Sharing a poem

Well…COOL! Never would have expected poetry on here! If you’d like to expand upon any of the references/symbolism you used that would be great. Some of it seems to be self-explanatory, but it is always especially illuminating to have the author’s explanation of their intention…then again, sometimes it’s nice to just have work out there, for the reader to interpret. Your choice!

Could this be the beginning of an online Scionics Poetry Slam?

Thanks!…and I must say I’d never expect such a humbling comment back. There was some truncating issue with my browser on my end and the draft went up first.  About your question, it literally dawned on me and with me after burning the midnight oil with work and then reading a series of books by two aliases online (please let me know if I may mention them here?) along with the inspiring and fresh contents I’ve delighted in Scionics. Still learning the ropes of poetry but, I’m right there with you on seeing more of it in here! 

@thelightcatalyst

Posted by: @thelightcatalyst

I’m right there with you on seeing more of it in here! 

So far, yours is still the only poetry here.

You are (and anyone else, for that matter, is) certainly welcome to post any books or authors you have read or been influenced or inspired by. Please feel free!

Thank you for your kind reply. 
The books I’ve read are comprised of the series by aliases: Mike Hockney and Michael Faust which I found on Amazon. 
Thanks alike for this space you’re granted us for chats and poetry! 

@thelightcatalyst How much of their stuff have you read? There’s a lot of it, but it’s all a complete sham, known variously as “The Armageddon Conspiracy,” “Illuminism,” “Hyperianism,” and other names, which is spread on the Internet under the pseudonyms “Mike Hockney” and “Michael Faust” (which you’ve mentioned), but also “Joe Dixon,” “Mark Romel,” “Thomas Stark” and several others. (A YouTuber by the name of “Illuminatus Pythagoras” also comes to mind. Although he says he is “not officially connected to” them, he certainly promotes much of their nonsense, along with a bunch of racist white-supremacist garbage.)

Anyway the gist is this:

• False claims of an ancient origin. They claim to be an ancient organization, started by Pythagoras in ancient Greece and continuing to this day. They call themselves such things as “The Pythagorean Illuminati” or the “Pythagorean Brotherhood.” If they actually had any proof of this they would surely present it, as this proof would do much to enhance their credibility and influence, and hence their efficacy in achieving their goals. Of course, however, they never do, never will, and never can, because it’s simply a baseless lie.
  
  
• The pseudo-mathematical mysticisms of “ontological mathematics.” They have a fairly elaborate set of mystical ideas which they call “ontological mathematics,” which forms the basis of their “religion” of Illuminism. Of course, they don’t call it mysticism, and in fact try to present it as an ultra-rational and internally-consistent set of ideas, but like all mystical religions it falls apart under the slightest actual scrutiny. The central idea of their ontological mathematics is that the universe or reality is actually a zero-dimensional “soul” or “monad,” which is the basis of their conception of “God.” Contained within this zero-dimensional God-monad are an infinite number of zero-dimensional sub-monads, each of which is functions as a differentiated mind or soul. In fact, according to them, your mind or soul is actually one of these zero-dimensional monads.
        
  All of the varied informational content of one’s thoughts and experience results from vibrations or oscillations of the monad which comprises one’s soul/mind. The entire universe, and all of its varied contents is likewise a result of the oscillation of the God-monad and all of the sub-monads which it contains. All of this is couched in “pseudo-mathematical” terms involving such things as Fourier transforms and the Euler identity (e^iπ + 1 = 0) which they call the “God equation.”
     

  Any real mathematician, however, will instantly recognize the many critical, obvious, and irreconcilable logical contradictions in all of this. A zero-dimensional point cannot oscillate or vibrate without moving beyond its own zero-dimensional domain. This is inherent in the very concept of vibration itself, which involves some type of periodic motion. A zero-dimensional point which is mathematically embedded within (and is actually co-existent with) a zero-dimensional reality, however, has no where to move to. A zero-dimensional domain provides no “mathematical room” for any movement of any kind. Furthermore, the concept of an infinite number of differentiated zero-dimensional points existing within the same zero-dimensional point, while somehow each maintains its own individual identity, is inherently self-contradictory. The logical or mathematical consistency of this so-called “ontological mathematics” of the “Armageddon Conspiracy” thus instantly evaporates under the logical and mathematical inconsistencies which lie at foundations.

