A Prediction about Conspiracy Theories

a reply to: 5thHead

We're not discussing global warming here. Any observations to make on the thread topic?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Yes, this is very a likely interim narrative. It won't be sustainable for long, especially not in Britain once the Gulf Stream starts to misbehave.

Lol, "interim narrative". The narrative has changed, the purpose of the narrative has not, nor has the source fundamentally.

The Gulf Stream is insufficiently understood or studied for us to know what constitutes good or bad behaviour at this point. There is certainly no certainty that it will collapse as soon as some of doom-porn-mongers would have us believe and if it did, that effect would be felt not just by the British Isles, the eastern seaboard of the US would also suffer indirectly from rising water levels. Right here in the right now we are being hit by more rain than we are able to deal with in the UK. Floods and the damage to land and property that causes, lost crops, overflowing drainage and sewage systems further increasing water pollution, the evidence is all there if you're looking - just as it is pretty much everywhere. Whether it is cyclical doesn't matter. Whether it is man-made, doesn't matter. People and nature are in the # already and all indicators currently point to the situation only going to get worse.

Why are Jordan Peterson and Glenn Beck so intent on convincing people otherwise? If it isn't a conspiracy, what is it do you think? Just money grubbing?

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Oh dear, another 'climate change isn't happening' post.

Please address the thread topic, or else don't post at all. Are there no moderators willing to help keep this thread on topic?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Oh dear, another 'climate change isn't happening' post.

And you derived that opinion how? From my description of how climate change is affecting the UK? Or because I noted that the collapse of the Gulf Stream is far from a foregone conclusion because all the "science" isn't in on that one yet? Do you have a problem with the fact that the climate has already changed, that some of those changes are cyclical but that those cycles have been exaggerated and exacerbated by human activity?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Please address the thread topic, or else don't post at all. Are there no moderators willing to help keep this thread on topic?

Perhaps you should sort yourself out first mate because you come off as a self-satisfied, spoilt little brat.

To reiterate my point in the vague hope that you are capable of getting off your high-horse - there was a concerted effort to suppress climate change science and now the science has repeatedly been tested and proven, and is largely beyond question, as well as a world-wide demonstration of how those changes are already taking and affecting peoples live, there has been a change in tactic to encourage inaction in mitigating climate change.

Jordan Petersen and Glenn Beck are at the forefront of disseminating this revamped narrative just as they were at the forefront of the denial of the science demonstrating that the climate was changing. Part of their argument is that these changes are just cyclical and we just have to ride them out, and that humans couldn't possibly have caused all these issues all by themselves. Acknowledging that there is a grain of truth to that, a small solitary grain, that weather systems are cyclical and our detailed data only goes back so far - does not equate to denying that the climate has and is changing in ways that are potentially disasterous for human and animal populations, nature in general. It acknowledges that although we don't know everything, we do know enough to know we need to act.

Petersen and Beck are encouraging inattention and inaction: There is nothing we can do; It is beyond our control; The cure is worse than the disease etc, etc. Your OP that proposes that the next "conspiracy theory" is that climate change has been "created" by nefarious powers for some end goal, and similarly aims to disempower the individual. I don't see a new narrative, or an interim narrative, just a continuum of the narrative of "do nothing".

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Still off topic, I'm afraid. The opening post lays out clearly the subject of discussion; perhaps you should read it again to refresh your memory. We're not here to hear boutique opinions on climate science but to discuss a particular type of conspiracy theory. And no, I don't think Jordan Petersen and Glenn Beck -- those well-known climatalogical experts -- have cottoned on to this one yet.

Do you have a problem with the fact that the climate has already changed, that some of those changes are cyclical but that those cycles have been exaggerated and exacerbated by human activity?

Not in the least. But this is not relevant. If you have anything on-topic to contribute to the thread, it would be welcome.

a reply to: whereislogic

I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to honour my promise, but here is the reply I promised you.

I agree with you that conspiracy theories nowadays are presented largely as entertainment. This was not always the case. Conspiracy theories only went ‘mainstream’ this century, about the time ⎻ (as I recall) ⎻ that I joined ATS.

The internet had everything to do with this, of course. In the twentieth century and earlier, conspiracy theories were largely the property of misfits and outsiders on the fringes of society, so there was no call for them to be conveniently packaged as consumer entertainment. The classic exception to this rule used to be the ‘silly-season story’, a hard-to-believe item of some kind run during the late-summer months when real news was slow. These would fill the empty space and airtime ⎻ stories about invaders from Venus, conspiracies by Masons and Rosicrucians, sightings of Hitler in South America (when it came to posthumous appearances, Elvis has nothing on Hitler) and so on. A silly-season story was, in those far-off days, the way most average folk first came into contact with any given conspiracy theory, very often as a child watching afternoon TV.

