+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: General and Breaking News Events (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Forum: War, Peace or Inbetween (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: What is the point of NATO and other things (/showthread.php?tid=2221)
What is the point of NATO and other things - 727Sky - 07-18-2024
True or not many interesting thoughts about D.C. an the political war machine along with the warrior's competitive edge.
RE: What is the point of NATO and other things - NightskyeB4Dawn - 07-18-2024
(07-18-2024, 05:55 AM)727Sky Wrote: True or not many interesting thoughts about D.C. an the political war machine along with the warrior's competitive edge.
Well.... He just confirmed everything that I had said about him as true .
I still don't trust him as far as I can throw him.
He has the same laugh as my nephew. I love my nephew. But it does not make me like Tucker any more.
RE: What is the point of NATO and other things - MrJesterium - 07-19-2024
(07-18-2024, 08:05 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I still don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He has the same laugh as my nephew. I love my nephew. But it does not make me like Tucker any more.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uElaHUSM7fI#t=2h22m36s
After watching this part of an interview, I think Carlson is very disingenuous.
First he starts off saying, "I approach any everything with like a profound sense of my ignorance."
But then he sides with his presumptuous host Shawn Ryan, who was convicned "that when we die we will see that everything that we know or think we know is a lie." Carlson replied, "I know that that's true. I do know that when we die we'll know. It'll all make sense."
He starts cracking up, can barely hold it in but lets slip an odd, whimsical laughter.
Question is, did he say this uncharacteristically or did he break character?
Anyhow, the statement is untrue, people do not become all-knowing after death.
Friederike Hauffe, a Christian who preceded the spiritualist movement, says,
"These revelations will appear to many incredible and absurd—especially to those who are of opinion that a spirit must know more than a human being; but I answer that this is not the ease with these spirits; they are in a very inferior state, are mostly entangled in error, and can more easily approach man, with whom they are in a sort of nervous relation, than heavenly spirits."
RE: What is the point of NATO and other things - NightskyeB4Dawn - 07-19-2024
(07-19-2024, 06:11 AM)MrJesterium Wrote:(07-18-2024, 08:05 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I still don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He has the same laugh as my nephew. I love my nephew. But it does not make me like Tucker any more.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uElaHUSM7fI#t=2h22m36s
After watching this part of an interview, I think Carlson is very disingenuous.
First he starts off saying, "I approach any everything with like a profound sense of my ignorance."
But then he sides with his presumptuous host Shawn Ryan, who was convicned "that when we die we will see that everything that we know or think we know is a lie." Carlson replied, "I know that that's true. I do know that when we die we'll know. It'll all make sense."
He starts cracking up, can barely hold it in but lets slip an odd, whimsical laughter.
Question is, did he say this uncharacteristically or did he break character?
Anyhow, the statement is untrue, people do not become all-knowing after death.
Friederike Hauffe, a Christian who preceded the spiritualist movement, says,
"These revelations will appear to many incredible and absurd—especially to those who are of opinion that a spirit must know more than a human being; but I answer that this is not the ease with these spirits; they are in a very inferior state, are mostly entangled in error, and can more easily approach man, with whom they are in a sort of nervous relation, than heavenly spirits."
I am growing weary of the SSDD.
It is easy to see why nothing changes. Life has become like breathing.
It is automatic, requires no thought, and is considered normal and expected.
It is not until it becomes odiferous, or difficult that we are forced to pay attention to it, and it seems sudden when we notice something is not right.
This can begin so slowly, and can go on for such a long period of time, that by the time you realize what is going on, you are already terminal.
He is right about one thing. Our only hope is our youth. We can only pray that they do a better job than we did.
RE: What is the point of NATO and other things - Ninurta - 07-20-2024
Damn.
Now it's Tucker learning how to knit a Vietnamese Lady Bug. Part 2.
Is nothing sacred?
.
RE: What is the point of NATO and other things - Ninurta - 07-20-2024
(07-19-2024, 06:11 AM)MrJesterium Wrote:(07-18-2024, 08:05 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote: I still don't trust him as far as I can throw him. He has the same laugh as my nephew. I love my nephew. But it does not make me like Tucker any more.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uElaHUSM7fI#t=2h22m36s
After watching this part of an interview, I think Carlson is very disingenuous.
First he starts off saying, "I approach any everything with like a profound sense of my ignorance."
But then he sides with his presumptuous host Shawn Ryan, who was convicned "that when we die we will see that everything that we know or think we know is a lie." Carlson replied, "I know that that's true. I do know that when we die we'll know. It'll all make sense."
He starts cracking up, can barely hold it in but lets slip an odd, whimsical laughter.
Question is, did he say this uncharacteristically or did he break character?
