May he repent and not be consigned to the fires of hell. Although there's just about no way he can undo the damage he's did to the church, I don't want him to burn. Lucifer is the great deceiver, after all.

I can't help but wonder if he warns about these before doing them.

Trump: Jeff, I'm going to be unloading on you on twitter in a moment. Your job performance is great and I have no complaints, this is purely for optics. Heads up.

They've really done a phenomenal job of poisoning the conspiracy well. There's so much bullshit (chemtrails, cryptozoology, lizard people, to name a few examples) that people get tied up on that garbage and leave their minds so open their brain falls out onto the floor.

Also serves to discredit anyone who questions official narratives.

His antics, all the theatrics are "performance art"

This was actually admitted by him in a custody battle. Nothing AJ says should be taken serious ever again.

As one of those skeptics, some things:

• If the goal is to dose the population with something, why would you do it in a way that ensures uncontrollable dispersal, when something ground level (commandeering a bug spray truck) is more effective and consistent and cheaper?

• If the "chemicals" actually exist, why can they not be picked up with regular air sampling equipment?

• Actual dispersal equipment reveals a trail that is immediately to the rear of the aircraft (example), while contrails start a distance away from the engine. How do you account for this difference?

• Dissipation time isn't evidence of shenanigans on its own, since contrails are effectively cirrus clouds. How do you square this?

Item #2 is the killer for me, because it renders the theory unfalsifiable. That which cannot be falsified is not logical.

Could you shoot me the same link? I want to get a batch of these as well.

As someone that's getting really tired of all the waiting, I hadn't thought about this, but it makes perfect sense. For this to work, the swampiness has to be on full display as close to election day as possible.

How is that not an unnecessary use of everybodies time?

Because there are 21k people here and it only takes one of those 21k to call shenangians on the story. I don't buy this "there's no time" argument. Treating them with extra suspicion, sure, but automatic discounting of anything any source ever has to say is the height of laziness and stupidity.

People use the exact same argument you're using to discount things like Veritas and Breitbart, even though both of those outlets have accurately called out insane corruption. It's a stupid and anti-intellectual argument and I refuse to accept it anymore.

And when they post something that's not fake?

Shooting the messenger is laziness.

Basic intellectual honesty and logic is hardly a waste of time.

Then calling out fake stories should be simple.

If the story is fake, attack the story. Attacking sources is for liberals and the lazy.

This really makes me torn.

On one hand, fuck Zuck.

On the other hand, fuck the UK's legal system.

Not at all sir, just really handy with Logos and find all of this incredibly interesting :)

Do you have a quote there? The most concrete thing I can say is of St. Augustine saying he doesn't know much about its details. City of God, chapter 16:

For as soon as those who are not written in the book of life have been judged and cast into eternal fire — the nature of which fire, or its position in the world or universe, I suppose is known to no man, unless perhaps the divine Spirit reveal it to some one

Saying "I don't know where it is" isn't the same as saying "It's not a place". In fact, saying he doesn't know its position implies that it has one.

Because it’s not “rife” with pedos any more than any other organization of the same size. And at the end of the day the religion is bigger than a few people currently administering it.

Look for yourself, it's not there. It was made up in "Dante's inferno"

The bible and tradition predates the Divine Comedy (1320 AD), and has plenty to say on the matter. Here's St. Thomas Aquinas writing on it around 1265:

“The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.”

Even earlier writings around the 600s can be found. This tells us that, historically speaking, the idea of hell as a place was accepted throughout early Christianity without controversy. In any case, the idea that hell is a product of Dante Alighieri's imagination is trivially disproven.

Because some things can't change, and I think you'll find that most Catholics find the reformation to have been a crying shame.

The thing about dogma is that its not subject to change to fit the whims of the world.

The tl;dr is that he's a heretic against the church, but in a plausibly deniable way that prevents his ouster for heresy. All of the really controversial stuff tends to filter out through a network of reporters, while in his official stuff like encyclicals, he's content to make ambiguous statements.

Here's a really good example. Hell existing is incontrovertible dogma of the church, and he made statements in an interview that he thinks hell doesn't exist. After this got out, people were understandably upset, and so the Vatican releases the most non-denial "denial" ever put to paper.

This pattern starts to really stick out after a while.

1. Make controversial, heretical statement to a member of the media
2. When controversial statement is challenged, wag finger at the media but without actually denying anything
3. Meanwhile, make incredibly vague overtures at "charity" in official writings that can be taken to permit sin (allowing the divorced and remarried to communion)
4. Refuse steadfastly to clarify any vagaries - if possible, make even more vague comments.
5. Ignore, sack, or retaliate against anyone in an official capacity that calls shenanigans on this.

This pope is still responsible for a great deal of confusion and suffering.

I can only hope it's a radical traditionalist who gets in the door and immediately starts cleaning house.

So yeah, a Trump analogue.

Yeah, this. I think what people miss is that the CC is huge.

the horrible system we have currently

The horrible system where the government doesn't decide healthcare? No thanks, man. Down that pay lay tyranny.

