Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Metatron" channel.

And us modern people constantly forget that ancient peoples did brush their teeth, like you don't need toothpaste to have clean and healthy teeth either.
79
Kinda reminds me of Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
18
Not to mention if anything said about him is true, especially the "transgender" crap, it also means sodomite doesn't remotely fit his character for being too innocent and its a wonder he even lasted 4 years.
14
I don't think its fair to say either he failed or succeeded there, he conquered it and then died, he didn't live long enough to accomplish anything more, but his empire did immediately collapse with his death, so its not technically a stretch to call it a failure exactly, but more so a failure to stay alive, since it only collapsed after he died, its not exactly a failure to build or keep an empire.
8
What do you mean by your not a huge fan of Paul?
6
@metatronyt Okay personality aside, of what statements are made by him that you argue he was wrong of?
5
@JeffNeelzebub An empire would be under one banner, no division of separate laws, rulers, and governance, nobody who ruled Macedonia ruled Afghanistan after him, if they're run separately, its not an empire. It does not matter if the Greeks continued to reside in Afghanistan as rulers, that's an irrelevant statement, that's like saying that because a former Englishman was president of the United States it is part of the British Empire.
5
@ryboi1337 Also this is a false interpretation, Galatians 2:11-14 has nothing to do with the writings of an Apostle which were written by the Holy Spirit, it only has to do with a specific principal being taught by the Holy Spirit. Paul speaks against Peter because he was acting hypocritical and had to be corrected. The acts of an Apostle and the writings of an Apostle recorded in Scripture are of different value, an Apostle can be fallible, but when he speaks by the Holy Spirit he cannot be. Acts 15:1-29 has nothing to do with Apostle fallibility, they are speaking their opinion but then the Holy Spirit speaking in the Council then produces an infallible word, the instruction given is equal to any Synoptic Gospel or Ancient Scripture.
4
@ryboi1337 I'm always happy to instruct a brother to seeking deeper into the Word, good theology is the basis for right interpretation, the depths of the reasoning that the Spirit gives is immense and infinite, let the work of God be upon our hearts and the salvation gifted to us in faith of Our Lord Jesus be in our tongues and hands worked from the inside out. Blessed be glory to Him forever.
4
Unfortunately Metratron, he's almost certainly gonna call you a hater for this, he's accused people of it for less, like Legal Mindset and Potentially Criminal were trying to be polite and tell him he needs to stop talking, Legal Mindset was on his chat and was warning him to stop incriminating himself for his own sake and he has since accused Legal Mindset of being a grifter and not a real friend. Also keep in mind, he was also trading his wife, went to a swinger resort, openly reviewed "toys", and has admitted to being a libertine (and implicated himself as a hedonist) so despite my desire as a former fan, he's not likely to recover from this (and yes there is plenty of irrefutable evidence for all these claims) because he's too stubborn to admit what he's done is wrong.
3
@bobmurphy9686 But that is a fallacy because you're presuming a full representation by taking a tiny sample, the upper class and the lower class back in Antiquity did not mix, the mixing of classes is a very new phenomenon, so to expect a high class subject to know much about the low class and their interests is objectively false. This is before you could have any clear access to information that you didn't directly witness, and unless you had witnesses to that information which required meeting those people, it was difficult to know, that's why Mark and Luke were hired, you would've had to understand how to even talk to these people to get useful information out about them. (and the high and low classes didn't often communicate)
3
The Florida thing is almost certainly the thing about how Florida had a bill passed that legally restricted critical theory perspectives on American slavery which they manipulate into claiming it says "Florida won't teach anything about American chattel slavery", which I should say it absoutely does not do, its the same thing they did with the "Not Say Gay bill" which only prohibited teachers from being allowed to groom children secretly with sexualized (often homoerotically charged) content before high school (and they could even be criminally charged for it) and not telling even the parents about it. (they also tried to claim that it would get rid of sex education, which it doesn't do, despite wide appeal for such in the state) Basically its them lying about a narrative, claiming its something that it is not and then gaslighting people into a false perspective so as to try and paint Florida as a backwards state.
3
@ValdVincent Then there is no reason for anyone to care what you have to say, if you refuse to engage with historical references, then anything you have to say is inherently suspect, you demonstrate that you simply wish to speak and care nothing for truth.
