life. But Paul wasn't writing a history or trying to convince non-believers.
Point 3 - Yes, this is likely true.
Point 4 - Yes there are contradictions amongst the Gospels - there are also parts where they agree. The claim that Matthew and Luke just reworked Mark with no other sources is dubious.
Point 5 - Irrelevant. That people disagree on Jesus' motivation hardly suggests he didn't exist at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Aug 23, 2023 20:50:04 GMT
That Paul is already addressing a cult with chapters as far as Spain, that is perpetuating a risen lord story and whom they claim is the messiah who is returning soon to vindicate them, indicates they were talking about and praying to a real man who probably was executed for being a rebellious troublemaker, even if he preached non-violence. Did the people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus alive after he died really see him, probably not. Most of what lands in the Gospels is confabulation, hearsay, and outright lies. Whether people will believe a story depends on the abilities of the storyteller.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostlymurr on Aug 24, 2023 13:46:14 GMT
Jesus having been a real person seems probable. Yeah, there's no first hand account, but he was also a dirt poor homeless dude wandering through a now 2000 year old empire in which most records, of everyone, have been lost to whatever natural conditions or burned. There are plenty of homeless and human trafficked people alive today with no existent record... in our age of records. Later 1st and 2nd century historians mentioning him (yes, a couple forgeries and embellishments, and a few that seem to be neither) may have disagreed on narrative of his relevance, but none seem to be all, "why are we talking about this dude who didn't even exist?"
The narrative of Jesus is a different matter, but even considering that, it's worth noting authors of what's now the New Testament weren't trying to portray him in an historically accurate way (they weren't like thinking, "we gotta make sure people 2000 years from now know he was real!"), but rather intentionally fitting him into known Greek, Roman, and Jewish myths to convey ideas and perspectives on what he said, and spread that to new communities through stories (as with others who were not Jesus).
He was functionally what we'd understand as a revolutionary, not going around to new places and saying, "hey, there's this dude who said to do this, so you should do it" - but equating him to heroic figures (and any implications those mythological and historical figures would've represented to people then, in context of their own lives and sociopolitical perspective, much as we use Che Guevara or Johhny Appleseed or whoever to represent *ideas* beyond their own lives) is entertaining, a story people will listen to, and thus a vehicle to represent broader ideas.
The modern Christian narrative of Jesus as "divine" manifestation of God on Earth even conflicts Jesus' own words in the NT; the only title he absolutely claimed, withoutba cheeky challenge to who he was speaking to, was Son of Man, and while doing so he explicitly challenges what that means/his audience's understanding of that concept.
Even the Jewish scripture it all grew out of was originally, likely, knowingly folklore used to teach kids through story, before being turned into doctrine by the very authorities Jesus seemingly went around taking the piss out of. Basically, he was a revolutionary who went around telling people their concept of faith was vain and empty and had been co-opted by the rich and powerful, who manipulated it into doctrines for the purpose of exploiting them, and to stop buying their BS. The NT authors placed this parallel to myths people already knew that expressed similar ideas (not, "hey, this dude is divine af"; but, "see, what he said is similar to this other shit ya'll have in your culture already... do you understand it now?"). 2000 years of Christians turning it into some secret society fairy tale befitting a CGi-laden blockbuster isn't reflective of Jesus, as a historical person, so much as their own idiocy and power structures to usurp political power, similar to those he criticized that were contemporary to himself. He was likely just a dude who saw their hypocrisies and had the balls to lay it all out before them with charisma and flair, figuratively spitting in their faces while doing so. So, asking, "but did he really do this awesome magic trick?" seems to be missing the point entirely, and willfully ignoring what Jeebus presumably actually said/taught
As for Paul, even the other "disciples" seemed to think he was annoying loon. The Pauline texts were important to the initial structure of the core Christian community (like, literal community - "we're all living together as we plot how to overthrow society" - but don't seem to have been especially popular among the communities they were going out and "evangelizing" to. Paul, prior to texts being collected and used to form a narrative ("k, these Christians are getting annoying, let's throw them a bone so they stfu a bit") was kinda the disciple-community's property manager/super.
