I can't help but wonder how history might have been different if Tsar Nicholas II and his Tsarina had had four sons and one daughter. Would four elder sons have provided enough male energy to counter-act the poor political advice of Alexandra, and helped their father, the family patriarch and the Patriarch of Russia, to have ruled better?
In the natural order, men and women have different spheres of influence. Man's sphere is the nation; Woman's sphere is the family. "The Ancients viewed hubris as an affront to the gods, with the worst crime committed by the hero when he transgresses the natural order." (Prof Tom Sunic, in an article posted today at The Occidental Observer.)
It is so sad to see that last photograph of the Romanovs. They are such tragic figures. I can't help but see symbolic parallels between their family and our current society: the wife does not know her place; the daughters are the "elders" amongst the children, and though of child-bearing age, are childless themselves; the only son is a sickly hemophiliac.
I don't mean to be morose. I just like to think that there is something we can learn from these old stories and those who have gone before us, if we let them have an impact on us.
That's an interesting take I hadn't considered. You are right about the Greeks and their emphasis on "the natural order of things." Their monsters were unnatural mixtures of things--head of a bull, body of a lion, wings of an eagle, etc. and hubris was severely punished. Even the travails of Odysseus, the wiliest man, were brought on by his self-congratulation when he defeated the Cyclops. When he humbled himself, and remembered his place was at home with his wife and son, the gods relented.
But who can say what the "natural order" of things is? The *natural* order is: whoever has the biggest club makes the rules, but "civilization" had the "hubris" to defy that order with various strategems like the rule of law.
DeTocqueville claimed that, in a condition of equality, humans would grow to love that equality more than liberty itself, and I think that does explain a lot of the "unnatural order of things" we see all over the place and the disastrous consequences. The seems to be merit in Prof Sunic's formulation of the man's sphere being the nation and the woman's sphere being the family, which could just be a result of their respective natural interests and abilities. There's no objective scale by which to evaluate them vis-a-vis each other, yet, we egalitarians, can only notice *that there is a difference* and that's what we attack--to our great disadvantage.
A clarification: Prof Sunic only said what I put in quotes in my comment; the notion of man’s sphere being the nation and woman’s being the family was an idea that I lined up alongside the quote since I thought they related well to each other.
That is fascinating that De Tocqueville foresaw that people who were granted “equality” would come to love that equality more than liberty itself. That would seem to put us in a kind of “race to the bottom,” since the only way to equalize everyone is to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator.
It’s kinda dumb to insist on that kind of equality, because it ultimately means that I miss out on all the wonderful things that come about in the world from those individuals who can do certain things better than I can.
The more I think about it, it’s not just stupid, it’s downright crazy. How does that saying go? Those the gods would destroy, they first drive insane?
If so, maybe keeping our heads screwed on right is the best, simplest way to get through all of this.
Well put. We are really starting from a deep hole, we modern Westerners. Like the panhandler boys at the traffic lights of Baltimore. So much damage done-- deliberately and knowingly,
Thanks, Craig, for filling in that bit of "lost" (read: not taught) history. It's absolutely disgusting. The ancient churchman Marcion, who was way more influential in early Christianity that they tell us (just like the Gnostics), fought to have the OT excluded from Christian scriptures. He was ostracized and villified and eventually his churches disappeared. A sad history indeed.
Hmm yeah, what did we do in Iraq, aside from all the war crimes in general, we disenfranchised the Sunni minority, which became ISIS. We then outfitted them with all the best video cameras and trucks and black pajamas, and sent them to fight alongside our al qaeda affiliate against Assad in Syria. Barack kept repeating there were no boots on the ground in Syria, then Trump said we were there to protect the oil, and now the Depends administration says they are bombing Syria in self defense of the military bases we built there. While U.S. troops in the region accumulate "brain injuries".
Oh and ISIS was also really good at blowing up priceless cultural artifacts that have existed since long before anyone ever heard of David or Daniel or Jesus or Mohammed or any of it.
America is going the way of Germany. Trump is going to take us there.
“…Rasputin…the corrupt Christian holy man”. That’s an oxymoron. What does Jesus say about identifying people with their beliefs? “You shall know them by their fruits”. I again refer you back to The Tares Among Wheat, who according to the narrative and explanation given by Jesus himself, are another race of X-men (similarly appearing, but genetically and chromosomally different). If you have eyes to see them, they are all around us, and Rasputin was clearly one of them. And not only are they Tares, but they constitute the leadership of The Synagogue of Satan, whose congregation are more Tares, useful idiots, and dupes.