2
@ValdVincent He's a Historian, Historians are legitimate references, especially Historians with personal experience partaking of historical practices, there's few things more reliable in academics, its a lot easier to reference clear demonstrative proofs, you're neither a historian nor an academic, you neither made any references, so aside from making baseless claims, you can't even back them up and neither can you refer to anyone who would argue for your claims.
2
@bobmurphy9686 What are you talking about if he did? That's one of the most well attested events in the first century, numerous Roman, Jewish, and Christian historians all account the event independently and point out that Nero blamed the fire on the Christians and would stick them on a pike and set them ablaze. Like Tacitus, a Roman historian reading from the Roman records about the event with eyewitnesses, records the persecution of the Christians in just that way by Nero as a consequence of the Great Fire. It wasn't the Christians the foremost recorded it, the first records was by the Romans themselves.
2
Could we please keep this down to Socratic questions, I'm simply curious about the issue, if you think to address it without knowledge please be silent brothers.
2
@JeffNeelzebub I never said he was a failure, that's all irrelevant. All I said was that there was no empire after Alexander because there was no empire following his death. I literally said that the fall of it can't be called a success or failure. All you can say is he failed to preserve the continuation of his empire. Also if I recall correctly Genghis' empire did last at least one generation after his death before it collapsed.
2
I will always find it interesting how the people who claim everything is racist towards some hyper-slavery conspiratorial meta-narrative are the exact people who are deliberately driving up the enslavement of their "protected" race because they claim said race is incapable to think or act for themselves and must be sheltered and segregated from it but yet is disallowed any freedom from this "protective enslavement", and then when you point that out they call that thinking supremacist despite being a negative philosophy to their claims. It can't be supremacist, you can't retain a position but pure opposition to an existing position. And if you ever point out the conspiracy nutcase crap that this is they call you the conspiracy nutjob (which itself isn't even specifically a problem unless you reject the existence of conspiracy altogether, but that's beside the point, they consider it to be one) and try to cancel you for "being intolerant" of their stupidity and intolerance.
2
I think in the end more information is superior to hidden information that could be used maliciously, I see it constantly in computer security for example, some naive developer studios believe in security through obscurity, but we know that all that's ever accomplished is making a crowd sourced security effort more difficult and it makes it impossible to trust the studio, now what we do actually do in security is if a security concern has come out, researchers report it secretly, report that the concern exists but leave only a general synopsis with no details in a public report, wait at most a month for it to get fixed, and then report the full details of the security concern. Are there cases where this still causes problems and malicious use? Yeah probably, if people don't update to address the security concern those details will absolutely be used to exploit the concern but the concern exists regardless and it can be independently discovered anyway, it is the responsibility of the user now to fix the security concern because the developer has thus already addressed the issue. I think the same thing with Larry Lawton, if he's told people like Law Enforcement and shop organizations (and shops themselves) and given them all the information on holes in their current system and the shops and LE still doesn't fix the issues then at that point its not the fault of Larry, if he releases the information in the least there can be a crowd sourced solution just as much as criminals could take advantage of it. So the real question I have is "has he reported these type of issues already, and if so, how long did he wait for their response to fix the issues before he reported the issue", I doubt that the first question is a no and I'm willing to bet the second answer is years.
1
Sounds similar to the Marxist position of linguistics defines mental capacity, hence why they implement newspeak.
1
The fact that we have records that are dated so close to be within the frame of John's life, and they were prophesies that could've been recorded right before the Abomination of Desolation is a fairly clear sign, also we have records of the prophesies of Isaiah were dated to before the birth of Christ.
1
Being a homosexual is not inherent, it is a reflection of living in sin, some have the propensity for homosexuality, but Paul is quite explicit, in Christ there are no homosexuals. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 One they were but they are no longer, there are no homosexuals in Christ. Also Paul speaks against asceticism "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh." - Colossians 2:16-23 Also funny thing, Peter did have a wife and he would've slept with her while being this "head of the church", (no in reality he was not, but Catholics don't like this fact) in fact the old expectation of Hebrew priests was you needed a wife, you could not be a priest (or presbytery) of the Hebrew faith (and this includes the Old Christians faith of the 1st century) without at one time having a wife. Now this aside, it is evil to hate anybody, you may hate what they do but not the person, it does not matter how wicked they are. Also men are not the children of God, only those who are of Christ are. It is because they reflect the image of their Creator that we are to love them even when they are wicked, but only the elect are God's children. "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." - Galatians 3:25-26 "What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” - 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." - Romans 8:14 As you can see, Paul most especially makes it quite clear that only those of Christ are sons of God, which also means they cannot be homosexual, they must be washed in Christ of such.
