By your removing your comments from this post and rejecting my good-faith offer of voluntary interaction ban, you are indicating you wish the status quo to continue. If you are reading this, we can return to negotiation any time you desire.

He's now written:

I rescind any and all mediation agreements, and it's two-ways free range. Swamp's bans stand on the forums I mod. He can do what he wants in regards to me, say anything on here to me or about me, and I can respond however I want and vice versa.

I'd appreciate your suggesting to him one more time that he can have everything he asked for if he consents to the draft agreement at CommunitiesConflict. If he proceeds with rescission instead, then (not a threat but a discussion of likelihood) it is likely that I will consider myself free to repeat my core questions about truth to him as his contributions permit, that he is likely to be immediately confronted by the illogic of proposing a solution and having it accepted in essence and then not following through with the solution, and that we will continue to have direct interactive difficulty with each other's characterizations of matters.

Either outcome (voluntary interaction ban or two-way free-range relationship) is acceptable to me.

Add: He also indicates freedom to ping me, in accord with his new proposal. I'd still like his statement confirmed all the same.

I have posted the draft agreement, by which I still reserve the right to continue directly related discussion in this thread up until the draft is clearly agreed by Soul in its entirety as well. Will watch your accounts to see if any further action is needed. I note Soul's latest comment but have no reply to it.

Brilliant. 100%. This has some of the seeds that will sprout this year.

His next.

I'll give him credit for putting his rules in the report function and not the sidebar as counting as publication, but this does not make the rules public knowledge if nobody thinks to click the report function. So I'll withdraw a statement if it neglected that aspect that I was unaware of.

I posted FFRF content in a non-Christian forum because I believe it's a good voice for that forum and (if I were asked) I also believe that Christianity stands up well against that voice being the best representative of its enemies. The fact that I want to find ways to reach out to Soul, including posting content I disagree with but that I think is a voice that can be heard anyway, shouldn't be regarded as bad. Unless he can find a way to define "proselytization" fairly so that it applies to what I did and not to what he did.

Similarly, since "gnostic" is undefined by gnostics I can certainly claim to be a gnostic: I love gnosis and fight pseudognosis. u/Ranger164 appears to have spoken sincerely and with love of gnosis too. Another great thing about gnostics is no two prominent ones have ever gotten along historically; so it's natural that his gnosis doesn't agree with mine, or that of u/Ranger164 for that matter. I am indeed unaffiliated with "religion" as I am the most unbound any person can be, bound to only one eternally (nobody can be totally unbound because that would be to have bound oneself to unboundness, which is far less preferable). But I do make voluntary commitments, and I think Soul is okay with that idea, especially since by asking for mediation he is entering a voluntary commitment. I learned over 2019-2022 to be all things to all men, and to be sincere and respectful to all principles of men; but some people don't understand this yet and find my ability to reconcile diverse poles as if I'm contradictory without their ever hearing the reconciliation. But I think that's because people have not yet worked through what it really means to commit to noncontradiction (truth) alone.

I accept his amending clarification to Part 3 in his words "3. Each of us to not create [] call out posts and meta posts about one another." My previous concern there had been about his freedom to comment indirectly without right of reply. When I want to not interact with another person, I seek not to refer to that person even indirectly; but it appears he wants a different agreement, which is fine if bilateral and equal.

Since he is reading my comment and since he makes no reference to my suggestions about our right to contextualize comments by pinging third parties elsewhere, or our right to appeal to you about perceived violations, or further changes to OP, those matters can proceed to draft format. I made a mistake above that his side point rightly notes, that I should have said "comment" rather than "post" above, so I'll correct that. I'll post a draft in the welcome comment at CommunitiesConflict.

Add: I have the draft ready to post so I will await further instructions from either of you. Since he has now seen this comment he should be ready to act too, or perhaps ready not to act. He raises the quibble that, since everything I do is geared toward the one goal of helping truth go forward in the world, therefore everything I do can be regarded as proselytizing (that being the logical conclusion of his words). I've seen that charge before, which is why I try to preclude it by (1) insisting on definition, (2) applying it equally (such as to his "attempting to convert" you or me "from one" "opinion to another"), and (3) defining what kinds of human interactions are indeed acceptable as mutual pursuit of truth. His continuing to have difficulty to see the equivalence is what's holding him back. IMHO. But I'm confident we'll get to discuss it again sometime. For now the draft awaits.

I work very hard not to be a steam roller anymore

^ self-awareness at 100%, much love :)

In terms of the general spiritual picture, I understand if you want to throw around memetic symbols like "109" and "Remphan" and so on in the sense that they convey archetypes to you. My point is that the archetypes don't have their greatest success unless they are rooted in verifiable truths as opposed to just this week's batch of memes. So I'm not denying you your big picture, but I do challenge the use of it to make specific truth claims about events that we can have sufficient knowledge of. So I'll try to take it in that sense.

