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.
The story of Gideon and the tiny army to go against a huge army is always close to my mind.
Jesus sending disciples out into really dangerous places and telling them to carry a sword but not to live by the sword.
Two great examples. What id point out are the commonalities of both; how in each case God, through a process of individual’s free choice, selects a few to overcome the many, not through violence, but through a firm and morally principled posture of knowledge, wisdom, and mastery over the physical. This wisdom dissolves their opposition - again, not through violence, but illumination. The fact that some react violently to this illumination is seemingly unavoidable (so bring a sword when you travel the unknown territories! And know when to keep it sheathed!)
For me, one of the hardest to understand sayings of Jesus goes something like:
Now, I’d ask, do you read that as indicating Jesus literally is like, “provoking” these conflicts? Like, is there a “team Jesus” that hes marching alongside, as they engage in righteous slaughter? Or instead, is what’s happening more along the lines of the above, our ignorance violently revolting against His wisdom causing these outbreaks of violence described?
I think provoke may 'provoke' an inaccurate connotation, haha, I think Jesus is the reason for the conflict tho (with me or against me stuff) and He tells us that we are to cling to no one but Him, not our parents or siblings or children and not even our spouse, per se, tho 2 can be 1. I also think God approves self defense but also other times will ask us to lay down our life.
He is a Mystery and I am reliant on His constant guiding.
Edit: missed an i in against
Hmm, Y’know I don’t really see this image of a Holy Army of humans marching against other humans.
I interpret that as saying Jesus forsakes those turning against eachother - they stand alone in their conflict…
interesting that this is the line of the logion that didn’t make it into the canon, getting replaced with a duplicate verse about mother in laws lol (mother in laws, AMIRITE FOLKS?!?)
Agreed. An interesting dichotomy (on the surface), that I think reconciles when we see “All is One”
He's citing Micah 7:1-10:
More context is Luke 12:49-53:
For Luke's "I am come to send fire" Thomas has "I am come to cast ... fire". For Luke's "I am come to give ... division" Thomas has "I am come to cast divisions ..., sword, war". So, same event. But when he quotes Micah he is combining his causality with the local causality of human sinful nature without putting himself directly in the passage, but the indirect is implied.
Now, though he alludes to the very broad "peace upon the world" (aka "peace on earth"), he does not pivot to world war but to Micah's war in a single household. In rabbinical style that means he is arguing "lesser to greater": he is implying that just as he casts division in one house he certainly can and does cast it in larger divisions. But that implication is a secondary reading and his primary focus is that even single houses have blood betrayers that will be "trodden down". The context implies that the solution to the division is justice. 1 Peter 4:16-18 alludes to the same then:
This passage is also about betrayal in households and comparison to judgment of the nations. Traducing was common then as statists betrayed others to the government with the insulting name "Christians" (compare the fate of Jesus's disciples in the Talmud). Peter makes the lesser-to-greater (kal wekomer) argument explicit (which affirms that Jesus intended it also), by pointing out that righteous houses are judged more strictly and exactly, and thereby judgment cannot fail for sinful nations that heap up their ungodliness. So it sounds like Peter (especially with the rest of his context) is confident the sins of the nations will be judged righteously.
You focus on the ordinary daily work of love that is designed to wear down via its light. Sure. But pacifism cannot be the universal rule because you know that evil nations must be judged by competent courts. Let me share a 42 with you if it will not tempt you to object to my related treatment of OP. I discerned that the earliest teaching can be read as saying the good work of a weekday leads to resting on Sabbath in 1/6 proportion, but the evil work of unjust murder yields evils that must be fixed in 7 times the proportion (even if it pretends to be just vengeance like an attack upon Cain). Therefore we can adjust a truism by saying that for every time one speaks negatively one should speak positively 42 times. (This may be seized upon by the calculation that you need to be 45 times further from average for evil than you need to be for good; but I think it kind of inverts it.) An evil act automatically does 42 times as much evil as a good act does good. That is, good is intended to be cumulative because it is eternal and unlimited and rewarded forever, but bad is permitted to have a limited short-term "high" because it is temporal and limited and judged asap. Then when Lamech mocks this principle and declares the right to be avenged seventy and seven (which can mean 490), that is shown to be a disproportion and distortion, and Jesus later redeems the number 490 for forgiveness indicating there is no limit on goodness like there is on evil. (So note that even "Ra" has to admit a qualitative difference between good and evil and cannot pretend they both go to the same place.)
