Yes, within my own community, first, and outside it as well.

I agree that we're working from different assumptions. I'm approaching the faith in the Messiah through the witness of Scripture and revelation, not a shared set of abstract rules or system logic.

Yes, I'm part of a church community. My views are my own, though, grounded in Scripture and informed by what I see unfolding in Western Christianity today.

I’m willing to discuss anything in the text openly, from Genesis to Revelation. If there’s a specific passage in Revelation that says, or even implies, that Christ returns under a pseudonym, I’m happy to discuss it.

I'm open to continued dialogue when we're talking about the biblical text itself rather than each other.

I think we agree on the corruption of power; where we part ways is on how Scripture describes Christ’s return.

You asked "What part of my comment suggested that Satoshi replaced Christ?"

It was this "So when Christ really returned it has to be under a pseudonym, giving us the gift again in a mode that is unrecognisable from His first life.'" I just wanted to clarify my position, since I do not hear to that interpretation. That's all.

I’m not judging anyone here. I respect the seriousness of the question. I just see Christianity differently: it’s not mainly about rules people already try to follow.

It claims something specific happened, that Jesus, the only-begotten Son, fulfilled the Scriptures by confronting unjust power, teaching the truth, refusing violence, and being killed for it. For followers of the Way, the resurrection is what makes that life trustworthy: it says this wasn’t a brave loss, but a real victory we’re invited to share in.

That’s what gives people the courage to live this way now, without needing control, because death and violent power don’t get the last word.

We agree on the critique of empire and hypocrisy. Where I differ is that I don’t see Christ primarily as transmitting an abstract rule-set or monomyth. The Gospel isn’t proof-of-work or a system design. It is God’s redemptive work, confronting unjust power through covenant and incarnation in the Son of Man, not a set of transferable principles.

Appreciate this framing, especially the contrast between prophetic truth and empire-maintained hypocrisy. Just to be clear: I don’t believe Satoshi was Christ; at most, Bitcoin echoes some anti-imperial principles in how systems can resist corruption. The Gospel stands on its own, and my argument is about how power co-opts faith, not about replacing Christ.

Note: Minor correction for accuracy and reverence—capitalized Rabbi and Him, and clarified formatting. Substance unchanged.

That’s not accurate. Congress may choose to use Signal informally, but it’s not required anywhere in federal policy. And for the Department of Defense it’s the opposite. Signal is prohibited for transmitting non-public DoD information. That’s why the IG explicitly ruled the SecDef’s Signal use a policy violation. This isn’t about travel phones. It’s about war-fighting communications happening on an unapproved, auto-deleting app.