You basically declare war anytime you decide another people is unworthy of being treated as human.
Well, as Jesus says, “let he who is without sin cast the first” accusation of sub-humanity.
The minimum group is that it be done by some defined entity with representative human agents, say you, or your bridge club, against some other similarly defined group(s)
That sounds insane dude. In fact, “render unto Caesar” may even include the “right” to war. Just as you give up your “right” to (personal-)Justice by living in a society with a Justice system, you likewise give up your right to “War” by living in a country with an army. Even the so-called “Islamic state”, or the “confederate states of America”. Basically by definition when someone “declares war”, they likewise “declare self-governorship”.
Of course individuals have the right to self defense, and of course that right extends to the innocents around them.
It’s hard to make out if you actually got my “hypothetical” - (it wasn’t really, it was more of an “empathetical”, I was trying to get you to empathize with the guy who’s wife and kids were blown up because they happened to be on the same street as “a terrorist”.
But just to make it super clear: imagine your wife and kids got blown up because they were in the vicinity of some “bad guy”. They got blown up by the “good guys” who were “fighting a Just War” against a target “deemed subhuman by the highest court in the land”. And you know what, maybe you are of such upstanding moral integrity that you wouldn’t let it get to you. But I think the vast majority of people would react violently to such a scenario. I thus don’t see murdering innocent civilians to pursue “legitimate targets” as justifiable.
Now does that mean a madman can “take a hostage” and then do anything he wants? Uhh no, are you retarded? All the individuals involved still have their individual right to self defense, including the right of people nearby to defend the hostage (by, potentially, killing the hostage-taker). But what no one has the right to do, is say “alright, you, flood the room with lethal gas. We can’t let this madman escape! He could go on to take more hostages!”
I wonder if you see the difference, or if im going to get a novella of cope about how “someone’s gotta make the hard calls!”. Nope. No one has the right to tell someone else to murder an innocent. Sorry, end of story. Does it happen? Well by golly it happens a whole helluva lot! Probably the majority in recent times coming right from israel itself!
Ahh, more accurately, I should say “this is what i think, after having read only one of his books” lol (luckily the one probably (hopefully) most relavent to the subject). But I definitely see his Ubermensch as basically the prototypical Gnostic - the self-motivated, self-examining seeker, not tied to any dead sect or ideology or dogma, who knows the only one who holds us accountable to God is ourselves, (so anyone with ears had better listen), kinda thing… that was my interpretation atleast. I honestly don’t get where he gets the “nihilist” label. By my reading, he was the exact opposite.
Looking at the “big picture” presented in HH/LoO, i can see where you’re coming from (I think atleast, tell me if I’m wrong). When you read “it’s all a play, when it’s all over and the curtain falls, the villains and heroes walk off the stage, unburdened by the roles they once inhabited”, and I see how that seems sterile - less about relation as the foundation, but more just some kind of class room, where we’re almost “just going through the motions”. And while valid, I think that view neglects how these texts describe the “evolution” of the densities. Iirc (this is going from memory)
The first density is basically “can you exist”. I think it’s described as like, rocks, minerals, crystalline formations, surviving the weathering of the environment. First density is “can you persist over the adversity of existence” i guess let’s say.
Second density is the dawning of “awareness” without “awareness of self”. So, hard to point where that line is exactly in animals, but let’s say “less intelligent than dogs”. The purpose of the density is to test if they can persist in a world defined by other
Third density is self-awareness - “can you learn to love others as you love yourself”.