But I recall that when I gave a list of passages about Jesus's approval of just war you started with changing my inference by using the word "fulfill" from the text where it didn't apply and then saying the first two-millionth of my text had such a blatant error. I understand you want to communicate MEGO about math but if you're asking the meaning of 2 vs. 3 then let's allow it. "The question might be put to you: If you belong to a military at war with modern Israel, dedicated to destroying targets where it is known that Israel is constantly using children as human shields, how would you proceed: give up, or attack after all regulations are met?"
u/Thisisnotanexit
Add: While we're at it, Jesus's Father is violent:
And Jesus appears to be comfortable blazing up a world full of children (context of 16 shows this is not peaceful fire):
Let me start by thanking you for the excellent comment (x42 even)
Your argument regarding “just war”, however, remains unresolved. In my opinion, this is because you have built your argument atop a mountain of apriori notions you’ve never justified. Chief among them: the notion of a Christian State. You would agree that in order to engage in a “Christian Just War”, one would need to be in a ”Christian State”, yes? Can you show me where Jesus lays out his command for us to form religious states that then may enter into “Just Wars”? Cuz as far as I remember, Jesus doesn’t encourage his faithful to form nation states. In fact, many, many Christians have understood this. It just so happens that you guys tend to slaughter them (or, specific to you, ban them, like DMKUltra, or drive them away like CA)
You're welcome. But it's funny how you read: no, I never said Christian State. "War" means conflict between two parties. The party that declares just war must also declare its reasons via some authoritative channel. (An individual can declare war but that's not usually wise. Groups (which do include states) are formed by voluntary compacts or by birth into a group such as a family, so there are established procedures for determining group consensus.) The principle for this regulation is called "offering terms of peace", Deut. 20:10, but that's the barebones version for people who can read between the lines. Jesus's affirmation of all Torah principles, and their just promulgation, appears in words like: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (Matt. 23:2-3a). Since Jesus speaks about God's kingdom more than anyone else, I suspect his body has a form of government capable of declaring war. For his view on war, a quick search includes Luke 14:31 ff., Rev. 12:7, 17:14, and 19:11 (particularly).
If you could answer the question it might help, so I'll restate it: If you were in an army fighting a foe (e.g. modern Israel) that your army has told you might use human shields around your targets, and your commander tells you that the war has been justly declared and children have been ruled to be fair game in a particular engagement you're in, and so you are instructed that you may kill them if necessary in that engagement, would your conscience be satisfied or would you have opted out at some point saying that God could never authorize killing of innocent human shields and therefore all armies should capitulate when human shields are used? Those are the only two options: collateral damage is either moral or immoral. Would love you to commit to an answer.
It's not easy for me to search for whether we ever banned u/DMKultra or u/ColloidalAlumina for a day or two, or not. I have a goal not to repel people (as shown in my fora that are legal-speech) but where I'm representing an extant community I want to follow their desires. I'm happy to see that you never ban people, but would you use the option if someone kept trolling you? Because if people realize you're a pacifist they test that, just as belligerents test other nations' war policies. We've had much discussion about moderation and I sought to answer all your concerns when you raised them, but you are free to raise more. I don't see that your pivot to that topic means something contradictory: at worst, if I've erred in relation to another user that can be addressed; but my policy of carrying out enforcement as approved by a freewill community doesn't mean I slaughter people metaphorically. If anything I've sought to be more merciful if possible even when my gut impulse would be to slam down a tool. If you'd like me to research reasons anyone was banned, I can take time for that, but if just war is moral then right to ban is moral and the question is not morality but abuse.
So let me know what you'd do in these cases because then you're actually coming down on a firm position rather than sniping at someone else's.