Also, more speculative here/assuming a bit that's never stated (but contextually fits both the historical account and Jesus' own predilection for the trash of society): Mary, his mom, was likely a "prostitute"/human trafficking victim who used Joseph's stability to get out, then flee so they wouldn't find her or kill her off-record son in retaliation for her escaping (something documented then of others, something that still happens)
|
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Aug 25, 2023 8:22:13 GMT
It is all myth, whichever way one looks at it. Jesus's genuine representation, whoever he was (if he was), can never be proven.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 29, 2023 14:28:31 GMT
Eh, 4 out of 5 of these points are very weak: Point 1- Ehrman goes on to argue that we don't have this information for nearly every single person in the ancient world and therefore its absence for Jesus is in no way significant. Interesting this article does not include that part of the quote. Point 2 - Um, Paul does not dismiss James and Peter as nobodies and he refers to the Twelve. And there are some parts of Paul that could be argued to show some knowledge of Jesus' life. But Paul wasn't writing a history or trying to convince non-believers. Point 3 - Yes, this is likely true. Point 4 - Yes there are contradictions amongst the Gospels - there are also parts where they agree. The claim that Matthew and Luke just reworked Mark with no other sources is dubious.Point 5 - Irrelevant. That people disagree on Jesus' motivation hardly suggests he didn't exist at all. I'm going to say that if they were no contradictions in the Gospels, the chances of the entire story being fabricated would increase. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Aug 30, 2023 7:20:30 GMT
That Paul is already addressing a cult with chapters as far as Spain, that is perpetuating a risen lord story and whom they claim is the messiah who is returning soon to vindicate them, indicates they were talking about and praying to a real man who probably was executed for being a rebellious troublemaker, even if he preached non-violence. Did the people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus alive after he died really see him, probably not. Most of what lands in the Gospels is confabulation, hearsay, and outright lies. Whether people will believe a story depends on the abilities of the storyteller. You make a solid argument here that if Christianity was a later fabrication, it wouldn't have taken root in such far-flung places so quickly. I believe Jesus was a real person although I'm not sure his namesake religion is what he had in mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Aug 30, 2023 7:30:14 GMT
Eh, 4 out of 5 of these points are very weak: Point 1- Ehrman goes on to argue that we don't have this information for nearly every single person in the ancient world and therefore its absence for Jesus is in no way significant. Interesting this article does not include that part of the quote. Point 2 - Um, Paul does not dismiss James and Peter as nobodies and he refers to the Twelve. And there are some parts of Paul that could be argued to show some knowledge of Jesus' life. But Paul wasn't writing a history or trying to convince non-believers. Point 3 - Yes, this is likely true. Point 4 - Yes there are contradictions amongst the Gospels - there are also parts where they agree. The claim that Matthew and Luke just reworked Mark with no other sources is dubious.Point 5 - Irrelevant. That people disagree on Jesus' motivation hardly suggests he didn't exist at all. I'm going to say that if they were no contradictions in the Gospels, the chances of the entire story being fabricated would increase. The contradictions are deeper than whether Jesus went here or there, they differ in the nature of Jesus and of the Apostles. For example, one could argue that Mark is undermining the apostles, and I did in a thread some months back. And if you count Paul as an Apostle, the understanding of Jesus' nature and time on Earth vary quite a bit even among those close to his time. These differences are still with us today when you dig into the various doctrines, with some believing Jesus only died to bring the gospel to the dead while others believe he was a sacrifice for our sins and took the place of Jewish animal sacrifice. And it is mostly a dead belief today, but at the time some believed that Jesus had come to overthrow Yahweh and establish a new dominant god. |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Sept 20, 2023 0:13:54 GMT
Either way one looks at it, the key term here is myth. Any truth behind the parable of Christ has been distorted and mutilated beyond recognition. Now it is about the RIC, Religious Industrial Complex. Everything has its place for profit and power.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 21, 2023 17:46:06 GMT
The unprovoked and irrational hatred that Valerie Tarico has for the existence of Jesus is nothing new.