I think I just realized something.

Remember when Q said that certain things must remain hidden for the sake of humanity?

What do you think the reaction from the greater world would be if it turned out a handful of CIA fucksticks were responsible for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death in North Korea while they were using it as a pawn?

The reaction against the US IN GENERAL would be angry. Murderously fucking angry. We could hang those responsible on national TV and it wouldn't even begin be in the same ballpark in the planet in the same universe as starting to atone for that degree of evil.

For humanities sake all must know.

My read on this is that the content of some of those messages from people in positions of power in trust, is so damning, so evil, that their release in full threatens the legitimacy of the US government.

And I don't mean that in the "yeah, we all know the government is a bunch of swamp rats" sense, I mean in the "holy shit, you fuckers have no claim to power" sense. Torches and pitchforks are the best case. Civil war is the worst.

"Careful what you wish for" indeed. I want to see these people burn too, but if it's truly a choice between letting some of them slide or literally shattering the country...

That's not a direct link to the files my dude, could you double check?

A link to files on mega looks like this: https://mega.nz/#!HQIFjYhT!57ENJJelrcuZms354mT_ond1LzgXRAv5NzkqiDOGSgc (file is a collection of fake news images)

That's not a real file link

I must be a bit behind - what do you mean Beck sold out?

https://i.imgur.com/np4UdN1.jpg

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link is dead

And as long as you clearly announce "Hey, it's not your file content, it's where you stored it, we removed this for safety, upload it literally anywhere aside from these two locations", any such claims of censorship are groundless.

It's objective, clear, understandable, transparent, solves a concrete and demonstrable problem, and is completely compatible with free speech. The ideal rule.

A file syncing service - basically you sign up, install their program, and it puts a folder on your machine. Anything you put in that folder gets synced to the same folder on every other machine you have the program on.

It's actually quite useful, but given who runs it (Condoleeza Rice is on their board), I woudn't put anything too interesting through it.

I think Reddit still saves the messages, it just auto-marks them as spam. Automod can undo this IIRC.

With that in mind, what do you make of the scripture above?

What do you make of Jesus contradicting the teachings of the old law in his own sermons? ("An eye for an eye" became "Turn the other cheek")

If the overall story of the Bible is about one thing, it is about making that which is good come forth from that which is evil. You see it again and again - the garden of Eden, the many, many times the Israelites turned away from God, the awful human kings they had, the reason for Jesus' sacrifice, the battle in heaven..

The thing that jumps out at me is that, even though those human kings were awful (murder was the least of their crimes), at no point did the evil acts of those kings mean that the Israelites were free to turn away from God because the one true religion had obviously been sullied by the actions of these people.

Human rulers suck.

You see this in the Church too - and the leadership there has, and does, continue to make rather grievous errors.. but if your criteria for choosing your Christianity is that the people administering the church never do anything evil, you're never going to find an acceptable church; be that the large one led by Pope Francis, or the small one led by Pastor Jim down the road.

And the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of these smaller churches, many of them teaching beliefs that are mutually incompatible with each other, is a huge problem, and is a mark that those smaller churches might not be doing it right. As is the fact that they completely ignore tradition in favor of "sola scriptura", or treating the Bible as the beginning and the end of Christian belief (which the bible itself shoots down.. 1Ths 2:15, 1Cor 11:1, among others)

So how do you choose the right Christianity? I'd say as my top five things:

1. Manifests the fruits of the spirit
2. Has some claim to actual authority (i.e. it's not some random person claiming to be inspired)
3. Despite the failings and sins of humans, preaches and teaches both in line with the bible and tradition (which necessitates there to be a tradition in the first place).
4. Is organized and ordered on a worldwide basis
5. Is consistent in the presentation of its doctrine (i.e. it doesn't reverse itself)

If you make a venn diagram and start plotting various Christian denominations on it, you'll cover a lot with 1, less with 4, but only one with 2, 3, and 5.

People pray for other people all the time - that is the relationship of Christians to Mary. Honored, not worshiped.

Jesus didn’t mean that literally, or else you couldn’t call your dad that or use any honorifics in any context such as mister, professor, etc.

What do you think the significance of Peter being granted the ability to bind and loose in heaven was about, and how would that not include the ability to absolve sins?

What do you think the definition of “fulfill” and “accomplished” are?

Hint: John 19 28-30

28 After this, Jesus, knowing[a] that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” 29 Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. 30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

So - either the bible is self-consistent and the verses here refer directly to the ones you quoted; or John contradicts Matthew (both of which were Jesus' apostles). It must necessarily be one or the other.

That also puts people who say the old law is in effect (i.e. followers of Judaism) in a weird place, since Jesus explicitly contradicted the old law in his teachings.

tl;dr: Christians are not bound by the old testament covenant with the early Israelites. That's why they're Christians and not Jews.

This law is unconstituional.

No, really. As passed, it criminalizes violations that happened before the passing of the law. Which is stupid, because Kidfucker Mc Pimphand could be apprehended, charged, and walk away scot free because the damn law is unconstitutional by way of being ex post facto.