• The misapplication of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the misuse of “zero”, and the denigration of science. Logic is antithetical to the illogical, is incompatible with it, and destroys it. One of the hallmarks of those who promote mystical and illogical ideas is that, the more that they try to support and defend these ideas, the more mysticism and illogic they must emply to “support” their original ideas. Were they to actually employ logic, their original mysticisms and illogical ideas would instantly crumble. Instead of real logic, then, they must employ “pseudo-logic” in an attempt to provide their position with the veneer of logical consistency. Under the slightest scrutiny, however, this veneer, the mysticisms and illogic it attempts to hide, and those who attempt to defend them, are quickly and unmistakably recognized as the shams that they are.
              
  In the case of the “Armageddon Conspiracy,” they attempt to support their (already proven logically inconsistent) mystical “ontological mathematics” by (mis-)invoking the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). The PSR essentially asserts that “everything must have a reason or a cause.” This can be expressed variously as:    
      

          For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
          For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
          For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.

  It should be noted that the converse of these statements of the PSR also holds, such that:

          For every entity X, if X cannot exist, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X cannot exist.
          For every event E, if E cannot occur, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E cannot occur.
          For every proposition P, if P is false, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is false.

  These converse statements can also be expressed in a perhaps more intuitive alternative form:

          If there is a sufficient explanation for why X cannot exist, then X cannot exist.
          If there is a sufficient explanation for why E cannot occur, then E cannot occur.
          If there is a sufficient explanation for why P is false, then P is false.

  Anyway, a large part of the Armageddon Conspiracy’s shtick is to denigrate science, and to claim that scientists don’t “understand” mathematics. It’s actually very important for them to take this stance, because so much of what they claim, and particularly their “ontological mathematics,” is anti-scientific mysticism. Now, it’s very common for traditional religions to be at odds with science, because of the often wide gulfs which exist between the ancient and outdated mystical and worldviews held such by religions, on the one hand, and the ever-increasingly accurate worldview which has been emerging through the advance of scientific understanding, on the other. A similar gulf exists between the mystical worldview of the Armageddon Conspiracy, with its “zero-dimensional souls” and “ontological mathematics,” on the one hand, and the reality-based worldview which is emerging through scientific understanding, on the other. In the case of the the Armageddon Conspiracy, however, it is not enough to simply attack science and scientists; instead, because so many of their claims rely upon mathematical mysticisms which (as has been shown) completely crumble upon the application of actual mathematical or logical analysis, they must go beyond merely attacking science and scientists, to attacking the very “understanding” or “meaning” of mathematics held by scientists (and everyone else in the world, for that matter).

  Now, to attack math and logic qua math and logic is to betray one’s own illogic, or stupidity, or dishonesty. In the case of the people behind the Armageddon Conspiracy, it is their dishonesty which is most evident. although their illogic and stupidity aren’t far behind.

  Their particular claim regarding the “scientist’s misunderstanding of mathematics” is often made in the context of their frequent assertion that “science rejects the existence of zero,” as if science were some sort of religious system whose adherents universally reject those ideas which violate the religious dogma, rather than the empiricorational endeavor which it is, in which there is actual competition among its participants to extract ever-more accurate information from reality. In the light of this empiricorational competition there would be no reason at all to arbitrarily “reject the existence of zero,” and even less reason if such arbitrary rejection were to prevent the acquisition or formulation of more accurate information about reality. Despite the Armageddon Conspiracy’s absurd claims, no such “rejection of zero” or any other number exists within science. In fact, the mathematical framework of science, with its use of rational, irrational, real and imaginary numbers, as well as tensors, vectors, matrices, quaternions, octonions, and beyond, embraces a plethora of types of numbers and mathematical manipulations far beyond those actually employed by the Armageddon Conspiracy.

  To return to the the Principle of Sufficient Reason, let us consider this formulation thereof, “If there is a sufficient explanation for why E cannot occur, then E cannot occur,” in light of the mystical “ontological mathematics” of the Armageddon Conspiracy. Any zero-dimensional entity cannot vibrate in a zero-dimensional domain, simply because there cannot be any sort of movement (vibrational or otherwise) in a zero-dimensional domain. Thus their mystical “ontological mathematics” is precluded and falsified by the very Principle of Sufficient Reason which they claim to hold so dear!