This hatred that Valerie sells is itself very telling. She has an incredible amount of sheep following her. Does Valerie believe in these five statements? She considers them "points", when they are all five totally pointless, which proves there is nothing natural in her thought processes at all. So it is with all who consider these five assertions to be "points". Jesus is unprecedented. The closest that Greeks or Romans have to him is Prometheus, the lifetime loser. No Greek hero was whipped into defeat on Earth as much as Jesus was whipped into defeat on Earth. He's unprecedented, and his story goes against every single grain that makes a story that people want to hear, believe, and retell.
The early church wasn't rich. They didn't have the resources to produce the best manuscripts, nor to save them. They were stories told and retold, written and transcribed as well as possible. The few contradictions in the gospels are quite natural. The gospel of John and the Revelation is accepted as being written by a younger friend of John, maybe on Patmos, who had the same name. Patmos is a long way from the other places that the other gospels came from.
Jesus existed at a time and a place where his image wouldn't be "iconic". That's important right there. He had at least four brothers, descendants of David, actually legitimate descendants of David who weren't in danger of being called bastards, from which the apostles could search for a new "Messiah" from either them or their offspring. None of these followers of Jesus had mashochistic tendencies. You certainly wouldn't live long as a fisherman on the sea of Galilee if you had suicidal tendencies, so we know they didn't want to get flayed alive and crucified and burned and beheaded by spreading the news that Jesus came back from the dead. They obviously wanted to find a Messiah from an easier source that wouldn't be suicidal for them.
We could go on with even more historical evidence that is certainly more objective than testimonies from people who had to please the Caesars or the publishers at the time, so only retards feel that the brown nosing evidence is objective compared to that of the gospels.
People here have proven that to be a fact. How many here are sheep for Valerie and people like her? Half the people here at least.
And only a total retard thinks people haven't been leaning this way for the approximate 2000 centuries since Jesus walked the Earth.
2000 years of denial and hatred and ignorance of the masses who want to believe someone didn't even exist. That's uncanny. It's past "uncanny". It's supernatural.
The very existence of the good God is only evident in this fallen world by the obvious existence of the evil prince who is the false accuser.
But the ignorant masses want to worship hate, even to the point of accepting these five alleged points, all of which are weak at best. Over a hundred billion humans have ever existed, and Valerie knows every single one of them. Well, that's for the most retarded sheep only to swallow that nonsense.
This is reason enough for an open minded person to realize Jesus was here for a supernatural reason. Just like we can prove the Devil is prince of this world (Universe) with the fact that of the more than one hundred billion human souls, and perhaps even trillions of animal souls have perished at a 100% rate. If a casino dealer got blackjack against you while you never once got blackjack, in a hundred billion deals, you are actually trained to believe this is rational, because the human brain is a weak machine that accepts such stupidity. So, the human brain, being of the Devil, accepts the stupidity of believing that human life isn't a stacked deck.
There are countless reasons to believe Jesus was whom the gospels claim, but I don't expect anyone with the blind and irrational and unprovoked hatred that the people who worship the same hate that Valerie Tarico worships to ever, ever, ever open their minds to admit. It isn't a pleasant thought, knowing that this existence in this world is a stacked deck from demonic forces. It's a horror story for sure, so it's understandable why people like Valerie want to live in denial.
