The Aramaic was Gehinnam for Greek geenna, and Sheol for Greek hades. You're right that neither of these words necessarily mean endless hellfire, and that Jesus didn't use those words to teach endlessness; but he did use other words to indicate endlessness, including by comparison to the endless life of the righteous. (I identified 45 such Scriptures across all related concepts.) At the same time, this concept has indeed been abused for power dynamics for many centuries.

Mark 9:47-48 quotes Is. 66 and emphasizes the unchanging nature of the worm and fire; comparison to other uses of "unquenchable" indicates a fire that does not go out. Since this is compared to entering the kingdom which refers to the next life, it is read to be more than a metaphor. Now this is the only one I'm confident of that uses geenna with a term of endlessness, but if you want to see the whole list here it is. That uses ordinary grammaticohistorical assumptions about the text, but I haven't found a way to explain away that many references as metaphorical, temporary, or otherwise deprecated.

The Catholics and some others are adopting a doctrine of hopeful universalism that intends to be consistent with the texts, and having studied it I can't gainsay it as long as nobody gets dogmatic about the distant future. But I'm just letting you know the question is much more complicated than dismissing the incorrect veneer that you rightly move past. The fact that we've combined concept in English that were separate in Aramaic and Greek doesn't mean that this misstep annuls what the originals say. Suffice that Moses teaches there is fire in sheol and this was enough to scare the covenant Jews for 1500 years before it got used to scare Gentiles.

I appreciate the Orthodox perspective. I'm sure the 6 uses of "proorizo" have an alternate reading or translation in Orthodoxy that is ultimately compatible, as well as all the sovereignty passages. I haven't learned the lingual net necessary to agree with your uses of the words, will keep trying. I might someday ask for your view of specific patristics on "proorizo" (prehorizoning).

I wasn't intending that God created marred vessels, but in Jeremiah the marring happens (by human freewill) and in Romans the dishonor and wrath is purposed in coordination with human freewill. Add:

Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil)

Sounds like "able not to sin". If Augustine were interpreted that one is only "able not to sin" by one's own choice and God's choice flowing together as one, that might be the path of resolution. "Able" is another horridly ambiguous word.

Just, when you get a chance, look at the tools and maybe the test link above, because if something looks user-deleted and the user says it's not, something may be either misread, or misleading. If the issue comes up again I can respecify the test. Also unscored.arete.network is giving me different views and notes and colorations for user-deleted and mod-deleted test comments, so it may be usable as a resource too.

The "defeater" would be the many, many texts about God controlling everything. He controls some things by giving us relatively free control and by buffering those things where he chooses that we don't get exactly what we will. Our control when effective is a subset of his control, confluent. Ineffectivenesses are both his choice to make some as marred, dishonored vessels and the vessels' choice to resist the good, because those two choices are the same freedom from different perspectives. We might say that our choosing God is God's choosing God, and our choosing evil is God's choosing the good that some choices be partly thwarted, and the good that evil choices be buffered in their ability to harm anyone. Thus when another is harmed by my choice, I'm responsible for the evil I intended (which I couldn't fully carry out), but God is responsible for what he chooses to allow in his grace toward me (partial freewill) and toward the victim (not giving suffering beyond what can be borne and is fitting to the overall narrative).

Ultimately, those who reject the "proorizo" texts are weakening their view of God when a more robust answer to theodicy is available.

I managed to recover this before deletion, so I'll quote it with one word omitted:

I definitely did not delete my comment. I would not censor my authentic and accurate view of what Nazis are. As the real Joseph Malta, the "Hangman 10", so named for his performance of 10 executions of high ranking Nazis, said : "[The execution of Nazis] had to be done. It was a pleasure doing it. I would do it again. They weren't sorry for anything."

That's part of the message I had passed on, but this tag made me come here myself. Why are you lying about removing my comment when you clearly have done? Why are you not allowing people to call a spade a spade by banning calling the Nazi ... Nazis?

You write reasonably except for falling into a dehumanizing word at the end. I was going to say there may be a miscommunication because u/Thisisnotanexit is reading the tools as saying mod-deleted comments were also user-deleted after the fact and this is a consistent appearance. Since you confirm the one I linked above was not user-deleted, it appears she should double-check. If she can see the comment at this link, it was not user-deleted; if she can't see it, she should probably contact Meta or admin mail to find out why:

https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARws4ap4K/files-mentioning-elon-musk-and-i/c/4eZDW0uo9Am

At the same time I am hopeful your understanding about the tool specs during the transition period won't be hampered by working out details of individual case law. However, now that you've been banned, it would need to be by a route like modmail. (1) My understanding, which might differ from hers, is that the comment in this thread was deleted for dehumanization, a category of disrespect. In your place I would offer that you be either permitted to flair the thread as free-for-all or to delete the second-to-last word (or more), and request restoration. (2) As to the original comment, I understand that it's collectivism because of broad generalization, which is also disrespect (and I call it judging the innocent with the guilty). I would offer an edit like adding the word "many" to the beginning of the comment, to qualify it properly, and requesting restoration.

