Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
I wasn't avoiding but did need the pointing out, thanks.
This is tough stuff I'm still trying to understand, this is where I am right now:
Should God not stop evil?
Can you imagine knowing what great evil was to come and could it be loving to avoid that for them?
I don't think death is always a condemnation and I think those under the age of consent are automatically saved to God.
“Stop” evil?
How does killing babies “stop” “evil” lol?
I guess he was just “stopping” “evil” when he killed 99.999% of humanity with a flood too, huh?
If only he had some kind of plan to “conquer death” which he could have rolled out thousands of years earlier…
Who are we to question His timing? Where were we when He formed the world and made all things?
Yes, He flooded the earth and regretted His creation of us, that is a tough day dude..
He stops evil and defeated it thru Jesus and we are still waiting for it to be dissolved.
So you see no conflict between “treat others as you’d like to be treated” and “kill all their babies”.
Kk lol
Just trust the plan goy!!
I don't have all the answers but I told you where I was right now in learning.
There is much more killing to discuss also and I also struggle with it. I do know that God is the best option on the market and these evil things wouldn't happen if there wasn't a chasm created when we and the fallen seperated ourselves from Him.
The text is:
Yes, Graph, there's no conflict. I would rather that men had a just war policy than that they warred indiscriminately or that they regarded all war as wrong and allowed subversion indiscriminately. Therefore I would rather that they had an opportunity to go to war, assuming all regulations, negotiations, and humanitarian steps are taken, and on the rarest occasions (maybe twice in the Scripture) even include the children. In fact you have heavily defended the right of Gazans to have recourse to principles of just war that preclude what you think is their violation (being judged by the ICC right now). But, unlike Gaza, in the case of Amalek there was a prior evidentiary determination that they committed crimes against humanity and continued unabated, and there was a period of allowing any who wanted to exempt themselves, or their children, from an eventual war. Those that remain with a failed system after sufficient notice are responsible for their and their children's lives. If there were not a right to conduct just war then the pedophiles could continue their takeover unhindered despite their criminality.
Now, you don't have to believe that the Bible implies my interpretation, but if "all is one" then you would accept that all truth is one and falsehood is just a nullity, and so it's true that (binary commitment time) either just war exists or no war is just against any crime or subversion. I've given you a path to make that choice, but you have shown an aversion to committing to choices. That would be fine if you weren't so hard against those who have made commitments and stick to them, while you reserve two contradictory rights at once, the right to judge others for believing in just war, and the right to declare yourself effectively just for warring on criminals against humanity.
These we discussed.
It's better overall for freewill to exist with a limited amount of evil actions than for it not to exist. Thus creating a knowledge of good and evil is good.
When a just war has been declared and the aggressor refuses terms of peace that would protect its children against war deaths, the fact that they are exposed to death and some die, with the exact circumstances left to God's judgment, is better overall than permitting the culture to remain and corrupt them further. The child who dies is spared from evils to come. On the human side, every effort is made to prevent collateral death while still carrying out an objective of stopping crimes against humanity; on the divine side, God gives justice according to his good view of it, and questioning his own justice is actually your next question.
When God determines a mass casualty event, it is just because the second cause of the casualties can always be traced to human abrogation of its responsibility for itself, and the first cause is that the narrative of when any person dies is, when reviewed by us "auditors", demonstrably connected to that person having had a full chance to choose right or wrong, however short or long the demonstration. History indicates that he has conducted only one significant mass casualty event (IIRC you believe in about 16), and that it had the beneficial effect of redirecting mankind toward laws of Noah, which appears to be more redemptive than the alternative of continuing the prior status quo. You're free to question God's justice, but then you'd need to come up with a better scale of justice in all respects, which you haven't; you just pick at tiny oddities without seeing any overall pattern.
Also the plan to come personally to conquer death after four millennia, when it appears we have many more millennia to come than that, is another deliberate choice. One could imagine a world in which he took much longer (and in fact you do), or much shorter, but the balance of things seems to have made this a good setting just like the other settings of the universe that work well together. He stated specifically that he gave mankind enough time to develop consistent universal methods of communication and transportation that are not subverted by deception and tyranny such that the message of his salvation could be spread the fastest in a single generation ("fullness of time"); seems like a good fit to me.
Do you want perhaps to pick a specific binary proposition so we can focus on it again? That's worked before, better than the typical sniping at God theory that hasn't worked since it was first refined in the 19th century.