1
I have tended to take the perspective that instead of they can't, any voluntary female warriorship was usually a demonstration of a collapsing or once collapsed society, (least of said women) not because they couldn't fight and on notable occasions win fights but instead for more logistical reasons even ignoring socio-cultural or religious reasoning, any society for which had its women voluntary go to war would overwhelmingly be erased through outbreeding alone. It seems telling to me that the societies that did it had generally one notable generation of occasion and then faded into a culmination of lesser occasions. (I am not saying that they disappeared, but that they shrank and weakened themselves without external subsidization and through such would always eventually collapse) As for the reason I say this, its simply because the population of women caps the reproduction rate of the population and its actually for this specific logistical reason why women are highly valuable and protected and men can be so comparatively recklessly thrown to warfare. (pregnancy defers value, 100 women can be impregnated by one man every 40 weeks, the inverse will only result in one pregnancy every 40 weeks) Any society that protects its women and keeps them from the frontlines, especially before they reach menopause where their womb becomes useless, will simply always outcompete the society that doesn't except in the case where said society that doesn't were to wipe out all the men or an overwhelming majority of the women. Now a menopause woman is kinda irrelevant to that logistic but such a woman tends to become a handicap for a battlefield. (the only case in which that wouldn't be true is if she weren't fighting, but directing the fight) Of course the exception is when the women themselves are under attack and have no choice but to fight, usually for their children, in that case succeeding is directly related to that logistical calculation, if she doesn't fight for her children, she would naturally just reduce her people's reproduction rate then, and this is the inverse of what I mean when I said "voluntary female warriorship", when she has no choice but to fight then the only way to have survival of her people is to win the fight and thus she must participate when backed into a corner.
1
@ValdVincent Look up "How bad were medieval teeth" from Modern History TV.
1
@ValdVincent "Anyone that sites third hand sources is Vox Nihili" First off its cite, if you're gonna be a pedantic fool, at least learn how to spell basic words. Secondly literally no historical study would nor can approach third hand sources that way. "You don't site 3rd's, nor are you allowed to in academia if you want to be taken seriously" That's not remotely true and that aside that's hypocritical. "I don't know how you passed high school let alone college, you site authority as a fallacy even, there isn't even such a thing as a "Historian."" Okay cool, commit an ad hominem fallacy and then accuse me of appeal to authority fallacy that I never made, you're also committing the fallacy fallacy. I didn't appeal to authority, I merely made reference to someone who I know for a fact is trustworthy on the subject, compared to you who I can absolutely tell you've not read a single source of medieval history. Also are we pulling the "historians are a social construct" crap now? "I and you are both Historians if called such by our self or others." No, being called a historian does not make you one, the subjectivist argument is a ridiculous fallacy and always devolves into absurdist positions, it is not possible to make a rational argument on the basis of such titles not being objectively defined. But you don't understand logical conclusions anyway so I suppose that just appears to be nonsense to you.
1
@franciscomoutinho4390 Because he's a soviet sympathizer (Tankie) and uses fallacies and disingenuous assault on speech to try and spread his message, he's kinda worse then Vaush.
1
@bobmurphy9686 No, that's pretty standard historically, its actually uncommon for the upper classes to be in decent contact with the lower classes, its exceptionally rare because most historical class systems were functionally caste systems and communicating with them was often of little consequence, rising out of your class was exceptionally rare, modern class systems are a late Christian development.