Obviously Greater Israel recalls Solomon's reign from Nile to Euphrates and greater things than that. As a Christian, I too aspire to rule the world, and I tell people I already do because Jesus shares his current throne with me now. So I don't quail about others' claims to the same, they will either be proven right in one kingdom or one claim will be defeated by another.

I have no problem with the idea that many Rothschild family members are satanists and look forward to reading your link in more detail. That's just one family (the link also mentions the Barings) and there are many satanic works, as I point out Jesus mentions seven in Revelation 2-3, not just one. But haven't I linked you my study on hexagrams? They have many meanings and their cooption by satanists doesn't serve to paganize everyone who uses them, as I just told someone else. Because you're going for archetypes I won't pester you with the individual quibbles as I did in the links. Yeah, so Israel claims to be run by the hexagram principle, just as "El Salvador" claims to be run by the Savior principle, etc. The only way to tell who's right is to keep testing one principle against another.

Your link makes brief reference to British Israelitism, but I don't think that's what you mean about the lost tribes. If you're just talking about an archetype in which Ezekiel's prophecy of two sticks means that satanist Rothschilds will become united with other satanists, well, no biggie for me, satan bows to me, i.e. to Jesus in me. But what else would the lost tribes mean other than new ground for the current Israel to claim original jurisdiction over?

I say "reported" because the Received Text is well-known and a fine basis for beginning historical study. If someone wants to prefer Thomas or Enoch, I respect that because it'll connect in time (I'm partial to Odes of Solomon myself). I've had great success for 5 years here piercing the veil of obfuscation about history and getting to reality. Of course being one with the principle of the universe (Jesus) doesn't hurt in that process.

The "offer" Jesus gives (using Ann Coulter's trope, "If you can find a better offer, take it!"), is eternal life and freedom from all evils. The cost is that I gave up my own soul in exchange for all things. Lots of people are selling their souls these days, but it only works if the one you sell to has covenanted with you to retain your ownership in him. All other soul-buyers are busy manipulating and milking you and forbidding your independent claims. So it's a good offer (not referring to the person, but to the words he spoke). If you have something better, share.

First of all he has to be understood, and IMO, very, very few people in this World are capable of that.

Because I have one commitment (Jesus as Truth), I make one request of those who propose something to be understood, namely that it submit to Truth. If it's flatly contradictory (not just paradoxical on a process toward greater harmony), then it's not true. I'll be happy to probe any paradox you propose and to seek to navigate it without contradiction. But I do insist on noncontradiction. You can start anytime you like.

Yeah, the Gospel of Thomas (a book) is a report. If you want to go with archetypes then the other Gospels will do fine too. Archetypally, the gospel receiver is deathless, the Master teaches and the student becomes Master-like, seeking and finding is eternal, etc. I have found, I find every day, and I am still finding, and that's the way it should be short of apotheosis. (If you're claiming apotheosis yourself, which I use very technically, it's likely that you don't mean what I do and that what you claim is already something I also have found.) Looking forward to what you're willing to share further.

Gilgul. Gnosis. Gehenna. I spent a year in hell so I can go in and out anytime I please now.

Thank you for your encouragement! I always look forward to your posts even when I disagree.

Well thanks GMAG! They said they wanted an elite research board so I signed up, but then I found I was repeating the same observations so often as to the same memes. There's not as much on GAW as there used to be. I guess I'll need to write a book someday.

Add: Best old answer for 666 that I've found is Teitan (Titan, including Emperor Titus) or Qaser Neron (Emperor Nero), runner-up Lateinos (Rome). I think there will be a new answer in time but there are too many oversimplified answers for it to get much traction at first.

That's why I framed the last two paragraphs in terms that apply even if he chooses to cease interacting. At a minimum I trust you to rule formally what you'd do as a mod disciplining me, and I trust you to reoffer mediation if he should complain that I've broken some term that he thinks we've agreed to.

u/Thisisnotanexit, since Soul is now formally requesting interaction ban, I'm in general agreement as long as specifics are clearly defined, and so I will not ping him and will address my comments to you.

1. If nobody initiates the convening of the Reputation Campaign, then task 3 can be closed out as unnecessary. I would presume that Soul not publicly regard the Reputation Campaign as defunct since that's a forum that I mod and comments about it would be considered comments that reflect on me and the other mods. So I'll cover that in the details below.

As I said, all my contribs to Soul's forums (including those to the forums of an earlier account of his) were presented in good faith and with consideration of the rules as then stated; for instance, the first questions I asked in his new forum came before his "no apologetics or proselytizing" rule was stated. Most people regard the sharing of sincere questions as a means of growth rather than "endless religious arguments", and Soul himself used the technique of sincere questions when I first contributed there.

