What is "the Big Lie"?
- Thread starter ZNP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Yes, and I have a real problem with the thinking, "Well, He could have done it like He tells us, but man has proven that He didn't." Or, "His testimony isn't clear." Really? He explains twice in the law that in six days He created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. A day has always and will always be one rotation of the planet on its axis. You don't have six days that last thousands or millions or billions of days. And there's no way that He's speaking of ages because He literally sub-defines each day as consisting of one evening and one morning. How is that not clear?
God bless you,
Ted
God bless you,
Ted
-
1
- Show all
1 Kings 22:16 And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord?
17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
it is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. We are told matter of factly in the word of God that Satan is a servant of God.
17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
it is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. We are told matter of factly in the word of God that Satan is a servant of God.
-
1
- Show all
The depths of darkness.. yes.. very plausible. I can’t prove or disprove. To get people on side you can create events to justify actions. The agenda is covered in for the greater good mantra.. ironically the greater good isn’t the masses of useless eaters.. it is for the self elected guardians and their kin. A delusion indeed.
Fear not! GOD is above all things and is Victorious. In the mean time as we abide.. let us graciously receive oil for our lamps.
Fear not! GOD is above all things and is Victorious. In the mean time as we abide.. let us graciously receive oil for our lamps.
Hi @Zandar
I don't know about the Free Masonry tie, but I agree that aliens, as in people from another planet in this realm, is a hoax. However, there are angels that are said to be ministering to us at times, and if someone were to see one of them, based on some of the descriptions in the Scriptures, they'd likely look pretty alien to us.
I don't know about the Free Masonry tie, but I agree that aliens, as in people from another planet in this realm, is a hoax. However, there are angels that are said to be ministering to us at times, and if someone were to see one of them, based on some of the descriptions in the Scriptures, they'd likely look pretty alien to us.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Kids, this is the truth. And it never gets old.
There are men and there are women.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xc4OvKYLSMk
There are men and there are women.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xc4OvKYLSMk
-
2
- Show all
AI overview from general search
The 2008 financial crisis led to a number of prosecutions and settlements, including:
UBS
The Swiss bank settled a fraud lawsuit for $1.4 billion, ending the investigation into the role of financial firms in the crisis.
Abacus Federal Savings Bank
The only US bank prosecuted for the crisis, Abacus was founded by Thomas Sung.
Credit rating agencies
Investors filed lawsuits against rating agencies for inaccurate ratings, including the state of Ohio, California state
employees, and Bear Stearns. The US government also sued S&P for misrepresenting the credit risk of financial products.
Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP)
Prosecuted dozens of executives from smaller banks that received bailout funds.
Major bank CEOs were not criminally charged for causing the crisis. Some reasons for this include:
Lack of evidence
Prosecutors would need to show that executives were personally involved in criminal conduct.
Size of institutions
Some argued that it was difficult to prosecute large financial institutions.
Decision-making
Many decisions that led to the crisis were made at lower levels of the institutions.
Wiki ends a page on the fiasco by saying: President Obama declared the bailout measures started
under the Bush Administration and continued during his Administration as completed and mostly
profitable as of December 2014. As of January 2018, bailout funds had been fully recovered by the
government, when interest on loans is taken into consideration. Treasury had earned another $323B
in interest on bailout loans, resulting in an $87B profit.
The 2008 financial crisis led to a number of prosecutions and settlements, including:
UBS
The Swiss bank settled a fraud lawsuit for $1.4 billion, ending the investigation into the role of financial firms in the crisis.
Abacus Federal Savings Bank
The only US bank prosecuted for the crisis, Abacus was founded by Thomas Sung.
Credit rating agencies
Investors filed lawsuits against rating agencies for inaccurate ratings, including the state of Ohio, California state
employees, and Bear Stearns. The US government also sued S&P for misrepresenting the credit risk of financial products.
Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP)
Prosecuted dozens of executives from smaller banks that received bailout funds.
Major bank CEOs were not criminally charged for causing the crisis. Some reasons for this include:
Lack of evidence
Prosecutors would need to show that executives were personally involved in criminal conduct.