I was going to reply to your other deleted comment; I see nothing wrong in the log and don't recall anything wrong with what I read of it, so if you want it restored as an exception to the crackdown I'd suggest looking for a similar edit negotiation.

It'd also be appropriate that, when you complain in forums known for banning people on one side of the discussion, you'd be prepared to note it in case part of the problem appears to be ramping up the mod tool specs and not an intentional lie or miscommunication.

https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARwwogdGc/round-table-free-will-does-it-ex/c/4eZDpIRpjE1

You and u/Zyxl are arguing a semantic, primarily the meaning of "cause", but also perceived but unnecessary attributes of limited freewill. The related points above indicate the direction of resolution.

I can tell. I was just offering opportunity for OP to use the flair here as illustrative. Anyway, it seems to work.

Who is going to be won over by "antinatlism"?

flat-birthers

And the JG5 character posting about "Hitler is the second coming"

hitlerjuden

Maybe I am a crazy paranoid conspiracy theorist or maybe I'm a time traveler, the world may never know.

I know, it's both, and the world will know. I'm patiently waiting for my signal to release the next Official Disclosure. Your steering clear of responsibility for threads containing stopwords is eminently sensible.

I said I'd look into these two.

1. Edit offer was made. Was it accepted? Otherwise the offending sentence is collectivist and disrespectful. Would OP or mod like to flag the post as free-for-all? That would presumably also allow comments to be restored after a modmail request.

2. Offending word in uneditable title. Disrespectful of other views. Seems like you could flag as free-for-all and request restoration by modmail, if such a request is not abused.

Without the flair, these seem straightforward violations based on my reading or the mod team's reading. The fact that there are other readings is why we now have the flair.

u/JosephMalta u/Thisisnotanexit

I literally began the discussion on this three months ago and nobody proposed the idea that abuse was not abusive. Now that people are proposing that, I think the free-for-all idea actually settles that concern too.

(Is this post free-for-all?)

Let's see how it analyzes.

• User who wants to make a post with Rule 1 suspended is free to flair it.

• User who breaks Rule 1 in post without flairing can be disciplined because he was free to flair and didn't.

• Mod is free to retroactively flair a post so as to extend mercy to violations in the thread.

• User who wants to comment with Rule 1 suspended will find threads where they can.

• User who breaks Rule 1 in comment without the post being flaired can be disciplined because he is disrespecting the poster's choice not to flair.

• Users who believe in abusive language for funning and camaraderie among each other have full rights to engage that in their own posts but not to engage it in others' posts without poster's or mod's permission.

• User is free to message mod or poster to add the flair to allow suspension, even retroactively.

That sounds like it accommodates everyone's desires pretty well in different regions of the same forum! Well done. The only minor difficulty I see might be those who comment rashly in the feed might assume a post is free-for-all when it isn't, but that can be worked out with a little discussion and understanding. Oh, and the new flair might drown out older flairs, but they didn't have that much utility to start with.

I don't see any downsides to this proposal. I've already flaired a few of my posts as free-for-all.

^ Then I'm the second Christian pointing out that profanity and obscenity per se are neither against the rules nor being lined up for censorship. Much as I disapprove, I accept the rules. Profanity might be low quality, and might attack the person of Jesus, but those are not the problems this convo is dealing with.

If you want to interpret that nobody need respect other users because the rule is about respect for arguments (under the name of views and opinions), that would at least be consistent.

But it doesn't deal with "attack ... not the person" and "no ... bullying 'meta'" and "calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed".

Scored terms are that if you don't agree with community rules your contributions can be moderated. Flat. Standard across all common carriers. By implying yourself free to break the rules, terms require the moderator to be prepared to deal with violations.

I did read the thread, which is why I summarized it and pointed out the core tension isn't fully dealt with, just as above. If I should have focused on attack, bullying, violence, and abuse rather than respect, that's semantic.

When you namecall or dehumanize another user, that's abuse and may be removed; what other interpretation could there be? It can also fall under personal attack and bullying, and often violence.

If (as conspiracists might) you subscribe to a theory of government where you are not bound by Scored terms, I don't think that's negotiable, you might need 8kun. If your theory is that all prior members and mods can be ignored and only those who are active right now count, as soon as you step away from the screen the cabal may use its alts to get you banned in absentia; that's why I don't recommend that theory.

Anyway, try the new thread, unless you can answer how abusing users somehow complies with all those other clauses against abusing users.

you just appeal to the rule that you decide is legit.