I am ok if Christians use the forums in a respectful manner and engage in reciprocal dialogue. With the Bible Oddities forum, I thought it was clear enough that the forum was not geared towards Christians initiating posts. Swamp tested the boundaries and posted anti Christian content, so I clarified. The rule on there is for Christians not to initiate a post. They are welcome to comment on a post providing they follow the other rules.

When I commented on a BibleOddities post with only a positive link, I was banned at moderator discretion for "griefing" the mod, so that showed me that Soul was not really thinking through his claim that Christians are welcome to comment providing they follow other rules. Since mod discretion is a rule, I pointed out that effectively means there are no rules because any rationalization in the mod's mind is treated as a new rule. I'm hopeful Soul realizes this in time after being shown it a few different ways, as it helps the forward progress he seeks.

The issue is that Swamp violated the rules that were in place, and engaged in what I view as griefing and harassing behavior as a result of his inability to live with the consequences of his behavior.

Like the above, on this issue I am solely responding to his statements about me for context, as I've stated I reserve the right to do. If we bypass the question of judging his own forums and stick to judging this one, that can be handled in the details of the voluntary interaction ban.

I view him as attempting to slander me with this post he made, and having attempted to manipulate me as a kind of punishment for having and enforcing healthy boundaries.

2. That's part of your judgment (TINAE) on the two of us, so I'm happy to discuss anything about that if specifics are presented.

If you find the comments about Swamps actions under the Ranger164 account, Swamp admits to circumventing a past ban I placed on him in another forum I modded, with intent to do what I view as harass me. Back then, I felt that Swamp was targeting me for harassment and trying to manipulate me. I view his actions as violating the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform and would like it addressed and action taken about it if deemed he was in violation to the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform.

That's a question for admin so perhaps neither you nor I should be involved in Soul's prosecution of that question.

I had told Swamp to stay off of the forums I mod and that I was willing to converse with him when I deemed he is capable of having a conversation.

That's not in evidence; what he told me five times is that I was permabanned without clear reference to published rules other than his own rationalizations.

I want him to stop harassing me and attempting to character assassinate me in the manner of his post here. I want him to remove it.

3. The details of what should be removed or struck through are part of negotiation. If you'd like to propose changes to OP, feel free, even though your task may be complicated if he is not speaking to me directly. It occurs to me that I might agree to remove the post after a probation of a month or two to determine that Soul is able to keep some noninteraction commitment that he makes.

For resolution I want 1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other. 4. For each of us to refrain from jumping in and trying to start interaction when we are discussing the other with other users.

4. Parts 1-3 can be deemed to have begun already, with the detail noted that either of us pinging or replying to the other, or commenting or posting in the other's forums, or creating posts mentioning or clearly referring to the other or the other's forums, would indicate a truce, requiring a new interaction ban to be agreed afterward. I would presume that, just as I would not make a generic reference to forums about Bible discrepancies or the like as it could be regarded as being a post "about" Soul, Soul would also not make a generic reference to forums about Christianity or the like as it could be regarded as a post "about" me and other mods.

5. Part 4 is more problematic because I haven't seen voluntary interaction ban to work when users remain free to speak to third parties about the other (i.e. to gossip). If I were to agree to that, nothing would stop me from defaming Soul across the board in various comments and regarding even the slightest effort from him to allude to correcting the record as a violation of the agreed ban where my hypothetical gossip would not be a violation. So I continue to insist that this be better stated. His comment itself can be regarded as jumping in and trying to start interaction with you when I was discussing him with you, so clearly the concept needs a start time rather than just a generic statement. Similarly, if in the future he were to claim that Reputation Campaign is defunct because no member had chosen to act on his deadline, that would be untoward and would be gossip that is easily contextualized by this conversation. I had thought he'd answered my first question, but it appears I need to repeat it: "Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?" If he wants the freedom to talk about me without according me the freedom to contextualize what he says about me on the same platform, I find that a double standard. So I'd continue to suggest that part 4 should be something like "For each of us not to discuss the other recognizably with other users".

6. I don't see any spiritual benefit to anyone by any capitulation to his stated part 4, because it accords us both the right to unlimited gossip against each other. Perhaps though he merely means by "jumping in and trying to start interaction" that one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages. But if he means more than this the problem I mentioned remains.

7. Enforcement of the ban has not been stated. It would be very simple for either of us to perceive that the other had broken the terms and to justify any other breaking on that perception. Presumably we'd need a clause that you'd be available to hear claims of violation indefinitely or for a set term, and that a perception of violation would not permit further violation by the other without your express ruling and perhaps a reopening of mediation.

At this point I'm blocking Swamp.

Having recognized that he can do this, he appears to be declining in his interest to continue to prosecute his requests of you. So I'll come to a brief review that seems to cover his stated points.

