Did Epstein run a World Satanic Ring?

Jack by the hedge said:
I'm not sure where the thread is going now.

Are we trying to find new definitions for each word in "run a world satanic ring" to see if there's some combination which covers what Epstein did?
Click to expand...

If a lowly SUN or DAILY MAIL reader understands what is meant by satanic goings on then I am not sure why people on a sceptics forum are unable to grasp it.
 
Belz... said:
You stand by a factually wrong claim because of another factually wrong claim?
Click to expand...

Look, when Moses raged at his people for building a golden calf it was because they reverted back to the gods served in Egypt which they had just escaped from. Did you really expect Exodus to go off on a tangent as to the 'history of Ba'al in Canaan and the Levant and how the worship of same spread to the Middle Egyptian dynasty'?
 
Vixen said:
Look, when Moses raged at his people for building a golden calf it was because they reverted back to the gods served in Egypt which they had just escaped from.
Click to expand...

Unlikely, since Egyptians didn't worship Ba'al. Otherwise the Bible is in error. Regardless, this is not stated in the bible, and therefore is your unsupported interpretation. You called it 'clear' but it's far from it.

Did you really expect Exodus to go off on a tangent as to the 'history of Ba'al in Canaan and the Levant and how the worship of same spread to the Middle Egyptian dynasty'?
Click to expand...

According to the Bible they were captives in Egypt, not Canaan. If they were in Canaan there'd be no reason to cross the red sea into sinai.
 
Vixen said:
Look, when Moses raged at his people for building a golden calf it was because they reverted back to the gods served in Egypt which they had just escaped from. Did you really expect Exodus to go off on a tangent as to the 'history of Ba'al in Canaan and the Levant and how the worship of same spread to the Middle Egyptian dynasty'?
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that this entire sequence of arguments started because you claimed that Egyptian gods were satanic and that depicting their symbols was a sign of satanism.
Which is patently untrue.

You arrived at this line of argument because you said Epstein might have Egyptian symbols on one of his buildings, for which you offered no evidence.

So you're supporting an assertion you refuse to prove with another assertion, that turns out to be false, and then you move in to another assertion tangentially connected to the last, but with no relationship with the thing you set out to prove...

This whole thread is just you running away from your own claims while pretending we should accept them.
 
The Great Inception Part 12: From Baal to Zeus to Satan – The Changing Face of the Storm-God

Ba`al was the main enemy of Yahweh in the Old Testament. One could argue that he was even more of a villain in the Bible than Satan, who’s only mentioned in fourteen Old Testament verses, in the books of 1 Chronicles, Job, and Zechariah. Ba`al, on the other hand, appears 106 times in 88 verses (including personal and place names, like Baal-zephon).https://www.thegreatinception.com/l...-to-satan-the-changing-face-of-the-storm-god/
Click to expand...

And one person's view:

As Baal worship involved the sex act, through sacred prostitution, this may have been an attraction for some, though this would have opened them to the dangers of the magic rituals, punishable by death according to the Laws of God. Also many of the "holy days" for Baal worship seemed to coincide with those designated for worship of God Himself. So Satan was clever indeed in the way he enticed folk away from the true God, using confusion and counterfeit.

Steve Maltz
May 2013
Click to expand...

Whether you agree with him or not, this is the common perception.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Let's not forget that this entire sequence of arguments started because you claimed that Egyptian gods were satanic and that depicting their symbols was a sign of satanism.
Which is patently untrue.

You arrived at this line of argument because you said Epstein might have Egyptian symbols on one of his buildings, for which you offered no evidence.

So you're supporting an assertion you refuse to prove with another assertion, that turns out to be false, and then you move in to another assertion tangentially connected to the last, but with no relationship with the thing you set out to prove...

This whole thread is just you running away from your own claims while pretending we should accept them.
Click to expand...



I was putting it as a hypothesis not as a confirmed statement of fact. So we are not allowed to discuss anything until Fox News reports it first?