Um, the community is founded on the principle that the rules are legit and agreed by the community and the mods. I asked again a couple months ago and the community affirmed the rules again. If you disagree with the rules as written, you should get community support for it. I have no problem with a community formally deciding that its rules need changing.

Truth and life are one. The polarity that abuses either one is the same temptation on different sides. Also, she may have moved on from your argument in her new post.

"Views" and "opinions" don't deserve resepect.

The sidebar is: "Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind."

Add:

I can respect an argument while having zero respect for the one making it.

The other sidebar is: "Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person." And: "abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion."

I don't see that having zero respect for another human and using abusive terms harmonizes with the rules as conceived by the original mods and community. But I haven't read the new thread yet, maybe that'll be a better approach for your concern.

I'll try to keep points brief and edit as needed.

To nihilists, nothing exists, but nobody likes nihilism.

To everyone else, whatever entity is greatest (God) has unlimited, perfect freewill, so freewill exists.

Humans have limited, imperfect freewill: not everything we will happens as we will it.

Other definitions of freewill turn out to be inconsistent and semantic.

The first Biblical proof of limited freewill is Gen. 2:16-17.

Pharaoh freely willed his own hardening alongside God's participation, Ex. 8:15, 32, 9:34.

One can will to suppress one's freewill sufficiently to be indistinguishable externally from an NPC.

God has total sovereignty and power (many Scriptures) and so anything less is not God, despite rationalist objections.

Only one thing happens and God knows it, so predestination ("proorizo", 6 texts) exists. Nothing is random.

Predestination and freewill are not contradictory: God wills unlimitedly that we will limitedly (AnotherInTheFire).

The word "cause" is ambiguous: rather, God is the author of authors of evil, but not an author of evil.

Specifically, in Is. 45:7, God creates calamities to punish evils justly, but he does no evil because just punishment is good.

Gen. 50:20 shows God can will, with perfectly good will, that people would will with evil will.

However, humans who rationalize evil that good may result are imperfect at it, Rom. 3:5-8.

Aristotle says willing is inefficaceous: this argument partakes of ambiguity of "cause". Willing is relative alignment.

Predestination permits evaluation: our confluent freewill is an imperfect subset of God's, one will, free in both views.

Therefore love is the degree of perfection (alignment) of one's freewill: one's loving less is one with God's loving less.

And we are "able not to sin" when we and God agree; and not "able" when, coordinately, we fail and God withholds.

"Otherwise" doesn't happen, but willing as relative alignment with one case over another does usually happen.

The unexpected-egg paradox shows even if people are told what will happen they cannot perfectly believe it.

Science shows unknowns beyond matter and energy, so humans participate in that (soul).

Welcome to c/Conspiracies! It turns out that your graphic was recently posted by another user so to prevent duplication I invite you to comment at the separate link:

https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARwwnYEHZ/well-isnt-that-cuuuute/c

As a new user here, you might not get your contributions immediately made visible to others for a short time due to forum policy, but by this comment I'm pinging moderator u/Thisisnotanexit to keep an eye out to be able to approve your contributions rapidly. You might also gain score by going to larger boards, such as c/TheDonald, c/GreatAwakening, or c/Funny, and contributing brief comments there; that speeds up the introductory period.

as a community we came to an understanding of what "respectful" was

When and where did this happen?

So if I apply a rattled-off string of obscenities, profanities, and pejoratives to you, would you prefer that an impartial person judges the "context" to see whether I just mean them in fun, or would you prefer that they be judged on the words themselves as objectively defined? Or should everyone be free to attack and dehumanize everyone and anyone else and that's just the way it is?

I rather like my compromise that Wild-West speech can be used only in threads tagged NSFW by the OP or the mod. But the rule is there for a reason, and we can't just act like everyone can decide "respect" for themselves.

I acknowledged the majority view, in fact stated it before anyone else did, and proposed a compromise. I am fine with participating in a community with agreed rules and an agreed moderation team.

The community has by default agreed on a rule of respect. Now I point out that the community has a large segment that don't see a dichotomy between this rule and freedom to call names and dehumanize. Ordinarily, those who are vocal in a short period should not get to outshout those who established and upheld the rule. If the meaning of the rule is to change from its plain text, this should be agreed by the community more formally so that it doesn't become an informal belligerence.

Test case: How is it respectful for you to use the disparaging, often offensive term "cuck" to me? I submit that it isn't.

