Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 76
9/1/2025, 6:58:48 AM
X
In reply to:
Millie
@3uca1yptus_
·
1d
@marwilliamson @daledwayer So you have your own interpretation of the scripture, carved away and separate from the overarching prophesy that John pinned, and by extention the rest of the bible. That's fine, thats your prerogative, and it is a nicely worded belief. But it doesn't alter the true message of
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
1d
@3uca1yptus_ @daledwayer I believe wild beast is lovelessness, and it exists as a potential in all of us… therefore in every sector of society. It expresses itself in greed, violence, injustice and cruelty. Our job is to stand for love, to be the light so darkness cannot be. Surrender no kingdom to him
Millie
@3uca1yptus_
·
1d
@marwilliamson @daledwayer It is recording that Satan told Jesus directly to his face that he rules over all the kingdoms of the earth, as I shared above.

What do you believe Revelation 13:2 means? What is the wild beast? Who is the dragon?
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
1d
@3uca1yptus_ @daledwayer There’s nothing in those statements that says governments are ruled by Satan.
Millie
@3uca1yptus_
·
1d
@marwilliamson @daledwayer That's false, Marianne. While there may not be a direct quote of Jesus stating this fact, it is a fact that is discussed throughout the new testament.

Not only did
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
1d
@3uca1yptus_ @daledwayer Nowhere did he say that governments are under Satan’s control.
Governments are run by people, and the goal should be what Lincoln said: that we be guided by the “angels of our better nature.”

The statement engages in a theological discussion about the nature of human governments and their moral standing, using religious texts to question whether all human governments are inherently evil. It also draws a historical comparison between the Nazis and the Allies in WWII, questioning the morality of both sides. This constitutes public discourse as it addresses broader societal and ethical issues.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but raises potentially sensitive historical comparisons that could be seen as controversial. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement attempts to promote understanding by engaging in a theological and ethical discussion, though it could be more empathetic in its historical comparisons. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in dialogue and asks questions rather than making personal attacks, adhering to constructive criticism. [+1]