In the meantime, however, television and mass media were taking over the world. As they grew, the search was on for ‘content’ that would hold consumers’ attention so that they could be bombarded with the advertising that is, in the end, the real reason why the media exists. Looking about for stories to fill page space and airtime with, programmers and story editors discovered a rich lode of inspiration in fantasy, horror and science fiction ⎻ and they exploited it so eagerly that by the 1960s, some of the most popular programming, especially for the youth audience, was of this kind. The Twilight Zone, Star Trek, Bewitched ⎻ we’re all familiar with those shows and the characters in them. Of course, many of these shows used tropes lifted from conspiracy theories that had existed long before them.

It was through this nexus between mass media on the one hand and fantasy/horror/sci-fi on the other that conspiracy theories first began leaking into the mainstream, so it makes perfect sense that when they finally became mainstream they should take on the form of that kind of entertainment. And to audiences ⎻ nations ⎻ that have been bombarded for generations with the artifacts of mass media and no can no longer tell what is real from what they see on a screen, this kind of conspiracy entertainment (or conspiracy porn, to use the word you didn’t want to utter) was very persuasive.

From then on, it was only a matter of time before bad actors began leveraging the entertainment and shock value of conspiracy theories for their own benefit. That is the world we live in now.

* * *

What most interested me about your post, however, was your Bible quote.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. ⎻ 2 Tim 4:3⎻4

The context is important. Paul is writing to Timothy about the Last Days, as he makes clear in 2 Tim. 3:1⎻8:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

I find this passage very apt in view of what is happening in the world, and especially in America, today. It isn’t very hard to see people of this kind among Christian conservatives and particularly Evangelicals, men and women who ‘hold to the form of religion’ but deny the power of it. Here indeed are multitudes who, their ears itching for something more to their taste than the humble and self-sacrificing doctrine of love preached by Christ, have found themselves ‘teachers to suit their own likings,’ and turned away from the truth to ‘wander into myths.’

Another place we find such misbelievers is, of course, the Republican Party as it exists today.

I do not call myself a Christian. I am, in fact, an agnostic who inclines towards atheism. But I received an excellent Christian education growing up, and in my way I remain, to this day, a follower of the teaching of Jesus. I do not believe in the prophesies of Revelation, but if I did, my friend, I should certainly wonder whether the Last Days were not truly at hand. For there is much in this epistle of Paul, and more generally in Christian eschatology, that seems to be applicable to the world we live in today. And if I truly believed that (which, as I say, I do not) then I should aver that the Beast of Revelation is none other than the media-financial-industrial complex as it exists in the world today.

As for who might be Antichrist, well, who among world figures today best suits Paul’s description? ‘A lover of self, a lover of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, ungrateful, implacable, a slanderer, a profligate, a hater of good, treacherous, reckless and swollen with conceit’? I leave you to draw whatever conclusion seems right to you.

By the way, the reason my Bible quotes are very slightly different from yours is because I have taken them from the Revised Standard Version, with which I am quite familiar. By the way, this is the same version of the Bible on which Donald Trump swore his Presidential oath in 2016. It was, I believe, a gift to him from his mother.

Thank you, again, for adding an extra dimension to my thread. ‘He who has ears, let him hear.’

a reply to: Astyanax

Did you know Isaac Newton took a lot of interest in the prophecies recorded in the books of Daniel and Revelation? He already figured out quite a lot with his diligent research. He was a polymath of course (someone who has studied many fields), so he also drew a lot from other fields of science/knowledge: history, for example.

According to the Bible, and in particular the prophecies in the book of Daniel and Revelation, the world's power structure is divided into 2 main sections or entities (used as tools by the one identified as "the ruler of this world" and "god of this system of things"; John 12:31 and 2Cor 4:4): a wild beast with 7 heads and 10 horns (actually the image of this wild beast) and Babylon the Great (a prostitute "with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality", Rev 17:2). The prostitute is riding this wild beast. Revelation 17:3-5:

And he carried me away in the power of the spirit into a wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored wild beast that was full of blasphemous names and that had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and she was adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, and she had in her hand a golden cup that was full of disgusting things and the unclean things of her sexual immorality. 5 On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.”