(1) You issue a ruling as to what either of us have done against Conspiracies rules with your recommendations as to discipline, allowing us to decide whether to accept the discipline as binding since we can only discipline ourselves. (2) I review OP and make initial voluntary edits; you include any other recommended edits in your ruling; and if Soul finds the edits incomplete he continues to negotiate in that process. (3) We deem his first terms agreed "1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other." (4) For the moment, we deem my interpretation of his fourth point agreed (seeing as if he disagrees he can merely clarify in continuing negotation): "one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages." (5) If Soul finds those interpretations incomplete, he continues to negotiate in the above process. (6) Any claims of ban violation would need to be handled, such as by you using the method above; if Soul wishes to make other plans in advance of this possibility, he would need to negotiate that too.

If this is agreeable and he gives no action for a reasonable time after your ruling and my edits, or if he continues to seek mediation within boundaries we all agree on, then we should be able to implement it. I would likely post comment the agreed details in a forum like CommunitiesConflict and/or SwampRangers, without pinging him, as to make such a post comment would still be within the terms stated, and he would be free to post comment separately to CommunitiesConflict or his own forum as well.

Symbols are not corrupted if they are created purely and used purely. If it were possible for a minority to corrupt a word used by the majority by claiming it has a new offensive meaning, the minority would have undue power to modify language. The majority must simply maintain the purity of the original meaning and not abrogate it due to manipulative, invented claims.

God created cubes (e.g. plant cells) and they are not evil in themselves. God specifically ordered that Moses had the Holiest Place built as a cube shape.

The hexagram and hexagon first appear in 23rd-century BC Armenia as a generic geometric polygram device and are not evil in themselves.

The hexagram hexagon is not automatically a "cube of Saturn" because it has many other meanings.

You are correct that satanism is saturnism and titanism. However, related names like Titus (a Bible book) are not evil in themselves.

You are correct that Saturday is named after Saturn, as all days have been named after heavenly bodies in many languages. However, naming days of the week is not evil in itself, and using the English names is a subject on which different consciences rule differently. I generally, but not rigorously, use the 3-letter abbreviations for weekdays as a compromise.

Shabbath is not Saturday, it is the day from Fri sundown to Sat sundown, which is always distinguished. Shabbath is not evil in itself, and Charlie Kirk has recently championed the original Sabbath for Christians.

Since cubes are not evil in themselves, putting Scriptures in an ornamental cube to be worn is not evil in itself, and is a literalist reading of Moses, which is Christian Scripture. Jesus didn't say not to wear cubes, he specifically said not to make the cubes extra large, implying that he permitted the wearing of Scriptures if it wasn't for attention-getting purposes.

The cube of Mecca is based on earlier cubical Arabic shrines, which can be inferred to be copies of the cubes of Moses, Solomon, and Zerubbabel, so the shape as a sanctuary is not evil in itself.

The hexagram was never "the star of Remphan". I showed that the most likely original meaning of star of Remphan (Rephaim or Titans) was Nehushtan. Several symbols could be attested as being "a star of Remphan", such as the crucifix itself when misused, the rods of Aesclapius and Hermes, the dollar sign, the T-and-O symbol, the uroboros, some I forgot, and because of its recent association the hexagram (not by semiotic tradition but by reassignment).

Therefore satanism is only limited to knowing pagan use of a symbol that has known pagan connotations: it cannot be ascribed to unknowing use or unknown connotations.

Your first link is solely about, well, insignificant reflections on 67.

Your second link refreshes the above, while also adding the map of Saturn. The fact that a hexagonal field was recently discovered on Saturn, obviously created by God, does not mean that satan has any special rights in the hexagon.

Your third link illustrates cube and black-cube art as well as referring to rings of pilgrims in Mecca. I do not know the origins of the various sculptures so it is possible some of them are intended as satanic symbols. The tradition of encircling seven times comes from old Near East forms of covenant-making and indicates commitment. It comes from the threefold betrothal by the Lord in Hosea 2:19-20, which can be taken as seven clauses.

Your fourth link adds nothing new other than the note that the crucifix represents the New Israel.

OP is too lame to warrant separate analysis.

TLDR: Semiotics can be exacting. The fact that satanists can and do use certain symbols with pagan intent does not corrupt the symbols automatically in every use or permit sweeping generalizations. If a group of sincere people use a symbol purely and a subgroup adds secret impure meaning to the symbol in an attempt to subvert the sincere, that fails as soon as the truth and honesty is brought to light. Infiltration is always a threat (tares), and it will be rooted out when it is mature so as not to harm the immature. Jesus warns of seven lying works of satan in Revelation 2-3 and we should be alert to all of them.

Merry Christmas again! Happy St. Stephen's Day. (Fresh cascade for u/ExpressionOfTheSoul and u/Thisisnotanexit.)