At risk of more heat, I note this is clearly a topic where people want to express strong opinions even without a formal call for vote. Here's a representative quote from each contributor and a categorization, strictly IMHO:

Looser enforcement (11) (17):

• AndurilElessar: bad case

• ApexVeritas: arguments Redditors use to ban wrongthink [Add]

• BeefyBelisarius: mod too heavy-handed

• BlueDrache: Until thisisnotanexit is removed for overmoderation, I'll unsub [Add]

• CrazyRussian: direct opposite to any "free think"

• defenderOfMontrocity: free speech

• Entropick: RIP c.win

• free-will-of-choice: the power to make not available what one freely thinks about

• JDooliddle: Respect if you confront me directly as an individual

• JosephGoebbel5: slave mentality

• NotACat: gray and detarded

• Standhaft_Garithos: Why would I bother putting up with this [Add]

• TallestSkil: the letters are physically able to be typed

• That_Which_Lurks: Proof? There is none [Add]

• VeilOfReality: the idea is don't say no-no words because AI might come after us?

• Versus001: they grab their modrator shejkels [Add]

• WeedleTLiar: going to power trip [Add]

Neutral (1):

• Questionable: no idea

Current enforcement (4):

• AnotherInTheFire: what substance do slurs bring to the discussion

• SwampRangers: The issue is respect

• Thisisnotanexit: language not available in this community

• TurnToGodNow: cursing counter productive

(Side note: Admin decided to put exactly two words in their default global filter, allowing mods (as here) to disable the default. It seems a very reasonable position to regard those two words as more sensitive for that reason alone, even though this doesn't indicate what position the community should take. But the tracking argument doesn't deal with the real issue, namely that the rule is about a respect argument.)

I much prefer this, where a community rapidly develops a clear consensus on majority and minority opinions! However, I see only one response from within the majority that actually addresses the Rule 1 that we have been handed down and that indicates the way we used to proceed here (and I was writing here occasionally and lurking regularly too). So I don't think the community has yet demonstrated a harmony of these two tensions, the respect rule and the freethinking site summary.

Is it really possible to respect a person and not be attacking them while calling them a derogatory name? There is a meta answer, namely yes if everyone covenanted together that they would not receive namecalling as an attack; I'm not sure that this community is ready for that. The community still seems to have quite a few people subscribing to double standards, namely people who "just know" that something others say against them is an attack but something they say against others is not. And for that it takes level moderation.

I would invite everyone to consider that question. See if comments are removed for using slurs that are fully respectful of other views and opinions. We can except comments that respectfully mention slurs rather than use them, because while we're talking about slurs we may well name them recognizing how others use them without using them that way ourselves; but that's the vast minority. In OP, there is one comment that mentions slurs rather than using them, and I appeal to u/Thisisnotanexit to restore that comment for that reason, as a transitional clarification. Others may appeal that other contributions may take advantage of the use-mention distinction. The restriction is not against the string, but against the disrespect.

But I suspect that no comment was removed for using slurs that could be considered fully respectful. I submit that in TINAE's comment below, she could say that "all are derogation", not just some. She can also separate out the mention of derogation from the use of it. If any of the majority view can propose a way in which a newcomer could read the rules "respect other views and opinions" without "calls to violence" and see everyone called every vile name in the book and reconcile the two, I'm all ears.

(BTW, one compromise is to allow a little leeway for slurs but to note that all posts intending Wild West language should be flagged NSFW by the contributor on pain of deletion, and namecalling comments could be deleted if the thread is not so flagged. This hides them from newcomers by default, and regulars would be asked to understand. However, I think this would be a significant rule change from the past intent and should not be a matter of a couple hours' opinion polling.)

I don't think the argument would be sustained that this is a community where egregious namecalling and dehumanization is "respect" for other opinions.

I respect that Russians' ears may not be attuned to the difference decided in America between negr, Negro, Niger, and other similar forms. Trust me on this, it's not the same as you describe in Russian. I can say "kafir" to my heart's content here but I can't in South Africa, that's legally actionable and worse in their eyes than any of the words discussed here. I had to learn the territory.

The issue is respect. It's possible to use a slur word respectfully, but this is rarely done here. Free thinking and respect are not opposed. If someone could make a case that there is broad respectful use of slurs going on, that might tip the evidence.

Enabling more outside sites would be nice but is an advanced programming issue and not expected of the mods, who are volunteers. People are free to make text posts with links in them, which might be more efficient overall than link posts; that can be done by common consent. Perhaps your tech expertise has some specific advice on this that would save anyone from trying to vibe-code it with AI help?

Mostly correct, but War of 1812 was before Jackson and successfully led to the Second Bank of the United States, the one Jackson conquered. After Jackson the powers had to regroup and fomented the Civil War.

The cabal got its revenge on Jackson by putting him on a federal reserve note when he was the original End The Fed.

The user you speak of has a habit (that's gotten better with time) of limiting himself to narrow ranges of response. I find that he does promote thinking but that he is indifferent to what anyone else thinks, as his stated goal is only to respond when inspired. You'll get used to him, occasionally I even upvote him.