And so, if the story ended there, and it was like “okay, lesson learned, time to dissolve back into the primordial goo!” - I would agree, it would strike me as an odd, sterile explanation. You might point out that “Love” only appears in the third density - that’s just because I suck at explaining the metaphysical nature underpinning reality, but if I was better at it, I’d be able to explain how each step is building on the last to allow greater and greater Love
The fourth density, I believe, is the density of Love - iirc, basically all of “humanity” (who polarized themselves positively, through service to others), let’s say, goes to a “New Heaven and New Earth”. This is where every soul in the group learns true, unconditional love for the other, and thus themselves. I basically picture it as “Heaven” (which it is, from the perspective of our plane of existence). But this required all the prior steps. First we needed to become aware. Then we needed to become self-aware. Then we needed to become aware of the other-self dynamic, all in service of advancing to a more whole, more rich, more developed “understanding of relationship”, before we can begin to actually inhabit this richer level of existence.
Wisdom, and I think Unity, then I think “Finalizing” or something? They're besides the point, but I remember their explanations logically following from and building on what came before. The whole notion of existence as a series of scales/octets/etc seems so accurate, and explains much of the numerology of the ancients, even that seen in much of the Bible. But im going down a tangent - key point - existence is by all appearances, scales nested within scales, or “rabbits, all the way down”. If I can see clearly the parts of the scale below me, it seems highly arrogant to think im anywhere near the top of the scale, anywhere near ready to “approach the throne of God”. Even after a lifetime, I couldn’t imagine it. Sure, there might be the odd one-in-a-trillion type of Enoch or Buddha feller, but even then I think the story is more complicated than any of us was ever capable of recording. Not that your, or anyone else’s view of Heaven is “arrogant”, what im trying to say is that I see “getting to Heaven” as “the start of a new level of existence”, as opposed to “the conclusion of this existence.”… hope that makes sense.
Where am I going with this… i guess, I would reframe it, not as like, “existence is a classroom”, but more along the lines of “all of humanity (and ultimately, all of existence, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves) is a… Wandering Theatre Troupe…we put on stories to enrich the lives of our fellow men, and when all is said and done the “heroes” and “villains” (not the service to self psychopaths mind you, I mean the guy you cursed at under your breath when he cut you off to pass on the inside lane, lol) reconcile, because their true nature is their shared nature. And there’s still a long way yet to go, and lessons unimaginable to us left to learn.
Gotta cut myself off there lol. Hopefully some of the point of that ramble pokes through hah. I feel like despite the word count it wasn’t great at getting my notions across… lol
Hmm, Y’know I don’t really see this image of a Holy Army of humans marching against other humans.
father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.
I interpret that as saying Jesus forsakes those turning against eachother - they stand alone in their conflict…
interesting that this is the line of the logion that didn’t make it into the canon, getting replaced with a duplicate verse about mother in laws lol (mother in laws, AMIRITE FOLKS?!?)
I also think God approves self defense but also other times will ask us to lay down our life.
Agreed. An interesting dichotomy (on the surface), that I think reconciles when we see “All is One”
no, I never said Christian State.
I think you need to be a state to declare war. Im sure you could write a book on the subject, but I’d rather just avoid the whole tangent. What’s the minimum criteria for a group to declare a just war, both minimums, describing the group declaring the war and also describing the scale of the war?
Would love you to commit to an answer.
Ignoring the confusing framing you present (as if a random soldier in the army decides whether or not the operation proceeds, as opposed to a chain of command reaching back to the commander in chief). If I was the guy in charge, no, I would not kill innocent civilians in the pursuit of military targets. First of all, that’s a war crime. Second of all, how can you, an ostensibly intelligent American adult who has seen 25 fucking years of middle eastern quagmire, still not comprehend that the “blowback” from drone striking a wedding/funeral/daycare attached to an IRGC center does the exact fucking opposite of ending the war? Every time you kill a toddler or his mother in pursuit of the man of the house just ensures that every single remaining male family member will join up with the terrorists and the women with nothing left to lose will be talked into “martyring” themselves? You do realize these are people right? Human beings? What would you do if someone murdered your wife and kids in pursuit of a “bad guy”? Somehow I don’t think all your lofty talk of “just war doctrines” would be on your mind.