I ask that since Swamp and I have all this stuff posted here, that if you could help mediate here please so that what Swamp and I have engaged in so far won't have to start again on the other community you proposed.

I agree with Soul on this and request this mediation hereby. Obviously "mediation" is defined as bilateral. Thank you both for your consideration. I see TINAE writing at the same time as me so will handle that separately.

Task 1:

When it comes to other users and their behavior, I have seen where you have called them out, told them the rules, and have tried to take action as a mod would without officially having the title. With you having done that to others, can you please engage in that stuff with Swamp on this post and the comments. Potentially reminding him of the rules and give the verdict and action you would take against him (if any) if you the official mod.

Task 2:

If you want to do that stuff to me as well I would appreciate it.

Restatement of Task 1 (it appears this applies to Conspiracies only and not any other forum):

The resolution I seek in my petition to you u/Thisisnotanexit is that you give a verdict regarding u/SwampRangers post, comments, and behavior towards me on and state whether or not it violates the rule and spirit of the forum, or is in line with them. If what he has done violates the rules and/or spirit of the forum, if you could please state your verdict and course of action you would recommend if you were in the position of mod of the forum.

Statement of purpose:

I want Swamp to remove his post here. In return, if he removes it, then I will remove the post I made about him with the screenshot of his post on the Bible Oddities forum.

My responsive statement of purpose: I would be willing to strike through and/or edit aspects of this OP that could be reasonably judged to violate the stated forum rules. I have no concern over whether Soul retains or deletes content so that's not a bargaining chip for me. I believe that further mediated discussion might reveal the specific objections Soul has to OP that would enable a more surgical solution that can be applied either by a content contributor, a mod, or an admin.

Task 3 (modified by subsequent statement):

I also petition you u/Thisisnotanexit that the c/ReputationCampaign committee convene and discuss whether or not to revoke or keep u/SwampRangers status as a member of the committee given the disreputation campaign he has initiated towards me. I also request that the committee vote whether or not to admit me as a member of it, or at least help facilitate my getting on the committee.

Based on the public stated positions of the Reputation Campaign (which I see you've now reviewed), (1) it could be convened, (2) it does have power to remove its own members by its own processes (from which questioned members would naturally be recused so that they may speak for themselves instead), (3) it focuses on disrepute to the Scored platform and not to disrepute of one contributor against another (but disrepute to Soul should be fully covered by Soul's request for mediation herein), (4) Soul does not currently meet the public standards originally used for committee membership, and (5) it does have power to consider modifying its membership standards and admitting new members accordingly. Also (6) the committee is free to take Soul's statement itself as a sufficient petition to initiate discussion without action by TINAE, while we are each free to interact with the process in any way.

Please provide a verdict regarding u/SwampRangers by 5 pm CST on December 29th, 2025. If you do not address the content and verdict by then, I will take that as an indication you are unable to deal with with my petition in a reasonable and efficient manner and timeline, and are unfit to be in consideration for a mod of the c/Conspiracies forum.

Assuming your willingness to present a formal verdict, TINAE, and assuming you do not have a rescheduling request responsive to this near deadline, that seems reasonable.

Please disregard my petition to have the committee convened to consider my admission to it.

I can respect this request for disregard, speaking for myself, while of course other committee members are free to reinitiate proceedings for this reason and I do not speak for them, and of course any member can initiate for any other reason.

Please help initiate a public and transparent convention of the committee to assess u/SwampRangers behavior and actions. If no action is undertaken to initiate a convention of the committee to address the concerns I am petitioning you by 5 pm CST January 1st, 2026, I will see that as an admission that your committee is effectively disbanded.

I don't have an immediately handy record on whether TINAE was offered or accepted membership in the Reputation Campaign, but she currently qualifies for membership as a mod of c/Gaming and c/Positive. That can be discussed.

In light of being unqualified to serve on the committee at the c/ReputationCampaign at this time, and their general inactivity for 2 years, it leaves me no choice, but to create another committee similar to the one at c/ReputationCampaign to help keep content, users, and forums of the site in line with the Scored content policy and other applicable rules/guidelines of Scored by petitioning the mods with concerns in a collective action of users invested in maintaining the integrity of the Scored platform.

Sounds legit.

I see this recess and inactivity for 2 years as indicating the committee at c/ReputationCampaign is effectively dissolved and no longer in function unless it is reconvened by the time frame given of 5 pm CST January 1st, 2026.

You are free to interpret what you like about others, but others are generally accorded the right to interpret themselves for themselves. Admin has generally been silent about the right for inactive users or forums to be reclaimed or dispositioned, including when inactivity has lasted more than 1 year; but it appears that in extreme cases, such as credibly reported death of a user or admin-judged platform maleficence, they have been willing to step in. So 2 years isn't regarded as a bar to one's account rights here. But that should be academic, since any member can convene the committee, and I am likely to do so after taking sufficient consideration.