Size of institutions
Some argued that it was difficult to prosecute large financial institutions.
Decision-making
Many decisions that led to the crisis were made at lower levels of the institutions.
Wiki ends a page on the fiasco by saying: President Obama declared the bailout measures started
under the Bush Administration and continued during his Administration as completed and mostly
profitable as of December 2014. As of January 2018, bailout funds had been fully recovered by the
government, when interest on loans is taken into consideration. Treasury had earned another $323B
in interest on bailout loans, resulting in an $87B profit.
Yes, that is all true, but what is not true is your quote of me that was taken out of context so let me add the context that you cut out.
This is criminal, there are laws against this, but the US government declared the banks were too big to fail. They did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis, that is because if they did they would spill the beans on 911.
The context was criminal prosecution in the US. The man who was prosecuted for acting as a criminal was in Europe, not in the US. Lawsuits and being sued is not criminal prosecution, it is civil.
Every single NINJA loan and every single loan given that was not vetted and that would have been tens of thousands of loans was criminal. By law banks have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients. That means every single loan officer pushing those loans had acted criminally as had the department at the bank that approved them. Why would they do that? Because within a week they would sell that loan to an investment bank to package and sell to investors. At that point they no longer cared if they defaulted. If you had prosecuted thousands of these bank employees no doubt evidence would have come out that this was bank policy and they were instructed to do this by higher ups. The statement that they didn't have evidence to convict the CEOs is deceitful. They didn't have evidence because they didn't prosecute and didn't subpoena. The way these things work is you threaten a bank managers with 5 years in prison and a felony on his record and he flips and gives you someone above him.
This is criminal, there are laws against this, but the US government declared the banks were too big to fail. They did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis, that is because if they did they would spill the beans on 911.
The context was criminal prosecution in the US. The man who was prosecuted for acting as a criminal was in Europe, not in the US. Lawsuits and being sued is not criminal prosecution, it is civil.
Every single NINJA loan and every single loan given that was not vetted and that would have been tens of thousands of loans was criminal. By law banks have a fiduciary responsibility to their clients. That means every single loan officer pushing those loans had acted criminally as had the department at the bank that approved them. Why would they do that? Because within a week they would sell that loan to an investment bank to package and sell to investors. At that point they no longer cared if they defaulted. If you had prosecuted thousands of these bank employees no doubt evidence would have come out that this was bank policy and they were instructed to do this by higher ups. The statement that they didn't have evidence to convict the CEOs is deceitful. They didn't have evidence because they didn't prosecute and didn't subpoena. The way these things work is you threaten a bank managers with 5 years in prison and a felony on his record and he flips and gives you someone above him.
Leviticus 13:12 And if a leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, wheresoever the priest looketh; 13 Then the priest shall consider: and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all turned white: he is clean.
The reason the US didn't prosecute anyone is because everyone was guilty from the head to the foot. A criminal prosecution would open the door to civil lawsuits. If a banker at Citigroup were convicted, then everyone who got a loan through that person would be able to sue. Likewise, if the department at Bank of America that "vets" the loans was found guilty everyone approved by that department for a loan would be able to sue. Yes, thousands of people were guilty of crimes but had they been prosecuted the entire banking system in the US would have collapsed. Also, this is not just the banks. Generally when you mess up this bad the government will require the CEOs to resign in shame. No one was forced to resign. Why not? Because the government was also guilty and the investment banks knew it and they knew in the end they would threaten to bring down the US government with the 911 crisis, so they also folded. Everyone was guilty from head to toe.
14 But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.
What is the raw flesh? The homeless people on the street? The collapse of the housing market? This is how the world operates, it isn't a crime if everyone is doing it. However, if everyone is committing a crime you have a very sick society and that will become apparent to all soon enough.
15 And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean: for the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy.
Open your eyes, homeless on the streets, drug addicts on the sidewalks, transvestites in the pulpit, federal government flying around child traffickers. Open your eyes and you can see the raw flesh and the US is unclean.
16 Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest; 17 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague be turned into white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean.