As to the identity of this woman, perhaps a picture says more than a thousand words (especially given what I bolded above), cause they're really rubbing it into people's noses without any shame (Revelation 18:7 adds that “she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury.”), cause they know people won't wake up to it anyway, in general they do not take Bible prophecy seriously, nor are they aware of what it says exactly or what it means :

Is it not true that the dominant religious organizations have made it a practice to consort with political rulers for power and material gain, though this has resulted in suffering for the common people? Is it not also true that their higher clergy live in luxury, even though many of the people to whom they should minister may be impoverished?

Source: Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Now to emphasize that we're not just talking about the Vatican (or Roman Catholicism) here (the reason why I also bolded the other descriptions about gold and shameless luxury):

In the video above they use the term "unique", but is it really?








They're rubbing it very much 'in your face', without any shame about exposing themselves in this manner.

Now if you're curious about this wild beast and how that fits into the bigger picture, this documentary is excellent:



Of course, it's easy to file away the prophecies concerning this Satanic conspiracy (worldwide deception, Rev. 12:9 says Satan "is misleading the entire inhabited earth") as just one more conspiracy theory, no different than the others, but here's some more advice from the Bible (written by Paul) concerning that, at 1 Thess 5:20,21:

Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

I've written more extensively on these topics and in particular the identity of Babylon the Great in this thread (1st comment about the subject of propaganda). The more detailed stuff about Babylon the Great starts on page 2 but don't miss this comment (in particular the video in that comment called "A Message to the so-called Truth Movement" and my commentary about what the guy in the video is saying, which I came back to on the 2nd page cause he gets a few things slightly wrong).

One of the key features of Babylon the Great (or ways to identify) is:

... In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

...

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

...

Source: Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Some examples are listed there, but I already quoted that in the 2nd comment on the 2nd page of that other thread, so I'll skip it here, but these are some of the ones listed on the page above (and one more that I will add now). These are also the type of "false stories/myths" mentioned at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (the ones listed below are all taught in Christendom, the leading and biggest part of Babylon the Great):

Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal (One Myth Leads to Another)
Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

Myth 4: God Is a Trinity
Myth 6: God Approves of the Use of Images and Icons in Worship

...

REJECT MYTHS, STICK TO THE TRUTH

What can we conclude from this brief review of myths that are still taught by many churches? These “tales [Greek, myʹthos] artfully spun” cannot rival the simple and comforting truths of the Bible.​—2 Peter 1:16, The New English Bible.

Therefore, with an open mind, do not hesitate to compare with God’s Word​—the source of truth—​what you have been taught. (John 17:17) Then, this promise will prove true in your case: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.

a reply to: Astyanax

As Bob Marley said:

Regarding what Bob Marley said concerning Babylon the Great 'building universities', note that evolutionary philosophies trace their roots back to ancient Babylonian religious philosophy as well:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Pardon some of the rough edges on this video (referring particular to the term "clown" as applied to the Roman Catholic promoter of evolutionary philosophies, Kenneth Miller, the one from the chromosome #2 fusion myth):

From the same youtube channel:


Or to start at the beginning of the full picture (playlist):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

Understanding (Aid to Bible Understanding)

Understanding must be based on knowledge, and works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental fact is God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards and thereby assess or evaluate such knowledge. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Prov. 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Prov. 2:10, 11; 18:15.

Proverbs 1:1-6 shows that the “man of understanding is the one who acquires skillful direction, to understand a proverb and a puzzling saying, the words of wise persons and their riddles.” These must not be things said merely to pass the time away in idle conversation, for wise persons would not customarily waste time in such manner, but must refer to instruction, questions and problems that discipline and train the mind and heart in right principles, thereby equipping the learner for wise action in the future. (Compare Psalm 49:3, 4.) Knowledge and understanding together bring wisdom, which is the “prime thing,” the ability to bring a fund of knowledge and keen understanding to bear on problems with successful results. (Prov. 4:7) The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Prov. 17:24) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1 Tim. 6:3-5; see KNOWLEDGE; WISDOM.

Here's another philosophical myth that may be more useful for you to be aware of. In particular the idea/philosophy that this way of thinking makes one more openminded achieved by means of conditioning and indoctrination, where in actuality, it conditions people to be very closedminded to the truth ("will not put up with" as 2 Timothy 4:3 puts it), since a truth (the noun) is a synonym for a fact/certainty/reality, something that is true/factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error.

I like that episode, it really shows what's truly going on with agnostics, being conditioned with the notion that "we don't know", regarding any subject, even when it's obvious what's going on (there is one scene where the kids are being tortured in the basement, and the child care worker walks in and asks what is going on, and the kid hanging on the ceiling answers: "we don't know, we can't possibly know" (or something like that). It's a very telling scene, it relates to the philosophy of relativism. More on that here:

“What Is Truth?”