Anyhow, the statement is untrue, people do not become all-knowing after death.
Friederike Hauffe, a Christian who preceded the spiritualist movement, says,
"These revelations will appear to many incredible and absurd—especially to those who are of opinion that a spirit must know more than a human being; but I answer that this is not the ease with these spirits; they are in a very inferior state, are mostly entangled in error, and can more easily approach man, with whom they are in a sort of nervous relation, than heavenly spirits."
Paul begs to differ with Mr. Hauffe, and, after all, Paul was one of the original Christians, one of the ones that formulated the tenets of the sect - something that Mr. Haifle cannot lay claim to.
He wrote:
Quote:For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
- 1 Corinthians 13:12, King James Version
But, then again, some folks considered Paul to be a pretty disingenuous character, too...
.
RE: What is the point of NATO and other things - MrJesterium - 07-20-2024
(07-20-2024, 04:31 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Paul begs to differ with Mr. Hauffe, and, after all, Paul was one of the original Christians, one of the ones that formulated the tenets of the sect - something that Mr. Haifle cannot lay claim to.You misunderstand, Hauffe wasn't talking about God or angels, but spirits of the deceased/ demons. Hauffe refuted mediums who believed that the dead (not in Christ) were all-knowing.
(07-20-2024, 04:31 AM)Ninurta Wrote: But, then again, some folks considered Paul to be a pretty disingenuous character, too...[2 Cor. 2:12, Gal. 1:16-17, Phil. 2:20-21] Paul's sincerity and independence from his Jewish-Christian brethren is evinced from these three passages alone.
For comparison:
Richard Wagner wrote in his letters, "I was overcome with such an intense longing to get to work at the music of my Rheingold." / "And as I was seized with a violent longing to begin the musical composition, I gladly gave myself up to my desire, before writing to you." And his Jewish follower Gustav Mahler wrote, "Nor do I think that I have ever worked under such a feeling of compulsion."
Lev Gumilev introduced a novel concept he denoted as passionarity (passionarnost), which he defined as: "an irresistible inner desire (often unconscious) for activities aimed at achieving some goal" / "overriding even our most basic instinct for self-preservation."
Ludwig Borne, who had been extolled by Wagner, did not let the interests of the moment blind him; for him, there was no question of Jewish solidarity (or emancipation from the ghettos). "A pursuit of liberty with only that end in view he looked upon as one-sided and egoistic."
___
I will say this about Paul:
He did not falsify Jesus' teachings, but he condemned the first Christians who did in fact betray Jesus; among them were Peter and two sons of Zebedee. We're led to believe Jesus surrounded himself with fanatics who wished to burn down whole cities, who were ready to bear arms, and force a physical kingdom/messiah to come their way by violence and insurrection.
Was it really the Pharisees who obstructed Jesus and his followers?
We are told that Jesus' alleged disciples barred children (Mark 10:13-14) and immature followers from meeting with him. They also obstructed a fellow exorcist (Mark 9:38), because "he was not following us", which is very revealing!
In Paul's letter (Gal. 2:12-13), Paul indicts Peter as the instigator behind the splitting of the church. Jesus indicted Peter (Matt. 16:22-23) as "Satan" and a "stumbling block", but also rebuked James and John (Luke 9:54-55), the sons of Zebedee. The three were reputed to be founding pillars of Christendom (Gal. 2:9). Why was Peter called "the Zealot"? Was it not for his fanaticism (John 13:8-9, 37; 18:10; Matt. 19:13, 18:7)? For what were men like them (Luke 22:31) singled out?
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be evident that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)
I maintain that Judas' so-called betrayal was a ruse to draw out the traitors from their midst. Was it really Judas who turned Jesus over to the authorities, what about the disciples who fled (Matthew 26:37)? I also doubt that Judas was a real historical person, he doesn't have any lines in his role, perhaps he was just a plot device to propel the narrative forward?
___
Also Marcion, who championed Paul's ideas, questioned the authenticity of his published letters and suspected they had been tampered with.
Jewish composer Charles-Valentin Alkan once had an epiphany. "In starting to translate the New Testament, I was suddenly struck by a singular idea – that you have to be Jewish to be able to do it."
Afaik KJV like most translations is corrupt, the most reliable Bible translations have been DRB and YLT; by weighing the two, the Bible allows for an alternative interpretation, similar to Nostradamus.
Jeremiah 27:7 (on the lifetime of empires)
DRB and done service for him many nations and great kings.
YLT and many nations and great kings shall serve him.
Psalm 104:9 (on the extent of empires)
DRB which they shall not pass not over,
YLT neither shall they return to cover the earth.
Personally I prefer NASB for convenience.