There is still a chance to repent, confess, and turn to the Lord. But the window is shutting.
The reason the US didn't prosecute anyone is because everyone was guilty from the head to the foot. A criminal prosecution would open the door to civil lawsuits. If a banker at Citigroup were convicted, then everyone who got a loan through that person would be able to sue. Likewise, if the department at Bank of America that "vets" the loans was found guilty everyone approved by that department for a loan would be able to sue. Yes, thousands of people were guilty of crimes but had they been prosecuted the entire banking system in the US would have collapsed. Also, this is not just the banks. Generally when you mess up this bad the government will require the CEOs to resign in shame. No one was forced to resign. Why not? Because the government was also guilty and the investment banks knew it and they knew in the end they would threaten to bring down the US government with the 911 crisis, so they also folded. Everyone was guilty from head to toe.
14 But when raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean.
What is the raw flesh? The homeless people on the street? The collapse of the housing market? This is how the world operates, it isn't a crime if everyone is doing it. However, if everyone is committing a crime you have a very sick society and that will become apparent to all soon enough.
15 And the priest shall see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean: for the raw flesh is unclean: it is a leprosy.
Open your eyes, homeless on the streets, drug addicts on the sidewalks, transvestites in the pulpit, federal government flying around child traffickers. Open your eyes and you can see the raw flesh and the US is unclean.
16 Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest; 17 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague be turned into white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean.
There is still a chance to repent, confess, and turn to the Lord. But the window is shutting.
The only criminal prosecution was for Abacus bank, that was in 2012. So you are correct there, however, the mortgage crisis was in 2008. Why weren't they prosecuted in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011? Well the difference is that Abacus sold mortgages to Fannie Mae. The US government did not prosecute anyone for fraud against some poor Americans, but commit fraud against Fannie Mae and now you will be prosecuted. Only further confirmation of how corrupt they all were.
Everything else you mentioned was lawsuits and my quote clearly was a reference to criminal prosecutions by America.
Everything else you mentioned was lawsuits and my quote clearly was a reference to criminal prosecutions by America.
You quoted me saying "They did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis,"
By cutting off the sentence prior to this you remove the context that "They" refers to the US government and so include UBS which was in Europe. But removing the second half of this sentence and simply quoting up to the comma eliminates the context of prosecution as referring to criminal prosecution. Finally, if you will read my post once again it clearly referred to "The Big Banks". The idea that this was a blanket statement that no one would ever be prosecuted for bank fraud in the US from that point forward is how absurd you are in your attempt to try and twist what others say.
Abacus is not a big bank. Lehman Brothers, MBS, Citigroup, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, those are the big banks.
Your post was deceitful. It wasn't immediately apparent if it was intentional or not, but this post of yours adds further evidence that it was intentionally deceitful.
By cutting off the sentence prior to this you remove the context that "They" refers to the US government and so include UBS which was in Europe. But removing the second half of this sentence and simply quoting up to the comma eliminates the context of prosecution as referring to criminal prosecution. Finally, if you will read my post once again it clearly referred to "The Big Banks". The idea that this was a blanket statement that no one would ever be prosecuted for bank fraud in the US from that point forward is how absurd you are in your attempt to try and twist what others say.
Abacus is not a big bank. Lehman Brothers, MBS, Citigroup, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, those are the big banks.
Your post was deceitful. It wasn't immediately apparent if it was intentional or not, but this post of yours adds further evidence that it was intentionally deceitful.
By that reasoning my saying there were not criminal prosecutions of the Big Banks in 2008 for the mortgage meltdown means there would no longer be any criminal prosecutions in the US for bank fraud forevermore of any bank.
There was context to that statement and to get to your conclusion you had to remove all of the context and then ascribe to that comment what it wasn't saying. That is deceitful, even libelous.
The big banks sold mortgage backed securities, that is what made this entire fraudulent scheme possible. Abacus did not sell mortgage backed securities. They were not the cause, they were simply small fry.
There was context to that statement and to get to your conclusion you had to remove all of the context and then ascribe to that comment what it wasn't saying. That is deceitful, even libelous.
