>>12183289 (/pb)

Indeed He was, Anon.

Jesus' family was from Judah.

Jesus was a Galilean Jew.

Jesus was even called Rabbi in conversation by Apostle Peter in Mark 9:5 and Mark 11:21, and by Judas Iscariot in Mark 14:45, by Nathanael in John 1:49, where he is also called the Son of God in the same sentence.

What's really best is that I am a Christian but I have been labelled and 'mocked' by inauthentic 'Anons' (see Q4881) calling me 'Rabbi' for refusing to engage in Marxist group warfare logic driven perceptions and accusations.

I refuse to condemn people by religion or race, and there is a pattern of attacks on the replies dismissing what I say with things like 'OK Rabbi'.

The irony is that the whole time I was energized by what the attackers were considering as slander against me, because they were referring to me with the same name that Jesus' followers referred to Him.

So I always took it as a grace from God that there exists people in the world, good or bad, who refer to me with a name that I never even asked to be called but was used by followers of Jesus to refer to Jesus Christ.

Whether I am praised mocked, I'll take being called 'Rabbi' any day of the week!

There is 'Q'. 1

There are 'Anons'. 2

There is no 'Qanon'. 3

Media labeling as 'Qanon' is a method [deliberate] to combine [attach] 'Q' to comments _theories _suggestions _statements [and ACTIONS] made by 2.

I notice a pattern in the attacks from inauthentic 'Anons' (which can be identified as persistently HOSTILE to Q 'Anon' posts and to 'Anons' who indicate they are Q 'allied'):

Their only weapons are hatred and contempt towards any 'Anon' who chooses to engage with them in dialogue that does not flatter their own solipsistic megalomaniacal mental disorders that presume they are prosecutor, jury and judge of the entire information space.

Last bread I saw an 'Anon' reply to a post with nothing but Q drop 4881 with a question "What is your purpose here?"

That Anon's follow up post was a statement "Didn't read it, therefore you have no purpose".

This got me thinking…in what kind of headspace does a person need to be in, in order to define and perceive more or less purpose in others by the extent to which the person personally benefits from them, such that if the person perceives no immediate personal interest in what another says or does, that the other has no purpose?

At the very least the person has to be militantly atheist for perceiving other people as not having a purpose gifted to them by the Creator. Whether you have faith or not, that's a logical implication. To perceive NO purpose in another is to deny the purpose God gifted to that person.

And even if we temporarily suspend presuming any faith, even if we imagine for the sake of argument that another has no God given purpose, from where does it follow that there is a purpose for them that consists solely in the extent to which another person has personal interest in their existence?

And if that is the logical structure of the inauthentic 'Anon's' expectations about other Anons on 8kun, that perceptions of no personal benefit in another is proof the other has no purpose?

I find solace in the fact that I know my purpose was gifted to me and everyone else by the Source of it all, the Creator, God.

My purpose is not according to any living thing's personal interest, including my own body's interests. I reject the 'wheels in the head' vision that there is only this finite, corporeal, mortal body of flesh and blood.

Spirit never dies. Spirit I see as another word for information. Information never dies. Information is always conserved. Information can only 'appear' as destroyed or non-existent to the extent the perceiver is personally not in 'intimate' contact with the information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem

The 'key' I believe is to learn, know, accept and practice, a life of LIGHT that bridges the spacetime between source and perceiver with TRUE AND ACCURATE COPIES OF INFORMATION FROM SOURCE ALL THE WAY TO PERCEIVER.

The presence of 'Noise' can and I know does impact me right down to my core because it increases darkness between source information and what I end up thinking and doing with a tiny portion of truth covered by a large enough 'bandwidth' of informational 'noise'.

The truth of what is happening can DIVERGE VERY WIDELY with what perceivers, people, can end up believing is happening because of noise interference 'clogging up' the minds of the perceivers.

Twitter's 'warning' labels are 100% an attempt to INCREASE 'NOISE' INFORMATION between source information and perceivers.

Twitter's 'section 230' privilege granted to then by the government is that they are not a publisher, that they are a platform and thus are immune from many legal protections for users of publishers.

Yet Twitter is publishing 'noise' information right in the user facing view of tweets. The 'warning' labels are at root an introduction of 'noise' between source information (the information that is the view of what the person tweets by text, link and image), and what Twitter publishes with that source information.

By increasing the quantity of informational 'noise' between source and webpage, Twitter is not just blatantly acting as a publisher which contradicts their own legal liability, but the pattern of their warnings clearly indicate that they are trying to increase the information noise from one political party, the Democrat Party, and their partners in the media many of whom are not really questioning of the validity of that party's information. Russia hoax, Ukraine hoax, Impeachment hoax, MSDNC Fake News Media creation 'QAnon' ongoing hoax…

Ha.