• The deceptive promotion of so-called “meritocratic” principles. This is where the Armageddon Conspiracy goes beyond being simply a small and relatively harmless mystical fringe scam of little import, to attempting to maneuver itself (and its leaders) into positions of essentially dictatorial power. Of course, like the perpetrators of most such movements, they don’t come out and explicitly state that they wish to usurp your wealth and power. Instead, they attempt, by surreptitious means, to insert themselves into positions where they are able to do so, all while spouting the most high-sounding platitudes, carefully designed to sound benevolent and gain popular appeal on the one hand, while enabling the usurpation they crave, on the other.
     
  So, the Armageddon Conspiracy claims to uphold the principle of “meritocracy,” whereby those who have “merit” have the right to greater wealth and power. Actually, this sounds rather nice, doesn’t it? After all, bad people don’t really deserve good things, do they? Shouldn’t good things go to good people? After all, that’s what “merit” really is: a sort of measure of a person’s goodness or deservingness. And by logical extension, it naturally follows that the best people, those with the most “merit,” should be the leaders of society.

      
  The whole problem with this, however, is in how this “merit” would be determined in the first place. In Nazi Germany, “merit” was allocated to the “Aryan Race” and those who advanced its “interests,” and “negative merit” was applied to the Jews and those who fought against the Third Reich. In the American South, or elsewhere in the systemically racist environment which pervades much of the United States, “merit” is typically applied to Whites, and “negative merit” is typically applied to non-Whites, particularly Blacks and Mexicans. 

  Fascist authoritarians never publicly call themselves fascist authoritarians. Instead they will over-emphasize the importance of “law and order,” or the “rule of law.” They will focus on creating scapegoat populations in order to whip the larger society into a frenzy that “something needs to be done” about the “awful other.” This creates a distinct “us versus them” mentality which is then exploited by the fascist rulers. In Nazi Germany, this resulted in the Holocaust. In the United States under Donald Trump, this resulted in the rhetoric of “Mexican rapists” and “build the wall and have Mexico pay for it.”
     
  In the case of the Armageddon Conspiracy, this “us versus them” is manifested as “those with merit versus those without merit.” And what would be the most obvious method for gaining “merit” in this case? It would be in promoting the ideas of the Armageddon Conspiracy itself, of course. Those who most loudly promote “Illuminism,” “ontological mathematics,” and the rest of their pseudo-intellectual nonsense would be seen as having the most “merit,” naturally. And the promotion of the very idea of meritocracy itself is certainly a central feature of this. Those who realize these things would, out of the natural desire to be on the “meritorious” side, or to not be on the “unmeritorious” side, themselves be driven to proclaim the “merit” of the whole system, as well as of its leaders – or face the consequences of being in opposition to the ruling “meritocrats.” The ultimate result of all of this would be a society in which everyone would be compelled to support the fascist authoritarian so-called “meritocracy,” in both words and deeds, with one’s labor, money, and in some cases even with one’s life, if deemed necessary by the ruling “meritocrats.”

  Rather than merely pointing out the Armageddon Conspiracy’s deceptive tactics behind their promotion of their brand of “meritocracy” (and the dangerous results which would ensue if they were to be successful) I’d like to point out the Minarchist political system outlined here on this website, along with such of its essential features as “liquid voting” or “liquid representation,” cooperative working and housing solutions, and a truly educated and informed citizenry. While I think this model can be improved (I am actually thinking of it’s approach to law enforcement in particular) it certainly seems to hold more promise than any other political system I’ve ever encountered, and is much preferable to the Armageddon Conspiracy’s distinctly Orwellian nightmare “meritocracy,” in which people must be “forced to be free” (their words, not mine) if carried to its logical conclusion.

• The intentionally disjointed and confusing presentation of their Ideas. When one is attempting to teach a subject, particularly something complex, one starts at the beginning, slowly building up from the foundations until the entire edifice is complete, so to speak. One presents the material in an essentially linear manner, so that each concept builds directly and clearly on the previous one. The goal is not to confuse, not to misdirect, but to communicate the subject in as clearly and concisely as possible, to maximize the reader’s/student’s understanding of the matters under discussion.
     
  The Armageddon Conspiracy, on the other hand, almost never presents there material in a clear, coherent, linear fashion, but instead chooses to obscure their ideas under a mountain of intentionally confusing and misdirecting pseudo-intellectualisms. This has two purposes: (1) It acts to continually distract their readers from the otherwise glaring logical inconsistencies, which are everywhere, and (2) it conveys a false aura of grand historical intellectualism to what is actually a grand hysterical fabrication, to anyone with the intelligence to see it for what it is.
     