The big banks sold mortgage backed securities, that is what made this entire fraudulent scheme possible. Abacus did not sell mortgage backed securities. They were not the cause, they were simply small fry.
This is the paragraph of mine that you quoted:
The big banks knew what went down, but rather than rat out the powers that be they demanded a payoff. So they allowed them to rob the American people. What they did was sell NINJA mortgages (No Income No Job Approval). The way it works is for five years you pay every dime you have for the mortgage on your house and then the interest payment balloons, your mortgage payment doubles, you can't afford it, you go bankrupt and the bank gets the house back. Imagine for five years you pay $2,000 a month, that is $120,000 you pay to the bank, and then your mortgage payment balloons to $4,000 a month, you default and they get to take your house and also keep the 120k. This is criminal, there are laws against this, but the US government declared the banks were too big to fail. They did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis, that is because if they did they would spill the beans on 911.
The first sentence is called the "topic sentence" which defines the topic as "The Big banks". Were any big banks prosecuted for this crisis? No. Could this have possibly been referring to Abacus bank? No, I even said the "the US government declared the banks were too big to fail", that wasn't a reference to Abacus, that was a reference back to the topic sentence and my use of "Big Banks".
That is the context of "The did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis". They refers to the US government and anyone refers to the Big Banks. Did the US government prosecute any of the Big banks for the Mortgage crisis? No.
Also my use of "This is criminal" and "there are laws against this" was not a reference to lawsuits and being sued, it was a reference to criminal charges being brought by the DOJ against the Big Banks.
You talk about lawsuits, that is fine, but completely irrelevant to my post. You talk about Abacus bank, that also is fine, but again, irrelevant to my post. You talk about UBS bank, again that is fine, but irrelevant to my discussion of the US government prosecuting US banks.
I have no idea what your point is and why you quoted my post in your post. What is clear is that you had to completely eliminate all of the context to even hope to sell the idea that my statement was not true. It now appears that was in fact your intention and that is deceitful.
As for not answering your question, why should I, you don't answer my questions, you don't respond to my posts, so neither will I answer yours. Instead I will trumpet how dishonest you are.
The big banks knew what went down, but rather than rat out the powers that be they demanded a payoff. So they allowed them to rob the American people. What they did was sell NINJA mortgages (No Income No Job Approval). The way it works is for five years you pay every dime you have for the mortgage on your house and then the interest payment balloons, your mortgage payment doubles, you can't afford it, you go bankrupt and the bank gets the house back. Imagine for five years you pay $2,000 a month, that is $120,000 you pay to the bank, and then your mortgage payment balloons to $4,000 a month, you default and they get to take your house and also keep the 120k. This is criminal, there are laws against this, but the US government declared the banks were too big to fail. They did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis, that is because if they did they would spill the beans on 911.
The first sentence is called the "topic sentence" which defines the topic as "The Big banks". Were any big banks prosecuted for this crisis? No. Could this have possibly been referring to Abacus bank? No, I even said the "the US government declared the banks were too big to fail", that wasn't a reference to Abacus, that was a reference back to the topic sentence and my use of "Big Banks".
That is the context of "The did not prosecute anyone for the Mortgage crisis". They refers to the US government and anyone refers to the Big Banks. Did the US government prosecute any of the Big banks for the Mortgage crisis? No.
Also my use of "This is criminal" and "there are laws against this" was not a reference to lawsuits and being sued, it was a reference to criminal charges being brought by the DOJ against the Big Banks.
You talk about lawsuits, that is fine, but completely irrelevant to my post. You talk about Abacus bank, that also is fine, but again, irrelevant to my post. You talk about UBS bank, again that is fine, but irrelevant to my discussion of the US government prosecuting US banks.
I have no idea what your point is and why you quoted my post in your post. What is clear is that you had to completely eliminate all of the context to even hope to sell the idea that my statement was not true. It now appears that was in fact your intention and that is deceitful.
As for not answering your question, why should I, you don't answer my questions, you don't respond to my posts, so neither will I answer yours. Instead I will trumpet how dishonest you are.