America seized the power of the kaisers and immediately started appointing czars. That's a nominal hint. The Cold War indicates a global duopoly represented by the two feet of the Daniel 2 statue.

The enemy to come will certainly use his infiltrations in both America and Russia to consolidate power (I count the powers as Washington, London-Rome, Tokyo, BRICS, Mideast, and Africa). I'm not sure why this would trouble Orthodox eschatology.

Let me ask you something, why did the Rothschilds Cabal choose to name the land, home for jews in Palestine, Israel?

Not sure why it matters, but the name was chosen over Judah or Judea because they had designs on finding the ten lost tribes and adding to their numbers that way.

History has nothing to do with absolute truth.

Absolute truth is what absolutely happened. If you want to hold that all "history" is suspect, fine, but what do you call what we discover happened, with sufficient confidence? I suppose we could call it "reality" but that's just semantic, like your first question.

Going back to the kingdom of Nimrod, the first freemason.

I found the historical Nimrod. Yes, his influence has been continuous, but the fact is that there has always been a true strand of recognition of reality and a corrupt strand that attempts to infiltrate the truth. It's essential not to give the enemies of truth more credit than they deserve (which happens when we believe their history and backdate their corruptions), and it's essential to uphold those who are pursuing truth and reality in every generation. The various wrestlings between the two leave sufficient testimonies of both that we can get the big picture.

I believe it’s a set of non-humans who are using a subset of humans

Nonhumans can be judged freely, but if something is in persistent human form it has the spark of divinity unless it can be known that it has been extinguished. I give people the right to judge other Homo sapiens as nonhuman if they use circumspect judgment demonstrating their knowledge of this extinction. That judgment is very rarely rightly used against children because they generally have not participated consciously in the machinations of the parasites. So when people express racism I ask for backup. Your insights into the satanic system are valid and the uroboroi are old symbols (that corrupt the divine Tree of Knowledge symbol). Now you need to recognize what is absolute about them with sufficient certainty so that you can judge the guilty and acquit the innocent.

If you've got some better offer than what Jesus is reported as teaching, let us know, maybe we should take it! But after an exhaustive search I committed fully to Jesus and cannot leave him and yet he constantly freshly reveals himself, making everything new and giving me access to all things.

People high up in their system like the Queen dump their body and transfer their consciousness into a younger body. The past few Queens of England are actually the same person.

That tech isn't perfected so it's not exactly the same person but it's a form of possession by the same person. You're always stuck with the new zygote but you can minimize its influence like you would with a parasitic twin. However, the possessee is still an innocent victim as long as they don't consciously participate in the crimes and God will rescue the victims when needed.

Also, keep in mind that demons torment because they are self-tormented and they are wasting away even as their spew wastes others away. Like they are Buildings 1-2 and the human is Building 7. Each is self-tormented but there is also flow of torment.

I said that I had hoped you would've stayed away

People who hope that someone will stay away take action to assist that, especially if the person can be negotiated with. People who make 5 general-welcome forums aren't acting like they're hoping that someone will stay away. In the view where one can entertain contradictions, maybe you consider yourself free to act like hoping and to act like not hoping at the same time; but if you are inconsistent I reserve the right to select a consistent interpretation.

You twisted it to construe it like I was saying not to interact with me at all

That was not the intent of my question. If you wish to interact with me, as you imply by doing so, then we can proceed to discuss and share questions, wherever you permit. So I'll take that as an answer and proceed to another question.

I don't want you on the forums I mod, ever.

You've made that clear, and I'll be happy to extend that credit to any new forums too based on your current implication (one which you didn't share previously).

When you learn how to have a conversation or discussion, we can have one.

You brought up objective reality. (2) Is it objectively true (without dependence on subjective framing) that no statements are objectively true, or is it objectively true that one or more statements are in fact objectively true?

If that's what you think. (1) Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?

If you believe I didn't want to deal with people connected to religion (you specifically), and you create a new account to then deal with me... do you see how that can be considered harassment?

At no time did you say you didn't want to deal with me specifically and ask me to cease to interact on an even basis. Because I'm an unconnected person except for my one connection to another person, I'm fully capable of being that from another account. If you open your forums to all comers, be prepared for all comers.

Since this question was asked of me, that implies you wanted an answer. I refer you again to state whether you do or do not want the interaction. Merry Christmas.

You refer to this conversation.