THE two men facing each other could scarcely have been more dissimilar. One was a politician who was cynical, ambitious, wealthy, ready to do anything to advance his own career. The other was a teacher who spurned wealth and prestige and was prepared to sacrifice his life to save the lives of others. Needless to say, these two men did not see eye to eye! On one matter in particular, they disagreed absolutely​—the matter of truth.

The men were Pontius Pilate and Jesus Christ. Jesus was standing before Pilate as a condemned criminal. Why? Jesus explained that the reason for this​—indeed, the very reason that he had come to the earth and undertaken his ministry—​came down to one thing: truth. “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world,” he said, “that I should bear witness to the truth.”​—John 18:37.

Pilate’s reply was a memorable question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38) Did he really want an answer? Probably not. Jesus was the kind of man who could answer any question asked of him in sincerity, but he did not answer Pilate. And the Bible says that after asking his question, Pilate walked straight out of the audience chamber. The Roman governor likely asked the question in cynical disbelief, as if to say, “Truth? What is that? There is no such thing!”* [ According to Bible scholar R. C. H. Lenski, Pilate’s “tone is that of an indifferent worldling who by his question intends to say that anything in the nature of religious truth is a useless speculation.”]

Pilate’s skeptical view of truth is not uncommon today. Many believe that truth is relative​—in other words, that what is true to one person may be untrue to another, so that both may be “right.” This belief is so widespread that there is a word for it​—“relativism.” Is this how you view the matter of truth? If so, is it possible that you have adopted this view without thoroughly questioning it? Even if you have not, do you know how much this philosophy affects your life?

An Assault on Truth

Pontius Pilate was hardly the first person to question the idea of absolute truth. Some ancient Greek philosophers made the teaching of such doubts virtually their life’s work! Five centuries before Pilate, Parmenides (who has been considered the father of European metaphysics) held that real knowledge was unattainable. Democritus, hailed as “the greatest of ancient philosophers,” asserted: “Truth is buried deep. . . . We know nothing for certain.” Perhaps the most revered of them all, Socrates, said that all that he really knew was that he knew nothing.

This assault on the idea that truth can be known has continued down to our day. Some philosophers, for instance, say that since knowledge reaches us through our senses, which can be deceived, no knowledge is verifiably true. French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes decided to examine all the things he thought he knew for certain. He discarded all but one truth that he deemed incontrovertible: “Cogito ergo sum,” or, “I think, therefore I am.”

A Culture of Relativism

Relativism is not limited to philosophers. It is taught by religious leaders, indoctrinated in schools, and spread by the media. Episcopal bishop John S. Spong said a few years ago: “We must . . . move from thinking we have the truth and others must come to our point of view to the realization that ultimate truth is beyond the grasp of all of us.” Spong’s relativism, like that of so many clergymen today, is quick to drop the Bible’s moral teachings in favor of a philosophy of “to each his own.” For example, in an effort to make homosexuals feel more “comfortable” in the Episcopal Church, Spong wrote a book claiming that the apostle Paul was a homosexual!

In many lands the school systems seem to engender a similar type of thinking. Allan Bloom wrote in his book The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” Bloom found that if he challenged his students’ conviction on this matter, they would react with astonishment, “as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.”

The same thinking is promoted in countless other ways. For instance, TV and newspaper reporters often seem more interested in entertaining their viewers than in getting at the truth of a story. Some news programs have even doctored or faked film footage in order to make it appear more dramatic. And in entertainment a stronger attack is mounted on truth. The values and moral truths that our parents and grandparents lived by are widely viewed as obsolete and are often held up to outright ridicule.

Of course, some might argue that much of this relativism represents open-mindedness and therefore has a positive impact on human society. Does it really, though? And what about its impact on you? Do you believe that truth is relative or nonexistent? If so, searching for it may strike you as a waste of time. Such an outlook will affect your future.

Next page:

Why Search for Truth? (of course, the ruler of this world, and his teachers mentioned at 2 Tim 4:3,4 doesn't want you to do so, cause it will expose him and his teachings, falsehoods, myths, it will set you free from these and his deception and manipulation as Jesus described at John 8:32, quoted at the end of the previous comment)

More:
“What Is Truth?”
Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Astyanax
...
In the video above they use the term "unique", but is it really?

...

Note also the color of the carpets in that video again (another video below that, has the other color mentioned in Rev. 17:4 for the carpets, or close to it).

Colors (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

...

Purple and reddish purple are often referred to in the Scriptures, although there are no distinctions drawn between the many varieties of purple shades produced by the different dyes or dye methods used. (Ex 25:4; Nu 4:13; Eze 27:7, 16; Da 5:7, 29; Mr 15:17, 20; Lu 16:19; Re 17:4) Because of its costliness, this color often was associated with or symbolized riches, honor, and royal majesty.