So, bottom line to your question, no. Killing innocents can’t be part of anything called a “Just” “War”. If God wants to vaporize modern day israel, more power to His elbow, but that’s a decision no man can ever justify. Regarding bans: that was obviously bants m8. The key point was that you guys (mainstream Christianity; the branders of heretics) have just done a very good job of (mostly) wiping out the dissenting, pacifist Christian voices. I merely tossed that in to drive the point home: it even happens here in this little backwater of Christiandom.
Let me start by thanking you for the excellent comment (x42 even)
Your argument regarding “just war”, however, remains unresolved. In my opinion, this is because you have built your argument atop a mountain of apriori notions you’ve never justified. Chief among them: the notion of a Christian State. You would agree that in order to engage in a “Christian Just War”, one would need to be in a ”Christian State”, yes? Can you show me where Jesus lays out his command for us to form religious states that then may enter into “Just Wars”? Cuz as far as I remember, Jesus doesn’t encourage his faithful to form nation states. In fact, many, many Christians have understood this. It just so happens that you guys tend to slaughter them (or, specific to you, ban them, like DMKUltra, or drive them away like CA)
Two great examples. What id point out are the commonalities of both; how in each case God, through a process of individual’s free choice, selects a few to overcome the many, not through violence, but through a firm and morally principled posture of knowledge, wisdom, and mastery over the physical. This wisdom dissolves their opposition - again, not through violence, but illumination. The fact that some react violently to this illumination is seemingly unavoidable (so bring a sword when you travel the unknown territories! And know when to keep it sheathed!)
For me, one of the hardest to understand sayings of Jesus goes something like:
- Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For there will be five in a house: there'll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone."
Now, I’d ask, do you read that as indicating Jesus literally is like, “provoking” these conflicts? Like, is there a “team Jesus” that hes marching alongside, as they engage in righteous slaughter? Or instead, is what’s happening more along the lines of the above, our ignorance violently revolting against His wisdom causing these outbreaks of violence described?
Hmm,
Meaning, I am to obey Him, whatever He says, even if I don't understand
interesting response - are there any other areas of the Bible that are like this for you, that you can think of? That is, subjects where something God does or says doesn’t make sense to you, but you trust in His wisdom regardless?
You could always expand on how you fit those two notions (the Golden Rule v the demanded fate of the amelkites) together. It’s not like the conversation was supposed to end when you answered the question. It was infact supposed to begin from there.
P.S. no rush, no pressure. This has been a breakthrough already.
Thank you! Finally! For moving the discussion forward!
My response:
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"
That’s fucked, doesn’t sound like the Jesus I know. Sounds a lot like the demons in the middle east who you see on TV though.
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ACTIONS TAKEN BY GOD, WE ARE DISCUSSING THE TIMES WHEN GOD HAS CALLED ON HIS FAITHFUL TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS
Are you following? I know you must be, because there’s no way you could misread what I’ve written out now what, 5 different times ITT? So the only explanation left is that internal tension, forcing you to respond to something not written, in the hopes of maintaining your preconceived notions.
Why is it so hard for you to address the concept being discussed? Is it because of an internal tension you’re holding onto, where you know that Jesus, who is Love and Light, would never call on his people to commit genocide? Is that why you can’t give a simple yes or no? Because it would expose the Bible as illogical and contradictory? And you know that as soon as you admit “no, Jesus would never call on his faithful to commit genocide”, you’ll have some hard questions to ask yourself about who exactly it was, all those years ago, telling the jews to genocide their foes?
That’s my read. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. But please, no more circular platitudes.
I've been trying dude, it's like reading scientology to me and I don't know how to reach you thru it, so I hang back and wait to be illuminated by God, it's what I do.
Okay, and seeing you unable to say “Jesus would never ask his faithful to murder babies.” strikes me as someone in a cult too. What now? We just wait eachother out?
Good place to start would be reading the thing being discussed.
Sanctification takes effort on both parties.
It sure does. Ironically however, I see no effort coming from you. All I see is a lot of hands being thrown up in the air, “I literally can’t even”-style
your practice of it is sub-par.
