Now I could short-circuit must of this presentation with a simple observation, and maybe it will spare the more detailed review:

If the ancients interpreted the stars as a divinity's narrative, that doesn't disprove any selected narrative as the film implies it should. Rather, if a pattern existed then it was placed there by the cosmos, and any narrative that matches the pattern has a claim on divinity, a claim that can be sufficiently proven or disproven by accord with facts. If one could narrate the alignment without it actually happening, that is disproof; if one could arrange the alignment to happen, that is not much proof; and if nobody arranged the alignment that contributes toward sufficient proof. By referring claims back to the stars rather than to paganism, the video gives the Cosmos (God) first rights over the meaning of the symbols.

That short-circuits research into whether any past claim was true, because even if the claims were totally true historically they don't prove any divine claimant copied from another (which would be used to invalidate a later claim), they prove that all claims have a common heavenly source. Usually it's claimed that Jesus copied from pagans and is invalidated, but when the film makes it that Jesus and pagans both copied from the stars it brings it back to what God put in place already.

If Sirius means east star and Light, if it aligns on December 24-25, if Orion means three kings, if Virgo means virgin mother and wheated (Bethlehem), if the solstice means Sunday worship and 3-day burial (22-24) and resurrection and Savior, if Crux means crucifixion (e.g. ankh), if the Zodiac means followers and 12, if sunrise means ascension to heaven and coming again in clouds and Son of God, if rays mean crown of thorns, if Taurus means rejection of the (golden) Bull ca. 2000, if Pisces means use of Fish symbol ca. 1, if Aquarius means the Passover waterbearing Man, then none of those (20) symbols are uniquely pagan or Christian, and every religion that incorporates those symbols is merely echoing an archetypal pattern already God-given. If narratives are invented or arranged to fit, there is no problem if deception isn't used; if historical facts align without direct human arrangement, it may be a valid divine communication based on a valid archetype. In the same way, all Biblical references to eras of Bull, Ram, Fish, and Man are not pagan or Christian in origin but are merely responsive to the spring sign of the age.

Well, that covers all the data up until the plagiarism charges start, out of the blue as it were. TLDR: The truth is, when one claims an aspect of one narrative aligns with astronomy, it does not prove or disprove that narrative one bit, nor prove or disprove any other related narrative. The ordinary, previous argument "the pagans had it first" is totally upended by the argument "the stars had it first". If for instance the pagans had created the ankh deliberately and only to symbolize some evil or demon or abusive power, that would be a bad thing to counterfeit, but if the ankh merely means the alignment of Sol and Crux then it is neutral and might well refer to something put there by the Christian God.

Thus even if Luxor 1500 BC depicts Horus as born of Virgo at the winter solstice and adored by the Three Kings of Orion, that being a literary narrative drawn from the stars doesn't mean that if it were to happen for real it would be pagan. It means that if God chooses to work this way it'd be consistent and the Egyptians would merely have been correctly anticipating; and if God never chooses to work this way it's only a literary device. (To the degree that the Egyptians claim Horus did those things historically when there was no evidence he did, that would be deception, but that is something added to the system rather than an attempt to discern from God's stars what God might do.)

The idea that Noah is plagiarized is taken from the idea that Gilgamesh is very old (2600 BC, but Sumerian dating before about 2000 is very sketchy) and Noah is very new (thanks 1800s higher critics, who yet in spite of themselves have demonstrated that covenant structure indicates Moses relied on earlier sources prior to 2000 himself). In reality, Noah has as good a claim as any on being closest to the original. I haven't looked into the parallels between Sargon and Moses, but I doubt I'll be surprised when I do; I recall the actual Sargon myth going quite differently. He also cites Manou, Minos, and Mises, and promotes their similarity, but a quick check shows that Mises is largely invented recently. It is said to come from Voltaire by "D. M. Murdock", but the name is not in his Philosophical Dictionary and "Murdock" doesn't give a further specification, so it appears a fresh fabrication (Google shows no results for the alleged Voltaire quote before 2012). The relationship to Manou and Minos is uncompelling; I think we can dismiss Manou as having nothing in common but lawgiver beginning with M, and Minos as later than known manuscripts of Moses.

The relationship between the (second table) Ten Commandments and the Book of the Dead is well-known and played up in The Abolition of Man. The fact that Moses and the Egyptians came up with very similar laws (aka the laws of Noah) does not prove they are pagan, in fact it tends toward indicating they are moral absolutes. Similarly, Egypt allegedly had "baptism, afterlife, final judgment, virgin birth, death and resurrection, crucifixion, the Ark of the Covenant, circumcision, saviors, holy communion, great flood, Easter, Christmas, Passover". Well, not really, but the general concept indicated by all these names was common to religious growth in all societies, and it would be natural for religions as developed as Egyptian and Christian to have comments on all these.

Justin rightly gets the last word. The fact that Jesus had attributes in common with mythological divinities does not disprove Jesus but rather proves that his attributes were common knowledge. What proves Jesus's divinity is the historical evidence that these things happened, which didn't happen historically to Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysius, Mithra, Jovians, or Perseus. None of those others was attested to be a historical person who had several named historical biographers in his own generation. All of those others are narratives only, never presented as more than a cinematic universe. And it's no wonder that enemies of truth would try to create narratives from the stars that anticipate what might happen historically.

Since 20 of the points of agreement are stated to be astronomical in origin, the short-circuit works to dispel the larger half of the claim. There are 19 points remaining of similarity between Jesus and other archetypes: Anointed, annunciation, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten. The very few similarities of Moses to Sargon also remain. ("Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket in order to avoid infanticide and set adrift in a river. He was in turn rescued and raised by Akki, a royal midwife.") However, given the film's apparent partnership with Murdock the Moses denier, it's likely these claims are also highly inflated. It's rather tiresome to research a huge number of claims of December 25 and the like to find that they are all false, but sometimes I exert myself. The one claim I selected to check here, "Mises of Egypt", seems to have been invented in 2012, so I have no fears about the remainder.