Morality is a foundation stone of New Testament theology. If you have bad morals, such as Rasputin, can you truly be a Christian? Looks like bad fruit, smells like bad fruit, is bad fruit, and is therefore not the good fruit of a good tree. That’s not so complicated, is it.
So now then, what do you do with Christians who do not believe in Zionism, but do read the Old Testament in its proper context?
And to anyone reading this, go grab a Bible and read the Book of Daniel for yourself. And Deuteronomy, while you are at it. Educate yourself, so that you take neither Douglas Reed’s word for it, nor this fellow.
You are free to not read and Mr. Nelson is free to block me anytime. But that would run contrary to his complaints about Zionists who do that very same thing.
You however, are that annoying type who offers no intelligent discussion, just little jabs, like a petulant child.
Why not offer us the proper context for this: “But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:” Deuteronomy 20:16 What's the proper Christian context for extermination of all living things?
The ancient Hebrews were promised that land and cleared it of human hybrids and giants. That information is clearly stated in the Bible and echoed in other historical narratives. Nowhere do you find a mandate to conquer outside that area, nor do you ever - in all of history - see the Hebrews expanding (unlike ALL other empires who, incidentally, were at least as brutal, if not more so).
As to those “Jews” who conquer by intrigue and the purse, are they really Jews? Certainly you are aware of the Khazarian issue. And then there is the statement by Jesus: “…those who call themselves Jews, but are not, and are a synagogue of Satan”. Revelation 3:9
So it's proper to kill everything w/n Yahweh's prescribed area: hybrids, giants, all living things. Well, how does that square w/ Christian notions of mercy or the sanctity of life?
I assert that in the day in which we live, there are more hybrids (Tares/ weeds), than there is legitimate wheat, and this is why things are completely falling apart.
And the destruction of those beings was limited to that time and place. After Jesus, it’s “turn the other cheek and bless those who curse you”. Evil is allowed to prosper, but will be judged eventually.
Humans cling to their mortality. God is concerned with the spirit that animates the mortal body. All the pain and suffering will eventually not even be remembered.
And the context of today’s Zionist Israel is a creation of the Zionists, not a mandate in the Bible. Abraham > Jacob/Israel > 12 tribes > tribe of Judah > Jesus. Mission accomplished. The focus therefore, is on Jesus now. There is not a Jew alive today that could correctly be following the Mosaic law - no tabernacle, no temple, no temple hardware (Ark of the Covenant, etc). And if you see any of those things magically appearing, they are reproductions and forgeries to fulfill an alternative agenda.
I'm not referring to today's Jews or today's Israel. I'm asking about one verse in Deuteronomy which seems to declare Yahweh's intentions for his chosen to fulfill. To me this passage reads - kill all living things in these lands I give to you.
Yes, that is exactly what it’s says. And there is only one context in which that would be acceptable: that there was a half human race (corrupted flesh) that took root there. Tares among wheat. A tare is plant that looks almost identical to a natural wheat, but infests and overwhelms the wheat, sucking all energy from it and killing it.
As you read through the Torah, you will see tribes with the “im” suffix - which denotes some of these corrupted peoples.
The verse previous to the one Billy cited says: "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the
cities of these nations.." It doesn't get much more explicit than that.
What I don't understand is why fundamentalists (and I'm assuming you consider yourself to be fundamentalist) insist at all costs on holding onto the Old Testament despite the enormous damage it does to your message.
I mean, there are literally two Gods at issue here.
New Testament God: Love your neighbor.
Old Testament God: Hate your neighbor.
They can't possibly be the same God, and yet you guys twist yourselves into religious pretzels trying to pound that square peg into the round hole all for the sake of maintaining your Jehovah worship--a God who commands your destruction. You have to come up with outlandish theories involving genetically altered half-humans to make that square peg fit, for crying out loud, and yet you do it.
The message of Jesus is left in the dust, forgotten with all the prophesy interpreting, and alien visits, and rapture speculating, and spotting the tares among us, and End Times prognosticating, and giant half-humans, and demons having sex with human virgins, and cheerleading for whatever atrocity Israel is committing at the moment.