Pobody’s nerfect.
Cool story bro, I feel likewise regarding the majesty of creation. Hopefully you “joining the discussion” will take a form beyond saying “uh, yeah, what he said.”
Nah SR is acting like a retarded faggot lol, everything he said about set theory ITT is purely pilpulous quibbling.
I’d love it if you jumped back in. There are some loose threads left hanging from the last attempt, or just take off on a tangent based on something I or JR have said to eachother. Whatever works for you.
“Pursue truth”? Is that what you think you’re doing with your gishgallops and doucheyness? Lmao. Instead of just upvoting from the shadows, you two should take some lessons from the only person in this thread actually engaging in discourse
Heh, a wizard is never late my friend
And again, hah, you say “nice job connecting the dots”, frankly that was all you! I was just trying to make a lame joke, but your insight connecting “the answer to life, the universe, and everything” to relationship is, I think, spot on and highly insightful. (Reminds me a bit of the final line in asimov’s ”The Last Question”.) The “answer” itself is dependent on all the surrounding context, and until all of that surrounding context is comprehended, the “answer”, in a vacuum, is almost meaningless, or atleast sterile. Or as you put so well:
Any answer that stands alone, detached from relationship, becomes ‘42’.
Jung understood that reality is relationships and patterns. and a True synchronicity will draw us into a communion of sorts
He and Nietzsche, I feel, don’t get the credit they deserve for their contributions to our mindscapes. Jung’s mysticism and Nietzsche’s pragmatism should be at the foundation of modern religious thought, yet they’ve been seemingly just swept under the rug. Forgive the tangent lol.
what it gets right is that reality is not purely material, there is a fundamental unity, consciousness participates in reality
But treating HH/LoO very seriously, I see the framework as: (pre-relational) unity -> polarity -> evolution -> back to unity... while I would say unity is already relational. I would set it up as a triune communion -> a broken relation -> distorted polarity -> restoration.
So would you say that a large part of your issue with this framework is that it kind of presents “two Gods”, one being “pre-relational” (i.e. “before” the One Infinite Creator decided to “know itself”, thus kicking off “the universe”), and the One Infinite Creator at “the end of time”, where the myriad have coalesced back into (relational, this time) unity?
I think "the One" is not just One... it is One-in-relation that it might understand itself. It is not a solitary unity... but a communion united.
but I see love is structural to reality itself.
Forgive the copy and paste but I think this does well enough to convey some points:
According to the Law of One, as channeled by Ra, the first distortion is Free Will. This is the foundational principle by which the One Infinite Creator chooses to know Itself, marking the first movement away from pure, unmanifested unity into potential experience.
Key Details on the First Distortion:
Definition: Free Will (often referred to as the Law of Confusion or the principle of awareness) is the initial distortion of the Law of One, which allows for individual perspective, or the "appearance of separation".
Purpose: It generates the universe by acting as the catalyst for the Creator to explore its own infinity.
The Sequence: The first distortion (Free Will) finds focus and creates the second (Love/Logos), which then produces the third (Light).
The Trinity: The first three major distortions—Free Will, Love, and Light—are considered the foundational "primordial" distortions from which all other distortions (like consciousness, perception, and polarity) emerge.
The Ra Material explains that all things are originally one (unity), and any "distortion"—meaning a variation in vibration or viewpoint—is a means for the Creator to experience and understand Itself through a "game" of seeming limitation.
So I would just point out a couple things: the unity “before” existence isn’t one that lacks relation, but one that is subsumed by relation. The relations are so solidly a part of the whole that the “distortion” of individuality is dissolved. That’s why the One Infinite Creator kicks things off by forgetting - such that it may remember those relationships anew. That might sound “pointless”, but I mean, what else makes sense for an omnipotent, omniscient being that ostensibly exists outside of time to do? The entire point of existence (in this framework) is relationship!