It's a reasonable proposition to espouse given the many examples of occult symbolism on Epstein's island.

IMV Epstein was not just a 'dirty old man' nor his parties just the old old story of middle-aged men lusting after young flesh, there was a high-level fraternity holding all of this together for several decades.
 
Vixen said:
Talk about a circular argument. You were the one who brought up Anthroposophy claiming it was Christian and therefore not satanic. And then you worked yourself up into a rage.
Click to expand...
Not so much rage as amusement that you should cling so tenaciously to an idea. The chew toy takes life far more seriously than the dog. If you want to believe than nobody can be a Christian without sharing some unspecified doctrine you hold necessary, and that all those who do not are Satanists, then so be it.

I think holding so adamantly to a foolish idea clouds one's discourse, and makes it difficult and unrewarding for others to sort out whether there's anything worthwhile in it. If you wrap an idea in error few will bother to open it to find out if there's truth underneath.
 
Vixen said:
If a lowly SUN or DAILY MAIL reader understands what is meant by satanic goings on then I am not sure why people on a sceptics forum are unable to grasp it.
Click to expand...

Shall we send out for fresh supplies of straw?

Or perhaps you could have a Daily Mail reader explain to us what satanic goings on you have evidence for.
 
bruto said:
Not so much rage as amusement that you should cling so tenaciously to an idea. The chew toy takes life far more seriously than the dog. If you want to believe than nobody can be a Christian without sharing some unspecified doctrine you hold necessary, and that all those who do not are Satanists, then so be it.

I think holding so adamantly to a foolish idea clouds one's discourse, and makes it difficult and unrewarding for others to sort out whether there's anything worthwhile in it. If you wrap an idea in error few will bother to open it to find out if there's truth underneath.
Click to expand...

No, that is not my position at all.

Denying that occult practices exist is ignorant IMV.
 
Vixen said:
No, that is not my position at all.

Denying that occult practices exist is ignorant IMV.
Click to expand...

I have never denied that occult practices exist and if you think so you missed the point entirely, since I argued the exact opposite. You asked, earlier on, for the names of any occult practices that were not "Satanic." I provided a few that, in my mind, are not Satanic, but are certainly what I would characterize as occult, and you in turn, certainly seem to have argued that those that claim to be Christian are not, and that all of them are, in fact, Satanic, because, it appears, you equate occultism with Satanism. If that is not your position now, perhaps you could suggest what your position actually is, because something certainly has been lost in translation.

I continue, in any case, to believe that Satanism is a specific thing that is not something else, and that Epstein, even if he toyed with the terminology and allure of a mishmash of occult ideas, was far more guilty of bad taste and eclectic fantasy than of anything actually Satanic.
 
Vixen said:
Logical fallacy #6: appeal to the crowd.
Click to expand...

I didn't appeal to anything. Do you even know what a logical fallacy is?

I'm making a statement regarding what is going on, not drawing a logical conclusion from premises.

No wonder you don't think you "do" logical fallacies.
 
bruto said:
I have never denied that occult practices exist and if you think so you missed the point entirely, since I argued the exact opposite. You asked, earlier on, for the names of any occult practices that were not "Satanic." I provided a few that, in my mind, are not Satanic, but are certainly what I would characterize as occult, and you in turn, certainly seem to have argued that those that claim to be Christian are not, and that all of them are, in fact, Satanic, because, it appears, you equate occultism with Satanism. If that is not your position now, perhaps you could suggest what your position actually is, because something certainly has been lost in translation.

I continue, in any case, to believe that Satanism is a specific thing that is not something else, and that Epstein, even if he toyed with the terminology and allure of a mishmash of occult ideas, was far more guilty of bad taste and eclectic fantasy than of anything actually Satanic.
Click to expand...


This is where we disagree.

Indulging in practices that harm others (i.e., young teenage women) is not just 'bad taste and eclectic fantasy'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom