So quoting the bible is not biblical?
So quote where me arguing things as cyclical somehow disproves and goes against the bible, while I am acknowledging the bible in doing so.
Go on.
You were misquoting something towards your own egotistical ends.
Solomon…he gained wisdom. With wisdom…sorrow. As a King, he was looking for legacy. He saw into God’s designs. It was for nothing…to him at the time.
And please quote where I made it to my own ends.
Please point, this should be easy for you given you claim to have so much faith.
Quote please.
Take your time.
And if you have to take things out of context, to prove your point, by all means do not hesitate.
But a quote regardless.
Solomon was known as one of the good kings of God…till his pagan wives…he wasn’t supposed to marry, they turned his head from God.
Good.
And where did I compare myself to Solomon?
If I quote Solomon, and Solomon is biblical, but Solomon is unbiblical (according to you)…then by your own standards the bible is unbiblical.
So you seem to not like the bible…and yet quote it when you feel necessary.
So quoting Solomon is unbiblical?
Is that what you are saying?
Stop being a weirdo. Stop dancing around. God judges the false teachers more harshly. Are you perfectly fine with dying at this moment?
A servant of God is.
You are more inline with someone who loves their life and their own stink.
Given you are not 100% Christian, you were a false teacher. God Judges the false teachers more harshly.
I asked for a quote.
You respond with insults, gaslighting, lies and…no quote…
So again, quote please.
You can distort it if you wish.
Any quote will do.
That nothing new happens under the sun. (Ecclesiastics 1:9-11)
Did you understand the author there?
So the quote does not say things are cyclical?
Is that what you are claiming?
I did not ask you to quote the bible though, I asked you to quote where I am twisting it.
It is implied understanding.
In the 4th or 8th grade or so, you may have had a Reading Comprehension test. Someone reads a short story. They answers several multiple choice questions about it.
What you are showing me is you fail this basic reading comprehension. Christianity, and even false Judaism, has been around for a long time. You suddenly know better. You used “Nothing new happens under the sun” as a justification in your false association and context.
Implied where then?
Please produce a quote where this is implied.
And what is this false association?
I have been asking for one and yet you do not produce a quote.
Quote please.
You know exactly where. I don’t care about you, nor your ego.
I am not playing this game with you.
You have been a worthless person. A servant of Belial. A Servant of Worthlessness.
If I knew where then I would not ask you to produce one.
But you seem to know, implicitly (and by your own standards you seem to know what implication is), so…quote please…
No. I don’t don’t care to have anything to do with you. The Op is about the Principalities and the Spiritual. Given you would like to talk about that, we can.
You asserted something no one cares about, and would just throw away. It was worthless. Throw it away. You started on several false premises, to include, that Christianity was just another way of thought, towards pagan ways of thought.
Christianity is exclusive.
This is “Religion as an Observer Effect.” Religion as Observer Effect
No one cares. No one understands. You are off. There is nothing good produced there.
You are trying to hold me captive. May God bless you with trials. (James 1:2-4) You want to be equal to me or sit in judgement? May God bless you with trials. It is not a punishment.
Were you trying to gain a paper, a doctorate off of this?
Someone may have granted it to you. They are weirdos and false in Academia.
There is a difference between Harvard being a Christian University and Harvard in 2026. We can start with “National Lampoons.” That came from a “Harvard Lampoon.” You understand and know things about this?
If “No one cares. No one understands. You are off. There is nothing good produced there.”
Then if you do not understand or care how can you claim:
“You started on several false premises, to include, that Christianity was just another way of thought, towards pagan ways of thought.”
You contradict yourself.
So what you are claiming is that Christianity is not a way of thought?
And where do I push paganism?
You said you do not care, do not understand, do not want to understand, and then you ask what it is for…
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.(2 Corinthians 10:5)
Christianity is a complete way of thought.
What ideology was someone in 200 BC? What ideology was someone in France in 1300 AD?
They didn’t have an ideology.
Ideology came from a splintering of thought in the Reformation.
So I save you the trouble and provided the whole text. Point to me where I am denying God, Christianity, pushing atheism or paganism…etc.
There is a religion: R
This religion contains a multitude of texts: R(T)
These texts contain various other texts: R(T(Tx))
Given the multiplicity of these texts the observer picks a selects few to form a coherent viewpoint:
O → T(Tx → Tx1)
This observer filters the text in accords to their identity thus resulting in the percieved textual fragments as expressions of the observer’s identity:
O(Ox) → T(Tx → Tx1 → Tx1.1)
What remains of religion is an observer effect:
O(Ox) → T(Tx → Tx1 → Tx1.1)
So what is asserted about the religion is merely an assertion of the observer itself:
O(Ox) → T(Tx → Tx1 → Tx1.1) →
(O(Ox) → R(T(Tx → Tx1 → Tx1.1)))
And effectively a loop occurs:
O(Ox) → R(T(Tx → Tx1 → Tx1.1)) → (O(x) → R)
and the observer effectively creates itself as the loop ends back up on the observer:
(O(Ox) → (O(Ox))
Where religion is less of fixed thing but rather an expression of the observer:
(O(Ox) → (O(Ox)) → R(T(Tx))
This applies not just to religion, but political systems, philosophies, etc. …but we are talking about religion.
The backing these people receive is usually out of existential desperation where people either align with something that aligns with a prerequisite set of values or provides an answer that is more convenient than the trials of deep meditation and contemplation.