...

Scarlet, a red of brilliant hue, is found in references to cord or thread, cloth and apparel; also to sin. (Ge 38:28, 30; Nu 4:8; Jos 2:18; Jer 4:30; Mt 27:28; Isa 1:18) “The wild beast” described at Revelation 17 is scarlet colored (vs 3), distinguishing it from “the wild beast” of chapter 13. The harlot sitting on the scarlet-colored beast is arrayed in purple and scarlet. (Re 17:3-5) The vision thus pictorially symbolizes the royal claims of the “beast” and the luxury and royalty enjoyed by the woman riding it.

Revelation 18:24: “Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.”

Part 21—1900 onward—Skirts Splattered With Blood (Religion’s Future in View of It’s Past; Awake!—1989)

First subject below is "the antichrist" (the wild beast and its image is discussed later on):

Sorry, I just can't stop once I get started. There's so much evidence and so many clues. Well, since I mentioned him before:

a reply to: whereislogic

Thank you again for your contribution. I confess that I didn't do more than skim over your last three posts, but from them I absorbed the following:

1. You are very interested in prophecies, particularly those in the Book of Revelation.

2. Like many non-Lutheran Protestants, you believe that the Whore of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church.

3. The word 'agnostic' affects you the way the sound of a trumpet affects a war-horse.

That last is a pity, because it seems to have caused you to shut your ears to my message even as it made you the more eager to pour yours into mine. If it is not too late, I beg you to read my post again and take seriously what I wrote in it. Not that it matters very much to me, but if you truly believe in what you say you believe, then the fate of your immortal soul may well depend on it.

For the rest, well: as an outsider of sorts, the difference between one sect of Christianity and another is of far less importance to me than what they have in common -- in particular, the message of Christ and belief in his redemptive sacrifice. I am not very interested in revelation and prophecy, which I regard as arising out of human politics and psychology, not divine inspiration. As for the fate of my own soul, I am not convinced that I actually have one, or that anyone else does either.

But since your view on souls differs from mine, and all this seems to be so important to you, I say to you for the second time, with all the urgency and seriousness I can command: he that has ears, let him hear. Time to stop preaching and prophesying, and do a bit of listening for a change. Perhaps it is still not too late for you.

a reply to: whereislogic

Did you know Isaac Newton took a lot of interest in the prophecies recorded in the books of Daniel and Revelation?

Did you know that Isaac Newton was a believer in the Arian Heresy?

Newton also believed that mainstream Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and Calvinism were heretical and corrupt. He thought that the Holy Trinity, one of the main doctrines of orthodox Christianity, wasn't in line with the beginnings of early Christianity. He was influenced in this regard by an obscure theological notion called Arianism.

Arianism states that Jesus, while created by God, was not divine... Critics have said that it encourages polytheism, since it casts Jesus as less than divine but still deserving of worship.

The Council of Nicaea attempted to do away with Arianism by proclaiming Jesus' divinity and the sanctity of the Holy Trinity. It didn't survive much beyond the 7th century, except in altered form and in the occasional adherent, such as Newton.

For the third and last time: He who has ears, let him hear.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: whereislogic

Thank you again for your contribution. I confess that I didn't do more than skim over your last three posts, but from them I absorbed the following:

1. You are very interested in prophecies, particularly those in the Book of Revelation. [whereislogic: correct]

2. Like many non-Lutheran Protestants, you believe that the Whore of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church. [not correct, this can happen when you skim over my comment, but I did spell it out, below the first video, and you can see it from the rest of the videos, which include examples from Islam and Buddhism, also part of Babylon the Great. I also quoted from the page about Babylon the Great in the book Reasoning from the Scriptures which identifies Babylon the Great, i.e. the woman who has that name on her forehead, as all of false religion, every last one of them, including scientism to name a less obvious one.]

3. The word 'agnostic' affects you the way the sound of a trumpet affects a war-horse. [not correct, otherwise my comment would have started with that subject, I added those remarks later. More of a bonus 'heads up'.]