I had said to Swamp: "Objective morality comes from a subjective framework. If you want to assert there's an objective framework of morality that exists independent of a subjective framework of what right and wrong are, then show it.". That seemed beyond his grasp

I showed you that The Abolition of Man had been written to show it. However, since in the same comment you regarded me as threatening, saying, "You really going to threaten to kill me or invoke your God to kill me?", I didn't respond adversarially with proof but promised that you would receive the proof you need when you need and indicated how we could proceed. When you ask for something to be shown, it's appropriate to agree on what is asked for so that we don't waste our time; that's what I was seeking with you. I could produce any number of things that I believe "show it", and you could reject them all as not "showing it", so it's better to get the terms straight before working the details. I answered all your questions and worked with you patiently, so I'm here to continue doing so whenever you want.

my belief that objective morality comes from our subjective framework of what right and wrong are

Logically, if it's objectively true that objective morality comes from subjective framework, then that truth is subjective, and it would also be objectively true that objective morality doesn't come from subjective framework. But you treat the subjective framework as the only option (either-or) instead of both frameworks being options (both-and). So you do not follow your own principle, but treat your own statement as objectively true without reference to subjective framework, even as the statement denies that you do so. This is logic that's been recognized for thousands of years, so I'll be happy to continue demonstrating it to you whenever you bring it up.

I don't think it registered with Swamp that I was done discussing/arguing and was trying to move on.

No, because you continued inviting all comers to your forums, and you continued interacting with me and talking about me afterward. I explained this already.

I can be as crazy or insane as I want to be as long I follow the sites rules.

Correct, and I can interact with whatever remains of your sanity as much as I want in the same scenario.

If you continue talking about me, I continue appealing to your sanity and reason, pretty simple. I refer you to my one question about whether you wish an equal interaction ban or whether you wish to continue to interact on equal footing.

Thank you for publishing the whole correspondence.

I believe Swamp plays ignorant and pretends that he doesn't know who my account is so he can claim plausible deniability

No; I also thank you for admitting your connection to the prior account, as I wasn't 100% sure of it and I treat new accounts as unconnected if they don't want to admit prior connection. Now that you've made that admission I need not treat it as unconnected.

It's true that because you didn't want to deal with me on this account I announced I was creating a new account, but then I let that account run on its own as disconnected because your prior account said something about wanting not to deal with people who were connected to religion. So I offered that account as someone not connected to religion. It was clear your prior account didn't want to communicate with me even free from any formal connection to religion. Now, of course, that's my impression of your former account, but the fact is that your choices to interact and not to interact are indeed mystifying and so I accept what you're willing to share, and I don't presume my judgments are correct.

I think with this post about me that he's trying to control the optics of his interactions with me to appear as some kind of innocent and concerned victim and construe me as some kind of irrational/crazy extremist. I consider him as having engaged in actions towards me like gaslighting, veiled threats, darvo tactics, and manipulation.

Well, the first idea is that you're making up what you perceive me to be saying in the same way you accuse me of making up what I perceive you to be saying, so let's cancel those out and move past them. Darvo (checks lookup): Deny, attack, reverse victim/offender. Wonderful word, thanks. Not sure how such a charge could be denied as it seems self-fulfilling. That too probably should cancel, because the meta would be that two people with a conflict would normally minimize their own faults, maximize the other's, and claim innocence. So it doesn't help for us to go to extreme belligerence, because such a situation would seem to call for conflict resolution such as a third party offered us.

Regardless of how much he tries to frame my concerns about his behavior towards me as unfounded, his actions have demonstrated to me that he's got it out for me. I'm sure he could list stuff he perceives me as having engaged in against him. I'm sure he has some good qualities about him, and I'm open to potentially having a reciprocal discussion with him at some point, but I think that it simply isn't going to happen in this life.

If you think I've got it out for you, you have the option of acting on that (i.e. refusing to interact, which is generally rightly done by informing the person rather than remaining ambiguous), or the option of acting against that (i.e. suppressing the thought and interacting anyway). I'm happy to help you work this out. You can either take unilateral steps to resolve your impression so that whatever I've got out for you won't affect you, or you can engage a bilateral process where we resolve it together. That's why I ask you questions. So for now (1) Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?

You've also drawn many conclusions about Swamp Rangers and my avocation here, and I've told your former account about this without believing I was understood. That's not so important; what I do say is that I'm committed to nothing but Jesus and that is my one purpose. If you don't like Jesus even though you want to follow The Way he proposed, if you want to be a Christ without him also being a Christ, you might have trouble. If you simply answer questions like the above, I think there's a good path forward for our discussion.

We might also be able to discuss your definition of proselytization. If pursuing truth at all costs is something you don't want to do, I believe in pointing out that that leads to nihilism and in reasoning with you to the degree you permit. But most people want truth and do not regard pursuit of truth as proselytization. So if you're able to make some statement about truth from your own perspective, I can resonate with that. My attempts to contribute were based on being responsive to your statements and strictures. If you don't see anything I do as helpful, it would be better to just agree not to interact.

It's not that I don't like the behaviors, it's that they reflect really horridly on you and you're self-unaware of that.