  Of course, they would (and do) attempt to counter such accusations by proclaiming that their writing style is indeed nonlinear, and even “Nietzschian” and “inspiring,” rather than bland, dry, and linear. So, in essence, they counter these accusations, not by addressing the underlying issue of intellectual misdirection and dishonesty, but by employing even more intellectual misdirection and dishonesty. At least they’re consistent.
     
• Intentionally dishonest ad hominem attacks on their detractors. Whenever they are attacked they will retaliate fiercely. That can certainly be respected, in and of itself. But (no surprise) they typically employ dishonest character attacks against their opponents, which is a dishonorable approach which no one respects. In line with their whole anti-science stance (which is itself dishonest and illogical) they’ll essentially start accusing their detractors of being “irrational scientific empiricists,” as if the integration of reason and empiricism has not already definitively demonstrated itself to be the most powerful means humans have ever devised for extracting accurate information from reality. They will start saying that their detractors are merely “sensory materialists,” while being unable to actually contradict the content of the criticisms leveled against them. They will attack some specific idea, such as Max Tegmark’s multiverse theory, string theory, or M-theory, just to name a few. and by such attacks they attempt to discredit science, empiricorationalism, and the scientific method as a whole. In doing that they intentionally miss the point of science and of the sometimes radical ideas which scientists propose: not to be right on every point, but to continually move toward ever-greater accuracy. It is important for scientists to propose new and somewhat radical hypothesis to in an attempt to explain the as-yet-unexplained. As their ideas are tested over time the wheat always gets separated from the chaff.
     
  There are other ways they dishonestly characterize their detractors so as to denigrate them and, by extension, their ideas and attacks. These ad hominem attacks include claiming that certain detractors, by the very nature of their attacks, must be autistic, or must be of some “wrong” Meyers-Briggs personality type, as though these things, on their own, somehow make the actual content of their attacks any less valid. They may call their detractors “Mandarins,” in reference to one of Justin E. H. Smith’s six types of philosophers, with the “Mandarins” being those philosophers who seek safety and therefor don’t stray from established consensus. The Armageddon Conspiracy apparently does not see the contradiction in denigrating some for being establishment “Mandarins,” and others (such as Max Tegmark) for proposing ideas which, at their time, were unconventional and radical.
     
     

I’ve already spent far too much time on this, but maybe it will help others from falling for this sham. But this is, after all, just my opinion. You should decide for yourself. Here’s a link to their entire “God Series” of books, up to this point. Peruse them. If you think they are tomes of enlightenment, then by all means, support their work by buying them. If, however, enough people agree with me and a few others and consider them to be pure pseudo-intellectual garbage, then perhaps we can simply laugh these charlatans out of existence.

John, thanks for the spot-on analysis, not only regarding the Armageddon Conspiracy, but also the bit about us needing to improve the implementation of law enforcement within a Scionistic Minarchy. Those improvements will be forthcoming. We will be pming you regarding this in a few days or so.

Great work!

Hi Dear Page Managers and John V,

First and foremost, my apologies for my absence by Force Majeure. It’s been a challenge by the day recovering from Covid-19. Since it’s been clouding my thoughts, and weakening my typing, for now I just wish to thank you for such an eloquent, chapter-and-verse  reply and crystal clear honest suggestions, Sir. I’m sure I’ll be delighted to reread each line and make my best justice to your comments, timely. 
I carry a motto: “Understanding does not mean consenting per se.”  — Thus, I’ve read several of their books with a grain (some grains) of salt, though. As per myself, it might be useful rereading their main theses, as well as the antitheses available, to hopefully come up with the synthesis. 
Thank you and best regards to all,

@thelightcatalyst:

You say you want to reread the “main theses” of the Armageddon Conspiracy, along with whatever the “antitheses” to them are, to hopefully arrive at some sort of “synthesis?” Each of their “main theses” (as I explained above) is based upon or motivated by lies and dishonesty. (Read my post again, if you need a reminder.) 

The only “antithesis” to a lie is honesty. There can be no “synthesis” between dishonesty and honesty, because any such “synthesis” only results in a wider web of lies and dishonesty. Everyone knows that: “Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive…”

Lies serve the interests of liars. Truth serves the interests of the honest. What side is the Armageddon Conspiracy on? This isn’t even a question, based upon the lies they peddle which are blatantly obvious to anyone with the capacity for critical thought who reads through their mountain of bullshit.

