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.
Read it. "Warred indiscriminately" means without "regulations, negotiations, and humanitarian steps". Plus the imperative voice isn't what we mean in English, not "you must kill all children", but "you may kill children", because the offers of peace were refused and the prior crimes of Amalek were judged and documented.
Would you like to make a binary proposition, without namecalling arising from your disingenuous reading of my words, about when a just war includes the risk of death of children and when it doesn't? Or is putting the kids at the bomb targets as human shields always a trump card because no moral person would ever bomb the same? That would mean the pedophiles could just trot out their soul-sucked pandas when they were threatened militarily and continue to complain that they the aggressors are being victimized. I don't think that's your view of proper warfare. Either there does exist a time to call the bluff of human shields, or there does not exist such a time, pick one.
Simple question:
Do you think there is any point in time or geography, across all of human history, where Jesus would tell you “you may” kill a baby in war?
Yes or No. Binary proposition.
Edit) also, you got anything to back up that horseshit argument about “kill every last one of them” doesn’t actually mean kill every last one of them, it means Heaven forbid, they may, only in super extreme circumstances like a Hamas terrorist wearing babies as bodyarmor while genociding innocent Chosen Ones - because frankly that sounds like an utter fucking bullshit cope
Good, now let's remove the ambiguity. Do you mean saying "you must kill a baby" i.e. ending the life of one who cannot possibly be charged with a conscious crime is a good thing, or do you mean saying "you may kill a baby" i.e. given certain circumstances (just war) your prosecution of righteousness might accidentally include death of a baby? Add: You've answered, so I'll follow up separately.
Add: I'll have to look at the context for your second question. Add: Yeah, in this case (given the rapid fire of your off-topic complaints) "you’re right, my bad, I shouldn’t be ... disingenuous". That permission applies in other circumstances, but in 1 Sam. 15 the context was clear that all were intended, where the prior charge was given (verse 2). That's why I said there were a couple such cases. If you can answer the first disambiguation I'll comment on that. To the second, I'd return to my question to you of whether just war is ever permitted to allow death of children or whether human shields always take the high moral ground.
Lmfao
You invented an ambiguity that isn’t even there. You’re such a disingenuous fag.
The verse is explicitly “God” calling for genocide.
That’s why you have such trouble accepting that Jesus would never call for genocide. Because his Father isn’t yahweh sabaoth, yaldabaoth, demiurge and petty god of war for a tribe of miscreants. Just as the earliest Christians believed before they were wiped out by the Catholic pedocracy.
Have you considered that your namecalling and baiting is keeping me from doing other things like reading your material? But for now I'm deciding that answering theodicy is the most valuable of those things. If it isn't worth it at some point I'll move on.
You didn't answer which of two grammatical constructions you wish me to take from your generic statement (without specific reference to the verse). You're also tacking to that newspeak "genocide", which is further ambiguity. However, I might still be able to give you a case about whether Jesus would ever declare the imperative as you suggest (seeing as you imply this is a clear dichotomy with his Father being the God of the Hebrew Scriptures). He's not a tame lion, he has devoured children. So if you want me to look in the Scriptures for an answer to the question as I best interpret it, "ingenuously", you'll need to wait for such an answer. Your ideas about what the earliest Christians believed are easily rejected by evidence and highly imaginative, but at least you're humoring me by trying to come down on a belief.