I think that HH/LoO focuses more on evolution than it does restoration. A focus on a progressive ascent through the densities and learning through a polarity with eventual integration... but it isnt our lack of development say, it is a ruptured communion. How do we fix a relationship that is broken? We can't do it ourselves as that would go against the reality of relationship
I think you put this well, but ultimately I think this is simply an issue of perspective (and i definitely see where you’re coming from). I understand why someone might hear “evolution through densities” and think something like “superheroes getting new superpowers”, but I think, actually, the story that is attempting to be conveyed through HH/LoO is actually fundamentally one of relation, and not some sterile “evolution of power” or something like that. I say that because, what does the whole story boil down to? Service-to-Others. Relationship is the catalyst for everything in existence. The One forgot, such that we may remember. It’s like the ultimate tale of sacrifice. A PERFECT stasis is broken, such that we may remember the Way to perfection.
Which is all to say, to me, relationship is the very central beating heart of this perspective, based on my understanding
Idk…I hope some of what I’m trying to say comes through, let me know if any parts seem unjustified
The ordinary scenario implied by "become" is that there is a scenario in which Creator does not know Itself and one in which it does, which contradicts it being Infinite
No contradiction there retard. The set of all numbers from zero to infinity (God) still starts at zero (not knowing itself) and ends at infinity (knowing itself), but to get from one to the other still requires counting to infinity (the grand theatrical production we call “SpaceTime”). You’re so disingenuous, because I know you know all this, and would readily make an identical argument in some other unrelated scenario of biblical apologia.
You also include a wondrous goalpost move
Not a goalpost shift in the slightest, retard, it was infact the entire conceit of the post. I’ll refer you to the OP:
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other.
By inventing those numbers, the proposed system incentivizes evil 45 times more than good
A straight up retarded position. If someone told you “yeah, there are two ways to reach the goal. In the first path, there is a 1* incline, a very gentle slope, straight up to the goal. There also exists a route where to pass, you must climb an 89* incline, ceaselessly for your entire life, in fact, the climb is beyond the capabilities of basically anyone not destined for the role. Oh, and even if you manage to climb up, you’ll need to then “make up for” all your prior climbing by assisting others on the other path during your descent. You’ll feel horrible and almost certainly fail on the way up.”
That’s not “incentivizing” anything you fucking retard, what a disingenuous take. That’s like saying the Bible “incentivizes” betraying Christ for your own personal 40 pieces of silver. You’d have to be legitimately fucking retarded to make that argument.
Would you like then to propose that one of those two systems is obviously more contradictory than the other?
Yeah lmao, it’s the one where the supposed god of the universe ignores the entire universe to instead invest all his time and energy in the jews while simultaneously telling them to genocide other groups of humans.
The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth
Your timeless entity feels regret. Lmao.
Well, Jesus strikes me as an idealist. Not the case for you?
First of all im not sure you have the right to decide another race is subhuman. You’re such a hypocrite anyway - anytime someone on this site mentions “the jews” or “talmudists” you cry and shit yourself over “mUh group judgements”. But when the topic changes to slaughtering arabs BOY are you GUNG-HO about their “right” to blow up toddlers.
Are you retarded dude? I did get specific, I named a specific event where your team specifically murdered over 100 toddlers in a daycare, because it was attached to a “valid target”. Blow it out your ass. Over 50,000 innocents were killed by israel since Oct 7th ‘23, that right there has created more “terrorists” than anything else.
Is that what you think is happening? Israel is “unintentionally” murdering all these Christians in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine? Lmfao. All the little kids getting doubled tapped in the head and genitals by snipers.
Let me know when thats the scenario being discussed. Because I’ve never seen a war that went like that. The wars you’re so set on conducting seem to leave mountains of innocent corpses. Infact, invariably far more innocents are slaughtered than combatants. What’s the limit for you? How many innocent lives are too many to lose, for one valid target? Would you firebomb Dresden if you heard hitler was visiting?