John, as you’re certainly well aware, the whole “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” thing (the Hegelian dialectic) is often misapplied by the Armageddon Conspiracy as a deceptive both sides of the story or moral equivalency technique (the two are very similar) when it suits their purposes. Essentially, when backed into a corner where some claim is exposed as dishonest or false, rather than ever admitting the falsity or dishonesty, the Armageddon Conspiracy people will sometimes resort to saying essentially that the original claim is a thesis which can be synthesized with its antithesis to create a “higher truth.” (Of course, this “higher truth” is really a “higher lie,” because as you said so eloquently, any “synthesis” involving lies only creates a wider web of lies.) Presenting the original false/dishonest claim as a thesis this way is an attempt to provide garbage with a faux veneer of value, truth, or usefulness.

And – it’s also an attempt to make the one making the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” equivocation seem “reasonable” and “open-minded,” when what they are really doing is attempting deception. Just a heads-up, although I am sure this is obvious to the rest of the Core.

@johnv hmmm… Let me put it more clear. Never mind The Armageddon Conspiracy itself. I’d meant the rest of their series, mainly debunking the lies of Abrahamic religions (I say this outright because I’m a former practicing orthodox jew and have dropped the ritualistic part and do not consider myself religious any longer). Thus, I’ve grown to relate to Scionics. 
And I’ve found this place to be exciting because it is not based on ad hominem. 

@thelightcatalyst

Posted by: @thelightcatalyst

Never mind The Armageddon Conspiracy itself. I’d meant the rest of their series, mainly debunking the lies of Abrahamic religions

The problem with this is that the Armageddon Conspiracy tries to debunk the mysticism/falsity inherent in the Abrahamic religions by promoting mysticisms/falsities of their own, some of which I have listed in my first (and rather long) reply earlier in this thread.

The very best way to debunk the Abrahamic religions, and all mysticisms wherever they are found, and whatever their specific claims are, is NOT with more mysticism or lies, but with TRUTH or FACTS which are completely consistent with REASON and REALITY.

So…you want REALLY good arguments against Abrahamism? Well, science completely debunks Genesis, in terms of the processes which lead to the creation of the world and the universe, and all the things it contains, including life and humans, in terms of the time required to create these things, and in terms of the order they were created. Noah and his flood are also debunked by the geological record.

Furthermore, such important foundational events, such as Passover for the Jews and the very existence of Jesus Christ (as related by the Bible) are also quite easily provably false based upon historical/archeological grounds. If the Biblical story of 10 plagues, culminating in the death of every first born Egyptian male (while all the first born male Jews were spared, or “passed over, by the Angel of Death”) were historically true, i.e., if it actually happened, then this would have been an event of such epic and horrific proportions (literally of Biblical proportions) that it would certainly have been recorded in Egyptian history. But there is not a word of this anywhere in history, or in the archeological record. Similarly, there is no record of 40 years of wandering through the desert (to get to a place which was actually only a few days away on foot). The Jewish Exodus and the Passover which (according to the Bible) preceded it simply never happened. They’re just made up stories.

As you said you are an ex-Orthodox Jew, you may not be aware that there is a story related to the birth of Jesus, which is somewhat parallel to the mythical events of Passover, “The Massacre of the Innocents.” In this story, King Herod, upon hearing about the impending birth of Jesus, supposedly prophesied to be “The King of the Jews,” was afraid that the existence of Jesus would threaten his own power or status as king. For this reason (according to the Biblical New Testament Book of Mathew) Herod supposedly ordered the killing of all males under the age of two in and around Bethlehem, around the time of Jesus’ supposed birth. This is an event which, had it happened, would have been so large and would have been considered so horrible that it could not have escaped being part of the historical record of both the Jews and the Romans. But there is simply not a word about it anywhere in the historical or archeological record.

So, again, if you are interested in books which debunk the Abrahamic religions, you would be MUCH better off with actual science and history books, and the actual facts which they contain. Just one or two properly chosen science/history books would contain more disconfirming evidence of Abrahamism than are contained in the hundreds of mystical, false and dishonest Armageddon Conspiracy books, and without forcing one to slog through countless pages full of false, mystical nonsense. If your goal is truly to reject mysticism, why would you ever support or promote such purveyors of mysticism as the writers of the Armageddon Conspiracy books? Your time and money would be much more productively and efficiently used by supporting and learning actual scientific and historical facts, from honest and authoritative sources, and not supporting or trying to “learn” from books full of intentional deceptions and mysticisms. 