It's all lunacy and makes your religion ridiculous and drives away the young into the "None" GSS category and it's all to save the Old Testament, which wasn't even a part of early Christianity, but added centuries after the church was founded. You guys will not even consider the possibility the addition of the Old Testament to the New, and the declaration that they were of "equal divine authority," was a giant blunder. You'd rather sacrifice the whole thing than admit that one simple possibility.
Worse, your attachment to the primitive tribal deity who hates you and wants you genocided blinds you to the truth of who your enemies really are, even though the evidence couldn't be more clear and in your face every single day. You've been reading this blog for a while now, so you *know* the peril we are facing, yet, you *still* refuse to give up the Yahweh-worship.
I believe we are not likely to escape the horrors our enemy inflicted on the Russians in the last century. And that's the frustrating thing. You should be an ally. Instead, the fundamentalists are like cinder blocks tied to our arms as we're trying to fight a very skilled and ruthless opponent. You are willing to watch our whole civilization come crashing down rather than jettison that disgusting, child-killing, blood-guzzling, primitive tribal deity: Yahweh. It boggles the mind.
Oh, and “the message of Jeeeeesus gets left in the dust”, eh? What is that message? I’ll bet we differ on that too. Let me tell you how I hear that message:
Matthew 10:28
King James Version
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
And the modern American abortion industry has killed way more babies than ancient Israel. We don’t even know the population density of that region in that time, but given what we know of primitive cultures and lifespans prior to modern medicine, life was short and populations likely small.
Further - on the subject of conquest - show me the historical record of conquest outside that area by ancient Israel.
As to the Zionists and Talmudists who did their intrigues throughout history - none of that jives with the Biblical narrative. No Temple - no Israel. Those “Jews” were doing those intrigues off reservation. And again, I say they are not Jews (descendants of ancient Hebrew tribes) at all, but imposters. Heck, there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who hate the Zionists, and that’s a fact.
First of all, I am quite clear on the fact that I do not support modern Israel or Zionism. There is neither Greek nor Jew - all are guilty and the gospel is for all men.
Those “outlandish theories” are all over the historical record and woven into the Biblical narrative. Perhaps your heated opposition to those ideas is because they hit close to home(?)
So that’s the key to success over the stranglehold that the Zionists & Co have over humanity - just stop tying the two testaments together? Wow, who knew?!! (Even though - as you admitted - the New Testament liberally quotes the Old Testament.)
You are literally making me laugh! Fundamentalists are a negligible part of the human population, and guys like me (non Zionist Christians) are even more rare. If it’s just a matter of critical mass of not believing the Old Testament, I think you’ve got the numbers. But here we are eh?, with the Zionists still calling the shots. Maybe there’s just a bit more to it.
As to the “cities far off”, exactly how far is very far off? I mean I drove from the coast to Fresno the other day and that was a chore in a fast little car. Very far off on horse or foot - hmm…I wonder what distance that figure of speech encompasses(?).
Please quote me the passage which says there is a half human race inhabiting the land being granted in this passage. I've heard of giants and their offspring, but thought that was in an apocryphal book -Enoch.
Also I thought "im" was a plural ending as in goyim and elohim. Where does the notion of corrupted enter? If you want to educate me, you'll have to spell these things out.
I'm not interested in playing a bible game, following you down a series of scriptural rabbit holes. I asked you civilly to back up your assertion that Deuteronomy is being cited out of context. Explain to me in your own words what the proper context is and how a Christian should understand that Yahweh offers cities "that thou shalt save alive nothing that breathest."
I read Craig's article in which he quotes Deuteronomy. You must have seen it too. You're the one coming off like the bible expert. Surely you can explain one troubling passage.
I can't help but wonder how history might have been different if Tsar Nicholas II and his Tsarina had had four sons and one daughter. Would four elder sons have provided enough male energy to counter-act the poor political advice of Alexandra, and helped their father, the family patriarch and the Patriarch of Russia, to have ruled better?
In the natural order, men and women have different spheres of influence. Man's sphere is the nation; Woman's sphere is the family. "The Ancients viewed hubris as an affront to the gods, with the worst crime committed by the hero when he transgresses the natural order." (Prof Tom Sunic, in an article posted today at The Occidental Observer.)