1
Should keep in mind that homosexuality is a consequence of God abandoning a people who abandons God and His ways, so to say the justification for the collapse was homosexuality even in this case is backwards. So even if you're gonna say that it was a moral failure for why Rome collapsed, the moral failure was abandoning God and so God would give them over to sexual immorality, not that they partook in sexual immorality and thus collapsed. That aside God's punishment upon a people for abandoning Him has not always been that overt, the Old and New Testament is full of cases that have God directly refute this fact, Paul says it numerous times, just because there are successful people does not mean that they are of higher or lower morals. Also Paul addresses God abandoning a society that abandons Him, homosexuality is the second phase, the first phase is sexual immorality, the second is homosexuality starting with the women, and the last phase is a reprobate mind. And all that aside the Roman society at the time was more averse to homosexuality at its collapse then it was before its adoption of Christianity in the 4th century.
1
What, when was the 8 year old using drugs?
1
Thing I find hilarious is that the Nation of Islam believe in a separate yellow race, but its not Asians who are black to them.
1
From what I've heard from the occasional person who speaks about who lived in the state, as I don't live there and have never resided there, it suggests they're simply mentioning facts and leftists are just getting mad because the fact in their twisted mind "justifies slavery" most especially cause they just want to push "white man bad" myths.
1
@thecommoner2090 That's not even what it does, the Bill has nothing specific on curriculum requirements, it only prohibited specific CRT teachings, you're just an activist.
1
I've not been unsubscribed.
1
Pagans before the Christian revolution tended to have a fairly consistent libertine and hedonistic expression of sexuality, (though it ebbed and flowed on how acceptable this behavior was) least in the upper classes, it was only secondarily useful for reproduction, it mostly serviced the purpose of giving them pleasure. Which has always been the purpose of homosexual behaviors, that's why they promote such figures, though they also do it in service to overthrow the anti-hedonist moral structures so they can dominate it themselves. (also hatred of Christ)
1
I still am of the firm position that Metatron doesn't understand what a boycott is, its not cancel culture, its economic repayment for disagreement, nobody is obligated to give you money if they dislike it, whether its an organized movement or not is irrelevant, its necessary to have freedom of association which is the basis of any free market and of the 1st Amendment. Boycotts and economic canceling have nothing to do with speech, even then cancel culture is an economic factor, not a legal one, you can only be cancelled if you submit to the canceling.
1
Its Revelation, not "Revelations" as its the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John, there weren't multiple different revelations given by God, there was only one continuous Revelation, keeping the sacreligous issue aside, the grammar and semantics is wrong because its a book of a Revelation, the chapters have nothing to do with anything, they're just for ease of reference developed centuries after the Revelation was given, John did not write by them (as did no one else in the OT or NT) and the chapters don't align with the books in any determinate manner, it was an after the fact assignment, commonly to a theme of any specific section, again for ease of reference, it doesn't even follow a change in theme consistently, that's just the most common case. Hence there is one Revelation. On the case of Paul's address, that's misunderstanding the address, a Christian (of any theologically solid basis, as in one who is actually grounded in their face, not nominal) considers the Bible as one single book written by One Triune Author that being obviously God, which includes Jesus the Son, The Father, and The Holy Spirit. Instead what we say is that the books of the Bible were written by men inspired by God but every word written in every book was equally and simultaneously written by God Himself, specifically via the Holy Spirit working through the writers, and not via something like mediums and ghost writing unlike the heathenry beliefs, but through granted wisdom in prayer, they were fully in control and granted peace and joy that inspired their instruction to write. They were compelled by their own desire that the Holy Spirit gave them. This is why Bible is one book, it was the first book, as Christians consolidated it knowing it was one singular historical story with a singular theme and purpose written by one author. It is hard to understand how two beings could equally have 100% contribution to such a case just as its difficult to understand how there could be 3 persons in 1 being in the Trinity or how Jesus could both be 100% God and 100% Man. This is because God does not operate under man's preconcieved notions that only appeared as a result of the weak understanding man has gotten from interpreting the reality God made, we don't understand many parts of the Creation, let alone do we understand God's Hand on Creation other then His full guidance is put upon it for His Will in order to operate how it desires, which means reality operates according to its desires but is guided by God in to performing the tasks God has Declared to be performed as necessity for good.
1
When was that? History has always been filled with this problem for historians.