Hi back @JohnV

Thanks for the clear and honest intentions throughout your lines. 
I’ll start by your conclusion. As said elsewhere, one of my mottos is, “understanding does not equate to consenting per se”. By that, mind you, I mean that series appealed to my questioning and curiosity; thus my inquiring.
I’d rather stick with some knowledge passed down from mouth to ear related to the faculties of the subconscious mind in the guise of mysticism. I’ll leave that to some Fraternities you may or not may of. Also, since there are christians in my family, the jewish side refuted each line of the called NT vis-a-vis the called Old Testament - endeavor which can’t go that far if one does not master Hebrew and gematria. But that would be leaning on a dichotomy. Because apart from theuniversal laws, sadly, abrahamic religions have become piece of the same cloth.
 I just believe that we are extensions from the Primary Source, and we’re moving towards its likeness, our Higher-Self and Selves. 

With that I rest my case .

@thelightcatalyst

Posted by: @thelightcatalyst

understanding does not equate to consenting per se

One can read something like Plato’s Republic, or Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, or Leibniz’s Monadology, or any of a countless number of other philosophical works. Now, these writings were the result of the apparently honest effort by these writers to try to understand reality, or certain aspects of it, and to explain these efforts to others. Despite the apparent honesty of these efforts, however, they were each writing in pre-scientific times, with a real understanding of the world which is often dwarfed by that of the scientifically literate layman today, and thus their writings all contained false premises, false conclusions — again despite their apparently honest efforts aimed at understanding reality. Their efforts, despite their errors and scientific misunderstandings, remains somewhat relevant to the modern intellectual precisely because of the honest intellectual effort behind them, and the beauty of the honest reasoning they contain.

The Armageddon Conspiracy books, on the other hand, while having been written in a scientifically enlightened age, are NOT an honest attempt at understanding reality, but are DISHONEST intention of trying to FOOL people into believing in all sorts of complete anti-scientific garbage. These are NOT beautiful examples of honest reasoning, but are UGLY examples of deception and DISHONEST reasoning. No person of intellectual integrity, @lightcatalyst, would EVER suggest that one should seek out ANY sort of intellectually valid refutation of ONE system of non-scientific mysticism (such as the Abrahamic religions, as you mentioned) by employing ANOTHER system of non-scientific mysticism (such as the intentionally deceptive/dishonest Armageddon Conspiracy books). This would be akin to trying to refute Hindu anti-scientific creation myths via Ken Ham’s anti-scientific “Answers from Genesis” and creations myths which it accepts as factual, rather than by reading scientific accounts of cosmology, geology, evolution, and related subjects. It would be like trying to refute mystical ideas of disease as being due to evil spirits or bad vapors by reading volumes of L. Ron Hubbard’s anti-scientific Dianetics and Scientology garbage, rather than exploring relevant scientific ideas such as germ theory or genetics. Like “Answers from Genesis,” or Dianetics and Scientology, and like so many other mystical systems from across the centuries, “The Armageddon Conspiracy” will find itself on the garbage heap of intellectual history, and if you, @lightcatalyst, are promoting them in any way, for any reason, you will find yourself on the wrong side of not only that intellectual history, but also of honesty and reason themselves.

Posted by: @thelightcatalyst

Also, since there are christians in my family, the jewish side refuted each line of the called NT vis-a-vis the called Old Testament – endeavor which can’t go that far if one does not master Hebrew and gematria.

The idea that any sort of valid refutation of the New Testament requires an understanding of either Hebrew of gematria (essentially mystical Jewish numerology) is absolutely ludicrous. It is NEVER necessary or even POSSIBLE to refute one false mystical system by invoking another. This is EXACTLY the type of “mystical rabbit hole” reasoning which is dishonestly encouraged and employed by the Armageddon Conspiracy. The fact that YOU have repeatedly been trying to promote their work, and to encourage such “mystical rabbit hole” reasoning (particularly here on Scionics, a bastion of intellectual honesty and empiricorationalism) exposes YOU as either a mystical fool (for falling for such nonsense) or as a dishonest actor who is here to promote the AC’s nonsense (which would mark you as a different kind of fool). In either case, this is not the place for fools, or foolishness, or intellectual dishonest.

Posted by: @thelightcatalyst

With that I rest my case .

And with that, I find YOU (along with the anti-scientific AC garbage you keep trying to promote) “Guilty, as charged,” of foolishness and of intellectual dishonesty. But it is not I that convict you, but your own words here.