It is so sad to see that last photograph of the Romanovs. They are such tragic figures. I can't help but see symbolic parallels between their family and our current society: the wife does not know her place; the daughters are the "elders" amongst the children, and though of child-bearing age, are childless themselves; the only son is a sickly hemophiliac.
I don't mean to be morose. I just like to think that there is something we can learn from these old stories and those who have gone before us, if we let them have an impact on us.
That's an interesting take I hadn't considered. You are right about the Greeks and their emphasis on "the natural order of things." Their monsters were unnatural mixtures of things--head of a bull, body of a lion, wings of an eagle, etc. and hubris was severely punished. Even the travails of Odysseus, the wiliest man, were brought on by his self-congratulation when he defeated the Cyclops. When he humbled himself, and remembered his place was at home with his wife and son, the gods relented.
But who can say what the "natural order" of things is? The *natural* order is: whoever has the biggest club makes the rules, but "civilization" had the "hubris" to defy that order with various strategems like the rule of law.
DeTocqueville claimed that, in a condition of equality, humans would grow to love that equality more than liberty itself, and I think that does explain a lot of the "unnatural order of things" we see all over the place and the disastrous consequences. The seems to be merit in Prof Sunic's formulation of the man's sphere being the nation and the woman's sphere being the family, which could just be a result of their respective natural interests and abilities. There's no objective scale by which to evaluate them vis-a-vis each other, yet, we egalitarians, can only notice *that there is a difference* and that's what we attack--to our great disadvantage.
A clarification: Prof Sunic only said what I put in quotes in my comment; the notion of man’s sphere being the nation and woman’s being the family was an idea that I lined up alongside the quote since I thought they related well to each other.
That is fascinating that De Tocqueville foresaw that people who were granted “equality” would come to love that equality more than liberty itself. That would seem to put us in a kind of “race to the bottom,” since the only way to equalize everyone is to reduce us all to the lowest common denominator.
It’s kinda dumb to insist on that kind of equality, because it ultimately means that I miss out on all the wonderful things that come about in the world from those individuals who can do certain things better than I can.
The more I think about it, it’s not just stupid, it’s downright crazy. How does that saying go? Those the gods would destroy, they first drive insane?
If so, maybe keeping our heads screwed on right is the best, simplest way to get through all of this.
Well put. We are really starting from a deep hole, we modern Westerners. Like the panhandler boys at the traffic lights of Baltimore. So much damage done-- deliberately and knowingly,
Thanks, Craig, for filling in that bit of "lost" (read: not taught) history. It's absolutely disgusting. The ancient churchman Marcion, who was way more influential in early Christianity that they tell us (just like the Gnostics), fought to have the OT excluded from Christian scriptures. He was ostracized and villified and eventually his churches disappeared. A sad history indeed.
"our attack on Iraq was for Israel’s sake"
Hmm yeah, what did we do in Iraq, aside from all the war crimes in general, we disenfranchised the Sunni minority, which became ISIS. We then outfitted them with all the best video cameras and trucks and black pajamas, and sent them to fight alongside our al qaeda affiliate against Assad in Syria. Barack kept repeating there were no boots on the ground in Syria, then Trump said we were there to protect the oil, and now the Depends administration says they are bombing Syria in self defense of the military bases we built there. While U.S. troops in the region accumulate "brain injuries".
Oh and ISIS was also really good at blowing up priceless cultural artifacts that have existed since long before anyone ever heard of David or Daniel or Jesus or Mohammed or any of it.
America is going the way of Germany. Trump is going to take us there.
“…Rasputin…the corrupt Christian holy man”. That’s an oxymoron. What does Jesus say about identifying people with their beliefs? “You shall know them by their fruits”. I again refer you back to The Tares Among Wheat, who according to the narrative and explanation given by Jesus himself, are another race of X-men (similarly appearing, but genetically and chromosomally different). If you have eyes to see them, they are all around us, and Rasputin was clearly one of them. And not only are they Tares, but they constitute the leadership of The Synagogue of Satan, whose congregation are more Tares, useful idiots, and dupes.
Morality is a foundation stone of New Testament theology. If you have bad morals, such as Rasputin, can you truly be a Christian? Looks like bad fruit, smells like bad fruit, is bad fruit, and is therefore not the good fruit of a good tree. That’s not so complicated, is it.