1
And this is where I can say absolutely that the Romans were evil, as are all modern men same as the ancient men, all men are born in inherent and total depravity and by their own choice are ever incapable of escaping such. They are wholly and entirely irredeemable and if served the justice wage of their crimes, they would be given a much worse and longer lasting suffering punishment of eternity that doesn't even compare to being blood eagled or crucified, or burned alive or broiled in a metal casket. For all men are wholly wicked, sexually depraved, liar, thieves, adulterers, murders, even if you have merely on thought these things, thought of a desire to own someone else's property, hated someone for even a moment, desired someone's body for even a second, even considered a lie or a theft, these things themselves alone make you convicted. And that's before we consider where morality comes from, that being the Triune God of the Bible, for which we hate and hence all our evil spawns, it is because we are enemies of God who hate Him that we do such things and are incapable of good. The Romans were just another people who shared this trait with both the modern and ancient man. And this is where the good news stands, that all this evil has been voluntarily lifted from us by He who defines what all moral principle. It is by a common grace restraining our hearts by the Imago Dei that we have any shared moral principle at all and its why we can even consider anything even in our depravity immoral. Without this however there is no immorality except that which would be moral for good shall be made evil and evil shall be made good. It is by the sacrifice of Christ that evil is washed from any of the wicked, that they may receive redemption. But it is by death that one is brought to life, morality does not come by a desire of life, but it comes by the devotion to love that produces hope in the promise, that which is known true but not yet given, which is what faith is. That is what morality is, this means that even should one die in the redemption it not necessarily be immoral should he be so saved, for he was always immoral, but by God he becomes capable of a moral redemption and thus is washed of his wickedness. The seeking to preserve life then becomes a byproduct of morality, by Christ however it is not the foremost goal, it merely is a desire for the sake of the goal.
1
@DH-xw6jp Yeah the problem is that Google, (and iirc now even DDG) will try to give you protected classes for "diversity reasons" which is funny since it only ever makes the presumption you are performing positive affirmation of the subject which is exceedingly stupid.
1
She sounds like a tankie, and I'm willing to bet given her name that she is at minimum descended from former Soviet loyalists.
1
@GothPaoki That's a post-Greek idea, Macedonia and Greece were distinct entities at the time, and no I don't mean the stupid Slavic Macedonia crap, Alexander wasn't Greek as in descending from the notable Greek city states, his empire was much too northern to be consider part of them.
1
Fascinating, I always considered Joan to be a significant factor of why the French won, being a big morale and psychological justification, but the fact she was also a fairly competent commander for the French armies is definitely interesting. I still am unsure if she would be a saint, as I reject the concept of organized sainthood, all those of Christ are but that depends on her heart, embodying the morality alone is not enough so chasing off prostitutes in zeal does not convince me for the Ancient Hebrew at times had done the same and some of those still condemned Jesus. I'm however fairly convinced of the idea that it was demonic forces appeared to Joan as it does not fit the nature of Yahweh to send saints down with an angel, the case of Samuel with Saul and the Medium was not Samuel, the only time this happened in Scripture was with Jesus. That suggests to me that she was at least tricked by the supernatural forces and her poor understanding of Scripture despite her zeal would've made it difficult for her to test the Scripture, as well as she lacked any guidance of a man upon her spiritual state meant she was very easy to trick, as Scripture also says. Even the French Catholic priests of the time were poor in their understanding of the application of Scripture (though so too were many of the English ones, Catholics priests had poor theology in the 1400s-1500s) Seems to me that the Holy Spirit was however likely not with her. (in which case I would be saying she was not saved)
1
@brandanimations3790 I don't care what the Catholic Church has to say, man does not decide saints and the pope has no authority, nor does any priest nor pastor, only God, and as it says in Scripture, the saints are all those who have faith in Christ, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, and I cannot say whether she was for so did the Ancient Hebrews claim such things and they crucified Jesus, Judas believed himself a saint before his betrayal.
1
@brandanimations3790 The Catholic church has no authority given from God in accordance to Scripture. That's why they don't justify their authority based on Scripture, they base it on tradition, any tradition you use to read Scripture does not present Scripture, only your traditions.
1
@brandanimations3790 Not even Catholic priests before the 1800s agreed that it said Peter was the rock that the Church will be built on, in fact there was a study back in the 1600s France about this and an overwhelming majority (about 70%) of them said it was the faith that Peter demonstrated for which he would build his Church, (and of the rest only less than 10% said it was Peter himself) the idea that Peter would be the rock was historically only commonly believed in the mid-1800s, so that is a new tradition.
1