However, denying reality is still stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Sept 23, 2023 7:53:36 GMT
There are countless reasons to believe Jesus was whom the gospels claim... Which Gospels and whom do you think (or have been taught) they claim he was? If you haven't studied the Bible and related literature, this is a much bigger question than you might suppose. If you scroll two messages up, I point out that Christians today don't agree on who Jesus was and his purpose on Earth. There was even more disagreement way back when. For example, one belief is that he died because it was the only way God could enter Hell. Others believe he died as a sacrifice for our sins. Others believed Jesus was the son of a different God that his death was an offering to Yahweh the Creator. Although if you go farther back, Yahweh wasn't the creator, he was the god of the Hebrews, basically a department head. El was the Creator. So how are you going to tell me that Jesus is whom the gospels claim when the gospels don't agree. {Spoiler}
Education, it's a bitch. |
|
|
|
Post by SixOfTheRichest on Sept 23, 2023 13:13:21 GMT
The unprovoked and irrational hatred that Valerie Tarico has for the existence of Jesus is nothing new. This hatred that Valerie sells is itself very telling. She has an incredible amount of sheep following her. Does Valerie believe in these five statements? She considers them "points", when they are all five totally pointless, which proves there is nothing natural in her thought processes at all. So it is with all who consider these five assertions to be "points". Jesus is unprecedented. The closest that Greeks or Romans have to him is Prometheus, the lifetime loser. No Greek hero was whipped into defeat on Earth as much as Jesus was whipped into defeat on Earth. He's unprecedented, and his story goes against every single grain that makes a story that people want to hear, believe, and retell. The early church wasn't rich. They didn't have the resources to produce the best manuscripts, nor to save them. They were stories told and retold, written and transcribed as well as possible. The few contradictions in the gospels are quite natural. The gospel of John and the Revelation is accepted as being written by a younger friend of John, maybe on Patmos, who had the same name. Patmos is a long way from the other places that the other gospels came from. Jesus existed at a time and a place where his image wouldn't be "iconic". That's important right there. He had at least four brothers, descendants of David, actually legitimate descendants of David who weren't in danger of being called bastards, from which the apostles could search for a new "Messiah" from either them or their offspring. None of these followers of Jesus had mashochistic tendencies. You certainly wouldn't live long as a fisherman on the sea of Galilee if you had suicidal tendencies, so we know they didn't want to get flayed alive and crucified and burned and beheaded by spreading the news that Jesus came back from the dead. They obviously wanted to find a Messiah from an easier source that wouldn't be suicidal for them. We could go on with even more historical evidence that is certainly more objective than testimonies from people who had to please the Caesars or the publishers at the time, so only retards feel that the brown nosing evidence is objective compared to that of the gospels. People here have proven that to be a fact. How many here are sheep for Valerie and people like her? Half the people here at least. And only a total retard thinks people haven't been leaning this way for the approximate 2000 centuries since Jesus walked the Earth. 2000 years of denial and hatred and ignorance of the masses who want to believe someone didn't even exist. That's uncanny. It's past "uncanny". It's supernatural. The very existence of the good God is only evident in this fallen world by the obvious existence of the evil prince who is the false accuser. But the ignorant masses want to worship hate, even to the point of accepting these five alleged points, all of which are weak at best. Over a hundred billion humans have ever existed, and Valerie knows every single one of them. Well, that's for the most retarded sheep only to swallow that nonsense. This is reason enough for an open minded person to realize Jesus was here for a supernatural reason. Just like we can prove the Devil is prince of this world (Universe) with the fact that of the more than one hundred billion human souls, and perhaps even trillions of animal souls have perished at a 100% rate. If a casino dealer got blackjack against you while you never once got blackjack, in a hundred billion deals, you are actually trained to believe this is rational, because the human brain is a weak machine that accepts such stupidity. So, the human brain, being of the Devil, accepts the stupidity of believing that human life isn't a stacked deck. There are countless reasons to believe Jesus was whom the gospels claim, but I don't expect anyone with the blind and irrational and unprovoked hatred that the people who worship the same hate that Valerie Tarico worships to ever, ever, ever open their minds to admit. It isn't a pleasant thought, knowing that this existence in this world is a stacked deck from demonic forces. It's a horror story for sure, so it's understandable why people like Valerie want to live in denial. However, denying reality is still stupid. Lets get one reality straight. Jesus's existence or not, he/she/it was not, is not, nor ever was the savior of humankind. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 23, 2023 17:08:16 GMT