Since you only got 1 out of 3 right above (note my commentary that I added above between brackets), I think the rest of your comment is a bit more applicable to you (if you don't mind me saying). Have you ever heard of the term psychological projection? (you can google it as well)

Remember, my commentary is usually meant as a 'heads up'. Sometimes it is difficult to try to tell someone something honest and truthful, without offending them (especially if it's something they don't want to hear or face about themselves, or if they feel embarassed when you point it out; there's no need to feel embarassed, it's too common amongst humans to feel embarassed about it, and there's always someone in a worse situation in terms of attitude and behavioural pattern, also, the older they are, the worse it gets, cause it means more years of manipulation and conditioning by the ruler of this world and master propagandist). That's why I used the expression, "if you don't mind me saying' above as well. It counts for that last question as well, which is not rhetorical, just sincerely wondering if you're familiar with the term and what it describes. It is sometimes the result of those doing the Isaiah 5:20,21 thingy* (the resulting effect on those who fall for others doing that).

I did read through your entire comment quite attentively, some parts even more than once while attempting to put myself in your shoes, see things from your perspective, so that I would be in a better position to respond and pick my subjects (otherwise I wouldn't have added the stuff about agnosticism later on either, that was after my 2nd or 3rd read through your comment). It doesn't take a lot of time to read through one comment, even when it's a bit long. Compared to the amount of time people (including me) spend watching movies, tv shows and sports (or commenting on the internet for that matter), it's almost nothing. I also found your comment much more fascinating than most comments on the internet, perhaps you're just an interesting person (no flattery intended, just honesty again now that you've said what you said).

*: Since I haven't quoted Isaiah 5:20,21 in this thread before:

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

a reply to: whereislogic

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good

Correct. This is the hole you have fallen into. If what you believe is true, God HImself dug it for you and you won’t escape in a hurry.. But for heaven’s sake, try at least. You are headed in the wrong direction at express speed.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: whereislogic

Did you know that Isaac Newton was a believer in the Arian Heresy?

In order to truly "know" that (and understand it, having made sure of it according to the advice at 1 Thess 5:21 which I quoted before), I would first have to see evidence from Newton's own writings that he believed all the same things that Arian taught, including the following bolded errors (the part you decided to quote from that Trinitarian source does not include any of Newton's writings, let alone a demonstration of that, remember, "all the same things that Arian taught" concerning what became known as Arianism, which was not true Christianity):

The Baptism of Clovis—1,500 Years of Catholicism in France

...

The New Encyclopædia Britannica calls Clovis’ conversion to the Catholic faith “a decisive moment in the history of western Europe.” Why was this pagan king’s conversion so important? The significance lies in the fact that Clovis chose Catholicism as opposed to Arianism.

The Arian Controversy

About 320 C.E., Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, began to spread radical ideas concerning the Trinity. Arius denied that the Son was of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. The Son could not be God or equal to the Father, since he had a beginning. (Colossians 1:15) As for the holy spirit, Arius believed that it was a person but that it was inferior to both the Father and the Son. This teaching, which gained wide popularity, roused fierce opposition within the church. In 325 C.E., at the Council of Nicea, Arius was exiled and his teachings were condemned.*

However, this did not end the controversy. The doctrinal crisis went on for some 60 years, with successive emperors siding with one party or the other. Finally, in 392 C.E., Emperor Theodosius I made orthodox Catholicism with its Trinity doctrine the State religion of the Roman Empire. In the meantime the Goths had been converted to Arianism by Ulfilas, a Germanic bishop. Other Germanic tribes were quick to adopt this form of “Christianity.”#

By the time of Clovis, the Catholic Church in Gaul was in crisis. The Arian Visigoths had been trying to suppress Catholicism by refusing to allow bishops who died to be replaced. Furthermore, the church was in the throes of two papal schisms, with priests from opposing factions killing one another in Rome. Adding to this confusion, some Catholic writers had put forward the idea that the year 500 C.E. would mark the end of the world. Thus, the conversion of the Frankish conqueror to Catholicism was seen as an auspicious event, heralding “the new millennium of the saints.”

But what were Clovis’ motives? While religious motivations cannot be ruled out, he certainly had political goals in mind. By choosing Catholicism, Clovis gained favor with the predominantly Catholic Gallo-Roman population and the support of the influential church hierarchy. This gave him a decided advantage over his political rivals. The New Encyclopædia Britannica notes that “his conquest of Gaul became a war of liberation from the yoke of the hated Arian heretics.”

Who Was the Real Clovis?

In the run-up to the 1996 commemoration, the archbishop of Reims, Gérard Defois, described Clovis as “the symbol of a well-thought-out and responsible conversion.” However, French historian Ernest Lavisse commented: “The conversion of Clovis in no way changed his character; the gentle and peaceful moral of the Gospel did not touch his heart.” Another historian declared: “Instead of Odin [a Norse god], he invoked Christ and remained the same.” Reminiscent of the conduct of Constantine after his so-called conversion to Christianity, Clovis set out to consolidate his rulership by systematically killing off all rivals to the throne. He exterminated “all his relatives to the sixth degree.”