This is you→RRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

At that point it just becomes entertainment, possibly at your own expense, and I don't want to foster that so I will minimize my own comments except when necessary.

You have cited the single most misquoted passage on all of Scored. It actually only says, in a nonbinding joke format similar to a political cartoon of Muhammad, that an anonymous stock character Yeshu speaks of a punishment of boiling excrement; people add their own ideas to the picture (namely that it was Jesus of Nazareth, that there is a vat, that he is in the vat, and that it's eternal). Please do not take echoes of echoes of Talmudic passages when the real Talmud is easy to find on Sefaria.

TOI graphic was a Purim satire as its date shows:

Editor’s Note: This blog post is a work of satire. It was published in 2014 on the eve of Purim, a Jewish holiday that is celebrated with wild merrimaking and raucous comedy – with a particular emphasis on poking fun at antisemitism and ignorance.

Second link is just an Albert Pike quote. Being a satanist himself (i.e. a Mason), he is not trustworthy for stating the desires of Jews. Two fails, sorry, not clicking the third.

It's not that I don't like the behaviors, it's that they reflect really horridly on you and you're self-unaware of that.

I appreciate you honestly explaining that you don't know how to ban prior to contribution. That's a feature that you can access in the older interface by going to communities.win and then your forum, and then clicking Ban Management and supplying the exact username desired. That explains one oddity in the behavior.

One oddity is that you banned me for proselytizing before making the "no proselytizing" rule. (I didn't knowingly break a rule at any time; I asked questions in two, posted positive links in two, and got one discretionary ban for doing nothing.)

One oddity is that you basically define asking sincere questions as proselytizing, suggesting that you don't want to answer sincere questions.

One oddity is that you state upfront that you will not necessarily answer every sincere question, but you also intend to expose extremism, when extremism includes failing to explain sincerely questioned aspects of your beliefs.

One oddity is that you permaban for contributions that I intend to further the goals of the forum as stated (i.e. my neutral comment linking FFRF and my neutral link to ABC's report on extremism).

One oddity is that you treat my desire to interact with you on the level that you permit as bad faith. (If I have true things to share, they should be permitted, and, if I have false things to share, they should be easy to debunk rather than to ignore.)

One oddity is your reference to "the past" that may indicate your overlap with one or more similarly situated accounts that you don't want to admit. (I respect that but if you and I have a "past" beyond this current account then it would probably heal damage to admit it.)

One oddity is that you treat a neutral statement about the transparency and unintended consequences of your behavior as a threat. The fact is that when you put something on the net, even thinking you can delete it later, you give license to everyone on earth to point out what you've put out and its inconsistency with itself. As a mod I know cold that, the instant I even use what another might regard as chilling speech, I am at risk of being defamed anywhere else on the forum, or in the same place by a different account, or anywhere else on the net. My calling your attention to these facts, as a service to you, is not a threat. I have a right and interest to report neutral facts about my interaction with another if that interaction might be misunderstood.

One oddity is that you invite interaction and then you treat interaction as "manipulation" when it can reasonably be regarded as responsive to your invitation.

One oddity is that you "hope" I would stay away but you continue to issue open public invitations and to interact with me. A person who hopes another will stay away takes a few steps: (1) politely requests the other not interact; (2) avoids general invitations that contravene one's request (e.g., modifies invitations with language like "Christians not welcome"); (3) avoids pinging or replying to the other, as those are taken as invitations to reply; (4) avoids speaking about the other directly or colorably, as that is taken as an opportunity to allow the other to have equal time. These are common sense and so I share them with you in case you're one of the many here who didn't major in common sense.

One oddity is that you use a "discretion" rule, ostensibly to prevent circumvention of other rules, but which has the logical effect of permitting any ("unchecked) mod behavior you can rationalize. I respect your desire to justify that your behavior toward me was entirely rule-based, even retroactively, but it may be useful to admit that the existence of a tyrannical discretion rule indicates that you do make mistakes and that you are tempted to the same extremism you hope to expose.

This is you. If you want to continue to harbor such oddities it hurts your aura. That's not a threat, it's a law. Out of charity, I make some recommendations.

1. If you want a person not to interact with you, (a) say so clearly, (b) do not issue general invitations, (c) do not ping or reply to the person, and (d) do not talk about the person directly or colorably.

2. Give thought to your ways as they are not always The Way: (a) commit to the truth at all costs, (b) recognize that you can make mistakes and that you have, (c) when you find a mistake, admit it, cease it, and heal it, (d) when you criticize something (like extremism) consider first whether you are innocent of the same criticism.

3. Consider answering honest questions about your position such as (a) if Jesus is at least a Christ in the same way you and I are Christs, and (b) the difficulties with transmigration and the fewer difficulties with gilgul. It's okay to admit that the question will take time, that your answer is tentative, or even that you don't know all about it.

I could make more but let's see how you do with this much.