There are countless reasons to believe Jesus was whom the gospels claim... Which Gospels and whom do you think (or have been taught) they claim he was? If you haven't studied the Bible and related literature, this is a much bigger question than you might suppose. If you scroll two messages up, I point out that Christians today don't agree on who Jesus was and his purpose on Earth. There was even more disagreement way back when. For example, one belief is that he died because it was the only way God could enter Hell. Others believe he died as a sacrifice for our sins. Others believed Jesus was the son of a different God that his death was an offering to Yahweh the Creator. Although if you go farther back, Yahweh wasn't the creator, he was the god of the Hebrews, basically a department head. El was the Creator. So how are you going to tell me that Jesus is whom the gospels claim when the gospels don't agree. {Spoiler}
Education, it's a bitch. Just wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. Now, instead of getting into a silly battle of "I read more non Fiction than you have read", I'll stipulate we both read plenty of the history of the church and of the history of Hebrews and of the testaments and of mankind and of Science and Nature. And yet we still have confusion. We both went to college and either aced (or close to it) English, Communications, Theater, etc. And yet we still have confusion. You want to believe that I said there wasn't confusion. I actually said it quite clearly. The confusion comes from the enemy, as I clearly pointed out. I therefore expect that you really studied the History in depth, not only of the Old Testament and New Testament, but of the early church and of the way the translations of words come out confusing. Ergo, you most likely know that Jesus made things simpler with his explanations. That's why many Bibles highlight his words, because everything else is in context of what people want to believe and in context of their motivations, while his words are truth, if we can translate them correctly. And Jesus knew that translations would always be a problem, so his explanations had to cover that contingency if he was the one to keep human souls (or spirits) out of the demonic cycle of organic existence. In essence, the people who complain about "organized religion" have a point, because there are differences, but nearly all Christians agree on the basic concept of the Holy Ghost being the spirit of good and of Heaven being a place superior to the Universe that the human body experiences. They agree that there was a "fall of man" into this inferior Universe. Now, it's clear that Jesus said things that are hated by the materialists, and that means materialists who are Christian, atheist, agnostic, or anything else. At least half of his statements are hated by materialists. And materialists are the "upwardly mobile" people who "magically" get published by other materialists. To think this is natural, or a coincidence, is far fetched. But you haven't gone there. You seem to agree with me on this point. You claim no one agrees on Jesus. You have on one hand admitted that there is confusion, but then get upset when I say there is confusion. Again, you've proven that the enemy works in all of us, but some people are willing to admit the enemy is omnipresent. Why? Because we have human brains, which are weak meters that have very tiny capacities not only for data, but also for types of data. They're like measuring cups that can only tell the volume of what is inside, and nothing else. Be these weak brains the result of the good God? That's where the fundamentalist theists are materialists and in total agreement with the materialistic atheists. Both agree that it is the "superior" set of rules. They only differ on the source of those rules. The fundie says the laws of Physics are from God, and the materialistic atheist claims these laws wrote themselves. Both agree that this is their "life", even though neither has more than .000000001% control of their lives, and that's a conservative estimate, because they only exist for less than that amount in Eternity and less than that amount in the Universe. To a rational mind, the laws of Physics with its entropy and the laws of organic energy that makes animal life need to steal energy from other life, are "inferior laws", and thus can't be of the good God. However, while Jesus himself tells us that his kingdom is better than this, it's hard for the human brain to accept this, because one has to abandon the materialistic passions, or at least not love those passions. "He who loves his life will surely lose it" is pretty well translated. Jesus did say he is "the way", but what does that mean? Fundamentalists want to cherry pick one line. Jesus said he was leaving and the Holy Ghost would remain behind. So, fundamentalists ignore this out of materialistic pride. You certainly show that you know how slippery a slope that becomes. All of this is more proof of the enemy existing, and if the enemy is the enemy, then what the enemy tries to keep us from knowing is what is the truth. Can you see that there is a demonic force at work? It is only because of the weak meters we call "brains" that we can delude ourselves into the wild notion that this is "natural". From your post, I think you realize that it isn't "natural". Maybe you're smarter than the ignorant masses. Let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by Meseia on Sept 25, 2023 7:13:19 GMT