After Clovis died, a process of mythmaking began that would turn him from a cruel warrior into a reputed saint. Gregory of Tours’ account, written almost a century later, is viewed as a conscious effort to identify Clovis with Constantine, the first Roman emperor to accept “Christianity.” And by making Clovis 30 years old at his baptism, Gregory seems to be trying to establish a comparison with Christ.—Luke 3:23.

This process was continued in the ninth century by Hincmar, bishop of Reims. At a time when cathedrals were vying for pilgrims, the biography he wrote about his predecessor, “Saint” Remigius, likely was intended to increase the renown of his church and to enrich it. In his account, a white dove brought a vial of oil to anoint Clovis at his baptism—clearly a reference to Jesus’ anointing with holy spirit. (Matthew 3:16) Hincmar thereby established a link between Clovis, Reims, and the monarchy and gave credence to the idea that Clovis was the Lord’s anointed.

...

How Christendom Came to Worship an Unknown God

...

The Trinity Controversy

In the early centuries of our Common Era there was “an astonishing plurality of views and formulations” regarding the Trinity. Historian J. N. D. Kelly, himself a Trinitarian, admits that the earliest church fathers were all firm monotheists. He writes: “The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”​—Early Christian Doctrines.

True, such second-century “fathers” as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons expressed ideas that could be interpreted, at the most, as belief in a two-in-one God made up of the Father and the Son. But Kelly states: “What the Apologists had to say about the Holy Spirit was much more meagre . . . [They] appear to have been extremely vague as to the exact status and role of the Spirit. . . . There can be no doubt that the Apologists’ thought was highly confused; they were very far from having worked the threefold pattern of the Church’s faith into a coherent scheme.”

Those who held that there is only one God, the Father, of whom Jesus is the Son, came to be called Unitarians. We read: “The Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the 3rd century still forming the large majority.” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition) But as time went by and church fathers became increasingly influenced by a new form of Plato’s philosophy (Neoplatonism), the Trinitarians gained ground. Third-century Neoplatonic philosophy, with its complicated theories of substance or essence, seemingly enabled them to reconcile the irreconcilable​—to make a threefold God appear like one God. By philosophical reasoning they claimed that three persons could be one while retaining their individuality!

The Arian Controversy

The Trinity controversy came to a head at the beginning of the fourth century C.E. The main protagonists were three philosopher-theologians from Alexandria, Egypt. On the one side was Arius, with Alexander and Athanasius on the other. Arius denied that the Son was of the same essence, or substance, as the Father. He held the Son to be really a son, who therefore had a beginning. Arius believed the Holy Spirit was a person, but not of the same substance as the Father or the Son and in fact inferior to both. He did speak of a “Triad,” or “Trinity,” but considered it to be composed of unequal persons, of whom only the Father was uncreated. [whereislogic: I do not remember Newton writing that the holy spirit is a person, or writing anything in support of a "Triad" or "Trinity" once he figured out that doctrine was false.]

Alexander and Athanasius, on the other hand, maintained that the three persons of the Godhead were of the same substance and, therefore, were not three Gods but one. Athanasius accused Arius of reintroducing polytheism by separating the three persons.

The head of the Roman Empire at that time was Constantine, who was anxious to use apostate Christianity as “cement” to consolidate his shaky empire. For him, this theological controversy was counterproductive. He called the Trinity quarrel a “fight over trifling and foolish verbal differences.” Having failed to reconcile the two opposing parties by a special letter sent to Alexandria in 324 C.E., Constantine summoned a general church council to settle the matter either way. At this First Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea, Asia Minor, in 325 C.E., the assembled bishops eventually came out in favor of Alexander and Athanasius. They adopted the Trinitarian Nicene Creed, which, with alterations believed to have been made in 381 C.E., is subscribed to up to the present day by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and most Protestant churches. Thus it was that Christendom came to worship a mysterious, incomprehensible, three-in-one “unknown God.”

Far-Reaching Consequences

The Trinity controversy did not end at Nicaea. Arianism (which was not true Christianity) made several comebacks over the years. The German tribes that invaded the declining Roman Empire professed Arian “Christianity” and took it into much of Europe and North Africa, where it continued to flourish until well into the sixth century C.E., and even longer in some areas.

The Trinity doctrine divided Christendom for centuries. At various ecumenical councils, theologians philosophized on the precise nature and role of the Son and on whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son. All these wranglings merely confused the notion of God in the minds of people.