So now then, what do you do with Christians who do not believe in Zionism, but do read the Old Testament in its proper context?
And to anyone reading this, go grab a Bible and read the Book of Daniel for yourself. And Deuteronomy, while you are at it. Educate yourself, so that you take neither Douglas Reed’s word for it, nor this fellow.
Peace.
Dude, wake up.
😂😂😂ok, AA, whatever you say.
You're a fking idiot.
And you are a self identified psycho puppet. Hmm.
Still going?
You are free to not read and Mr. Nelson is free to block me anytime. But that would run contrary to his complaints about Zionists who do that very same thing.
You however, are that annoying type who offers no intelligent discussion, just little jabs, like a petulant child.
Why not offer us the proper context for this: “But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:” Deuteronomy 20:16 What's the proper Christian context for extermination of all living things?
The ancient Hebrews were promised that land and cleared it of human hybrids and giants. That information is clearly stated in the Bible and echoed in other historical narratives. Nowhere do you find a mandate to conquer outside that area, nor do you ever - in all of history - see the Hebrews expanding (unlike ALL other empires who, incidentally, were at least as brutal, if not more so).
As to those “Jews” who conquer by intrigue and the purse, are they really Jews? Certainly you are aware of the Khazarian issue. And then there is the statement by Jesus: “…those who call themselves Jews, but are not, and are a synagogue of Satan”. Revelation 3:9
So it's proper to kill everything w/n Yahweh's prescribed area: hybrids, giants, all living things. Well, how does that square w/ Christian notions of mercy or the sanctity of life?
I assert that in the day in which we live, there are more hybrids (Tares/ weeds), than there is legitimate wheat, and this is why things are completely falling apart.
And the destruction of those beings was limited to that time and place. After Jesus, it’s “turn the other cheek and bless those who curse you”. Evil is allowed to prosper, but will be judged eventually.
Humans cling to their mortality. God is concerned with the spirit that animates the mortal body. All the pain and suffering will eventually not even be remembered.
Do you pull the weeds out of your garden?
And the context of today’s Zionist Israel is a creation of the Zionists, not a mandate in the Bible. Abraham > Jacob/Israel > 12 tribes > tribe of Judah > Jesus. Mission accomplished. The focus therefore, is on Jesus now. There is not a Jew alive today that could correctly be following the Mosaic law - no tabernacle, no temple, no temple hardware (Ark of the Covenant, etc). And if you see any of those things magically appearing, they are reproductions and forgeries to fulfill an alternative agenda.
I'm not referring to today's Jews or today's Israel. I'm asking about one verse in Deuteronomy which seems to declare Yahweh's intentions for his chosen to fulfill. To me this passage reads - kill all living things in these lands I give to you.
Yes, that is exactly what it’s says. And there is only one context in which that would be acceptable: that there was a half human race (corrupted flesh) that took root there. Tares among wheat. A tare is plant that looks almost identical to a natural wheat, but infests and overwhelms the wheat, sucking all energy from it and killing it.
As you read through the Torah, you will see tribes with the “im” suffix - which denotes some of these corrupted peoples.
The verse previous to the one Billy cited says: "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the
cities of these nations.." It doesn't get much more explicit than that.
What I don't understand is why fundamentalists (and I'm assuming you consider yourself to be fundamentalist) insist at all costs on holding onto the Old Testament despite the enormous damage it does to your message.
I mean, there are literally two Gods at issue here.
New Testament God: Love your neighbor.
Old Testament God: Hate your neighbor.
They can't possibly be the same God, and yet you guys twist yourselves into religious pretzels trying to pound that square peg into the round hole all for the sake of maintaining your Jehovah worship--a God who commands your destruction. You have to come up with outlandish theories involving genetically altered half-humans to make that square peg fit, for crying out loud, and yet you do it.
The message of Jesus is left in the dust, forgotten with all the prophesy interpreting, and alien visits, and rapture speculating, and spotting the tares among us, and End Times prognosticating, and giant half-humans, and demons having sex with human virgins, and cheerleading for whatever atrocity Israel is committing at the moment.
It's all lunacy and makes your religion ridiculous and drives away the young into the "None" GSS category and it's all to save the Old Testament, which wasn't even a part of early Christianity, but added centuries after the church was founded. You guys will not even consider the possibility the addition of the Old Testament to the New, and the declaration that they were of "equal divine authority," was a giant blunder. You'd rather sacrifice the whole thing than admit that one simple possibility.