And now I've been permabanned from TheNarrowWay for "Mod discretion ". And the logs are not public. Well, I hope he liked my one upvote as I can't give him any more there.

Just to analyze the initial content more clearly:

Horus: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Isis), "Mary", east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by Anup), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, Truth, Light, Anointed, Son of God, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Typhon), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (24 points). Added later: Annunciation (by Thoth), impregnation by Holy Spirit (Nef) (making 26 points).

Attis of Phrygia: 25 Dec birth, virgin (Nana), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected (5 points).

Krishna: virgin (Devaki), east star, miracles, disciples, resurrected (5 points).

Dionysius: virgin, 25 Dec birth, traveler, ministered, miracles, water to wine*, King of Kings*, Son of God, Only-Begotten*, Alpha and Omega*, resurrected (11 points, *4 added to Horus).

Mithra: virgin, 25 Dec birth, disciples, 12, miracles, buried 3 days, resurrected, Truth, Light, Sunday worship*, rejects Bull* (10 points, *2 added to Horus).

Jesus: Anointed, annunciation, virgin, Mary, impregnation by Holy Spirit, 25 Dec birth, east star, three kings, taught at 12, baptized at 30 (by John), ministered, disciples, 12, traveler, miracles, healed sick, walked on water, King of Kings, Son of God, Light, Alpha and Omega, Lamb of God, betrayed (by Judas), crucified, buried 3 days, resurrected, rejects Bull (golden) (27 points); obviously unstated: water to wine, Truth, Good Shepherd, Only-Begotten, Sunday worship (5 points). Significant adds (not present in previous): Bethlehem (House of Bread), Savior, ascension to heaven, coming again in clouds, crown of thorns, Fish symbol, Waterbearer at Passover (7 points, total 39).

I've been pinged so I will seek to report neutrally, and in compliance with the letter and spirit of the draft agreement I offered (even though the draft doesn't apply, as remaining unagreed, and I am not necessarily bound by it).

ExpressionOfTheSoul has deleted his content, has removed others' content from his forums, and has hidden logs.

Meanwhile, new user SeekerOfTheWay has created the new forum c/TheNarrowWay with very similar structure. I am specifically forbidden from that community as a "bad faith user", but Soul has indicated that I'm free to comment about such activity in outside threads, and I've allowed myself to do so in this thread in relation to the possibility that the draft agreement might be concluded.

I presume that Seeker is indicating sufficient experience with Scored as to be able to find this comment, since he is likely to search my profile to see if I have any response to his ping.

My first observations are that (1) the rule of permabans at mod discretion is extremist and tyrannical and indicates that one's purposes are not successfully achieved in a broad forum where people speak freely, which puts one's purposes in a poor light; (2) the position that Jesus did not come to promote belief in or worship of Christ but to teach people to become Christ appears to be a dogmatic, extreme "opinion" and "manmade doctrine", especially when sincere questions exploring the nuances of that declaration are flatly refused; (3) as I stated before, I absolutely affirm the statement "The journey of the disciple of Yeshua is one of absolute dedication to TheWay", while pointing out that this absolute dedication is contrary to the idea that others' views can be rejected subjectively instead of tested against the absoluteness of dedication to The Way.

So I continue to offer my sincere question to both Soul and Seeker: 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?

I reserve such rights as (1) to comment at a distance in response to contributions that involve me, (2) to interact with any comments in forums where both the commenter and myself are contributors with equal rights, (3) to invite others to interact with other accounts as fitting, and (4) to continue in my prayers for account holders here that they grow in absolute dedication to The Way.

This is very interesting and I didn't realize this much stuff was in Zeitgeist because I'd only read summaries. However, every specific time I look into history I find the covenant people had the tradition first and the claim that the covenant people were the counterfeiters was always projection. It is totally understandable that the devil is always counterfeiting, and that he then has verifiers that verify the counterfeit and hold the genuine to be faulty. The truth can always be discerned.

I may or may not take time to review specifics here, but my quick glances don't show anything troubling to the Christian revelation. I've recently pointed out that Jesus was not born on December 25, so the claims that various demigods were is rather comparing one lie with another. However, Jesus was conceived in winter, and my best guess is that it was recorded as being on December 25 Julian (now December 23 Gregorian proleptic), with indirect evidence from Simeon and direct evidence from a very strong chain of tradition to Hippolytus. This year I have found no evidence of December 25 being significant in itself for pagan reasons prior to its use among the covenant people, and when I've tried to find this in the past it's always been a late counterfeit, so I'll be happy to report what I have when I have it.

The Pentagon was not struck by a plane, that plane was ditched in the ocean. The Doomsday Plane (one of a specific class of government planes), which was admittedly seen immediately after the explosion, was also flying over the Pentagon prior and eyewitness testimonies were selected to make it look like the it was the passenger plane.

Pretty simple, any state (as secular or as religious as you like) has an interest in doing things that perpetuate it, and keeping the birth rate above replacement perpetuates the state. Therefore it's generally understood by most people in most cultures that those who choose not to participate in being fruitful and multiplying have some other duty to assist with those who do participate.

Since you have put forward no means by which the unmarried person should contribute to society, you are advocating for special rights for singles that, if adopted by everyone, would lead to extinction. If you were once to say that singles should do something for society more than just be proud of hoarding wealth for themselves, that would have been notable.

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?