Which Gospels and whom do you think (or have been taught) they claim he was? If you haven't studied the Bible and related literature, this is a much bigger question than you might suppose. If you scroll two messages up, I point out that Christians today don't agree on who Jesus was and his purpose on Earth. There was even more disagreement way back when. For example, one belief is that he died because it was the only way God could enter Hell. Others believe he died as a sacrifice for our sins. Others believed Jesus was the son of a different God that his death was an offering to Yahweh the Creator. Although if you go farther back, Yahweh wasn't the creator, he was the god of the Hebrews, basically a department head. El was the Creator. So how are you going to tell me that Jesus is whom the gospels claim when the gospels don't agree. {Spoiler}
Education, it's a bitch. Just wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. [If only religious people could accept that fact. ]Now, instead of getting into a silly battle of "I read more non Fiction than you have read", I'll stipulate we both read plenty of the history of the church and of the history of Hebrews and of the testaments and of mankind and of Science and Nature. And yet we still have confusion. We both went to college and either aced (or close to it) English, Communications, Theater, etc. And yet we still have confusion. You want to believe that I said there wasn't confusion. I actually said it quite clearly. The confusion comes from the enemy, as I clearly pointed out. I therefore expect that you really studied the History in depth, not only of the Old Testament and New Testament, but of the early church and of the way the translations of words come out confusing. Ergo, you most likely know that Jesus made things simpler with his explanations. [FALSE] That's why many Bibles highlight his words, because everything else is in context of what people want to believe and in context of their motivations, while his words are truth, if we can translate them correctly. And Jesus knew that translations would always be a problem, so his explanations had to cover that contingency if he was the one to keep human souls (or spirits) out of the demonic cycle of organic existence. [No living person knows what Jesus said and it's clear the gospel writers didn't either.]
In essence, the people who complain about "organized religion" have a point, because there are differences, but nearly all Christians agree on the basic concept of the Holy Ghost being the spirit of good and of Heaven being a place superior to the Universe that the human body experiences. They agree that there was a "fall of man" into this inferior Universe. Now, it's clear [FALSE, no living person knows what Jesus said] that Jesus said things that are hated by the materialists, and that means materialists who are Christian, atheist, agnostic, or anything else. At least half of his statements are hated by materialists. And materialists are the "upwardly mobile" people who "magically" get published by other materialists. To think this is natural, or a coincidence, is far fetched. But you haven't gone there. You seem to agree with me on this point. You claim no one agrees on Jesus. You have on one hand admitted that there is confusion, but then get upset when I say there is confusion. Again, you've proven that the enemy works in all of us, but some people are willing to admit the enemy is omnipresent. Why? Because we have human brains, which are weak meters that have very tiny capacities not only for data, but also for types of data. They're like measuring cups that can only tell the volume of what is inside, and nothing else. [The only factual statement here is that I stated there are significant differences in opinion about who Jesus was and what meaning are found in his teachings and death.]Be these weak brains the result of the good God? That's where the fundamentalist theists are materialists and in total agreement with the materialistic atheists. Both agree that it is the "superior" set of rules. They only differ on the source of those rules. The fundie says the laws of Physics are from God, and the materialistic atheist claims these laws wrote themselves. Both agree that this is their "life", even though neither has more than .000000001% control of their lives, and that's a conservative estimate, because they only exist for less than that amount in Eternity and less than that amount in the Universe.
To a rational mind, the laws of Physics with its entropy and the laws of organic energy that makes animal life need to steal energy from other life, are "inferior laws", and thus can't be of the good God.
However, while Jesus himself tells us that his kingdom is better than this, it's hard for the human brain to accept this, because one has to abandon the materialistic passions, or at least not love those passions. "He who loves his life will surely lose it" is pretty well translated.
Jesus did say he is "the way", but what does that mean? Fundamentalists want to cherry pick one line. Jesus said he was leaving and the Holy Ghost would remain behind. So, fundamentalists ignore this out of materialistic pride. You certainly show that you know how slippery a slope that becomes.
All of this is more proof of the enemy existing, and if the enemy is the enemy, then what the enemy tries to keep us from knowing is what is the truth.
Can you see that there is a demonic force at work? It is only because of the weak meters we call "brains" that we can delude ourselves into the wild notion that this is "natural".
From your post, I think you realize that it isn't "natural". Maybe you're smarter than the ignorant masses. Let me know.Very little of your reply had anything to do with what I wrote or the questions I asked, which you were unable to answer. |
|