The Trinity doctrine has, in fact, so confused the minds of many members of Christendom’s churches that their faith in God is shaky, if not completely shaken. But what about you? Do you wonder what the Scriptures really say about the Father, the Son and the holy spirit? These matters will be discussed fully in the next two issues of The Watchtower.

“The evidence to be collected from the Apostolic Fathers is meagre, and tantalizingly inconclusive. . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”​—Oxford Professor J. N. D. Kelly

“The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica

“Perhaps recollection of the many triads of the surrounding polytheistic world contributed to the formation of these threefold formulae.”​—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

a reply to: Astyanax

Continuing from my previous comment (the videos below are possibly more useful after reading what I quoted above):



In light of what you quoted from that Trinitarian source, note the affirmation at the end of this video that Jesus is "the divine Son of God":

Trinity Doctrine, A False Teaching Of Man, Council of Nicaea (playlist)

a reply to: Astyanax

Thank you for trying to help and educate me. But would you be willing to discuss a suggestion on how to give the right impression on me that you have something of value to offer me (beneficial teaching and help)?

Hint: by answering the question above you have taken the first step in that regards, especially when the answer is a simple "yes" or "no" (cause it is that type of question, very easy and quick to answer, with no further elaboration or much effort needed; of course, you can talk about something else as well in addition to answering the question if you feel like it)

Does the hint above give you a good clue as to what suggestion I would like to discuss with you? Care to take a guess? (that last one allows you to fill that in with more than a "yes" or "no" and take that guess and spell it out here).

By the way, if you only feel like answering the first question in this comment, that would already make me quite content. Every other question you answer is bonus. (I think I've given enough clues now , so the last one probably shouldn't be too hard to spell out)

edit bolded below, I meant Arius, not Arian (got a little distracted there with the terms Arianism and "Arian Heresy"; also because when I said "all the same things that Arian taught", I was thinking only of those teachings related to Arianism, as I specified when I repeated it, i.e. as they pertain to the doctrine of the Trinity, not his teachings concerning other subjects).

originally posted by: whereislogic

In order to truly "know" that (and understand it, having made sure of it according to the advice at 1 Thess 5:21 which I quoted before), I would first have to see evidence from Newton's own writings that he believed all the same things that Arius taught, including the following bolded errors (the part you decided to quote from that Trinitarian source does not include any of Newton's writings, let alone a demonstration of that, remember, "all the same things that Arian taught" concerning what became known as Arianism, which was not true Christianity):

a reply to: whereislogic

In order to truly "know" that (and understand it, having made sure of it according to the advice at 1 Thess 5:21 which I quoted before), I would first have to see evidence from Newton's own writings that he believed all the same things that Arian taught

No scholar seriously disputes that Newton was an Arian. I suppose Jehovah's Witnesses have a proprietorial feeling towards that heresy, but no-one, for obvious reasons, takes their claims very seriously.

If you wish to confirm Newton's Arianism for yourself, you will find what you seek at the University of Cambridge. A little online effort beforehand will identify the specific documents that would interest you. The university authorities will happily give access to any serious scholar. I hope you read Latin, for that is the language in which Newton wrote.

I made this thread as a kind of early-warning notice, a heads-up to ATS members about a predicted new conspiracy theory regarding climate change. The details are in the opening post.

Now, it seems, the prediction is coming true. A number of ‘wellness influencers’ on the internet have begun claiming that the ‘elite’ are causing weather- and climate-related disasters to make people believe in climate change.

Wellness influencers fueled pandemic misinformation. Now they’re targeting another crisis

‘Wellness influencers’ (i.e. quacks) were, of course, major a major source of Covid-related vaccine conspiracy theories. They did enormous damage in the USA, delaying its recovery for months while the rest of the world gradually put Covid behind it and moved on. They helped turn the pandemic into the deadliest single disaster the country has ever known, making a mockery of America’s claim to be the most scientifically advanced nation in the world. Now, not content with the destruction they have already wrought, here they are again pushing another cock-and-bull story, one that is is only a short step away from the very theory predicted in the article I quoted in the OP.

I wonder how long it will be before some of the people who’ve pooh-poohed the idea on this thread sign up for the new conspiracy.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Now, it seems, the prediction is coming true. A number of ‘wellness influencers’ on the internet have begun claiming that the ‘elite’ are causing weather- and climate-related disasters to make people believe in climate change.

Lol, have you heard of the Hypodermic Needle Model of media? Welcome to being part of the problem.

The "Wellness" and spiritualist communities have been utilised since, if not before, the 2016 US election to disseminate disinformation. Not high on fact checking or science, and wanting a certain degree of escape from their reality, they make for the perfect petri dish...and cash cow.