Worse, your attachment to the primitive tribal deity who hates you and wants you genocided blinds you to the truth of who your enemies really are, even though the evidence couldn't be more clear and in your face every single day. You've been reading this blog for a while now, so you *know* the peril we are facing, yet, you *still* refuse to give up the Yahweh-worship.
I believe we are not likely to escape the horrors our enemy inflicted on the Russians in the last century. And that's the frustrating thing. You should be an ally. Instead, the fundamentalists are like cinder blocks tied to our arms as we're trying to fight a very skilled and ruthless opponent. You are willing to watch our whole civilization come crashing down rather than jettison that disgusting, child-killing, blood-guzzling, primitive tribal deity: Yahweh. It boggles the mind.
Oh, and “the message of Jeeeeesus gets left in the dust”, eh? What is that message? I’ll bet we differ on that too. Let me tell you how I hear that message:
Matthew 10:28
King James Version
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
And the modern American abortion industry has killed way more babies than ancient Israel. We don’t even know the population density of that region in that time, but given what we know of primitive cultures and lifespans prior to modern medicine, life was short and populations likely small.
Further - on the subject of conquest - show me the historical record of conquest outside that area by ancient Israel.
As to the Zionists and Talmudists who did their intrigues throughout history - none of that jives with the Biblical narrative. No Temple - no Israel. Those “Jews” were doing those intrigues off reservation. And again, I say they are not Jews (descendants of ancient Hebrew tribes) at all, but imposters. Heck, there are plenty of Orthodox Jews who hate the Zionists, and that’s a fact.
I mean for crying out loud, the two genealogies of Jesus in the gospels take you step by step back through the Old Testament.
First of all, I am quite clear on the fact that I do not support modern Israel or Zionism. There is neither Greek nor Jew - all are guilty and the gospel is for all men.
Those “outlandish theories” are all over the historical record and woven into the Biblical narrative. Perhaps your heated opposition to those ideas is because they hit close to home(?)
So that’s the key to success over the stranglehold that the Zionists & Co have over humanity - just stop tying the two testaments together? Wow, who knew?!! (Even though - as you admitted - the New Testament liberally quotes the Old Testament.)
You are literally making me laugh! Fundamentalists are a negligible part of the human population, and guys like me (non Zionist Christians) are even more rare. If it’s just a matter of critical mass of not believing the Old Testament, I think you’ve got the numbers. But here we are eh?, with the Zionists still calling the shots. Maybe there’s just a bit more to it.
As to the “cities far off”, exactly how far is very far off? I mean I drove from the coast to Fresno the other day and that was a chore in a fast little car. Very far off on horse or foot - hmm…I wonder what distance that figure of speech encompasses(?).
Please quote me the passage which says there is a half human race inhabiting the land being granted in this passage. I've heard of giants and their offspring, but thought that was in an apocryphal book -Enoch.
Also I thought "im" was a plural ending as in goyim and elohim. Where does the notion of corrupted enter? If you want to educate me, you'll have to spell these things out.
https://barbaradelong.com/giants-2/
Here is a pretty good summary:
https://barbaradelong.com/special-projects/giants/tribes-of-giants-in-the-bible-and-around-the-world/
And yes, the “im” does denote plural.
Gen 6:12
It repeated, to a lesser degree after the flood, and after the barometric pressure changed.
I'm not interested in playing a bible game, following you down a series of scriptural rabbit holes. I asked you civilly to back up your assertion that Deuteronomy is being cited out of context. Explain to me in your own words what the proper context is and how a Christian should understand that Yahweh offers cities "that thou shalt save alive nothing that breathest."
And you obviously don’t mind referring to the Bible when it suits you. LOL
I read Craig's article in which he quotes Deuteronomy. You must have seen it too. You're the one coming off like the bible expert. Surely you can explain one troubling passage.
I laid it out pretty simply and straightforward. If you cannot follow it, perhaps you don’t want to, or are not meant to.
Peace.
Matt 13:24-30
Genesis 6:4
And one more thing: there is even a not-so-subtle clue in the name “Grigori”. He who has eyes to see, let him see.
32 total comments, 21 by you.
66% of the comments are by you.
And your point is what?
That you're an idiot.