The office is SwampRangers.com. I tell people here I volunteer for Scott Lively. I larp as the guy with the eyepatch.

Yeah, some of my boards are experimental; in this case I want to hear from flat earthers same as you. For that purpose, my alt is a flat earther, he has it all worked out except for that last equation ....

SwampRanger is more interested in Sci Fi from that perspective it seems.

Almost. I think I was being a bit sarcastic too. Unironically, Interstellar is so bad that it works better if you totally change the genre and pretend it's e.g. a Bollywood attempt at Hindu evangelism, with occasional input from Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar to make it sound more honest.

Less unironically, I've noted most time travel movies aren't about time travel at all but about multiverse bifurcation. The plot is trying to make a point that doesn't care if the time travel makes sense (e.g. Looper). Star Trek: TNG would routinely have a separate team of plot writers and tech consultants, and when the plot writers wanted something to force the characters to act a certain way they'd just leave a slug in the script for the tech team to fill in as they saw fit, and then the techs would invent something mostly consistent for Geordi to say that was both transparent-sounding and opaque at the same time. (I think the franchise jumped the shark about when Kirk and McCoy climbed onto Spock who had the only pair of gravity boots and they turned them into upward jets and then shot past a whole series of numbered decks that the Enterprise never really had before, including two that had the same number because the same shot made it into the final cut twice.)

So, with total irony, bite my tongue because planted firmly in my cheek, the link was when my office was first authorized to disclose how time travel really works, and was received quietly as the Rangers intended. (checks watch) The second disclosure hasn't gone out yet.

What does that even mean?

Exactly. That's also the slogan of c/FlatEarth because "even" is a pun.

Like I said, a morality play. Science takes a few thousand years to catch up with religion on average. Notice how The Black Hole itself (not to mention Star Trek Undiscovered Country) couldn't help putting heaven and hell in the black hole? But they ain't there, which is why black hole as amorphous "Facilitator" makes more sense ....

Heh heh. Well, whatever Thorne says will be accurate, but like his friend Hawking he will be sensationalizing it. But the idea of getting caught in a vortex to affect exactly the spacetime your former self is in, well, science hasn't figured that out yet, but it's routine for the spiritual realm. So perhaps the effects are "too good" for what science knows now. The time dilation was "all right" but by my standards "all right" means at Planet of the Apes level.

Sure, but the movie's better as a morality play than as sci-fi. They're trying to express spiritual entanglement as physical entanglement, which is what makes it fallacious. Yes, Kip knows better, but his philosophy is that all blackhole news is good news.

I like part fake and part real. Maybe #13 was fake (astronauts never in danger) just to prove they could snow all the people if they had need to, even though they knew they could go back when needed.

Space is lied about enough to be called fake, and the government is indeed reverse-engineering UFO tech as it has for 5,000+ years. Would love to flesh this out.

Nice! You can fast-forward the first half for its introductory matter but in the second half it presents the best results in simple explanation. Note, there is now a 52nd Mersenne prime, they keep getting published.

Wiles showed the general approach by conquering Fermat. The odd perfect, the (in)finity of even perfect, and/or the Lychrel number (196?) might be found by similar approach.

There are many genealogies tracing continuous heritage that far back. Why do you infer that those genealogies are mistaken? How could such a people disappear and be wholly replaced by another if there is continuous historical attestation of their experience? Lay out your evidence.

Yeah, Jesus is both idealist and pragmatic. We're talking the pragmatic side right now though. I thought about it, and the Amish are doing pretty well so maybe you should join them. However, it still applies that then you don't act warlike about people who disagree with you, and you'd have to lay off the calls for Israel to be prosecuted too because no ideal pacifist claims the right to punish anyone else by force. I talk to these zero-aggression people often, and so if you want to go that way consistently you get to lay off the verbal attacks and the calls for the destruction of the destroyers.

If nobody has the right to determine if another party has committed crimes against humanity (i.e. to judge them unworthy of continuing to have their own human rights), except Jesus, then the criminals continue apace and you don't have the right to stop them. If you do have the right to call for them (e.g. Israel) to be punished by force, then you do believe in the right to judge them unworthy of human rights. Two ways, pick one, you can't pick both and be consistent. (What I tell people is that if you want to judge a whole race including children, you need to have the case heard that the children are contributing to belligerence, and nobody here tries to meet that bar at all; the closest argument is that Jewish, or Arab, children are indoctrinated to the lifestyle, but that is hardly proof of choice.) There is a time to judge, and it's only for very serious cases, and that's a consistent standard. It's not consistent to say never to judge and then to judge, which is what I see you doing.

I picked a case where there's been relative agreement on the analysis. You're picking cases where there's wild disagreement on the fog of war, and you're (apparently) gravitating only to one side of the sourcing without any critical review (that's called bias). I told you, the girls' school has many competing interpretations right now, and seeing as this is Conspiracies and I don't believe in Sandy Hook either this has all the marks of a bigger Sandy Hook. It's likely it'll remain unsolved officially, while the theorists put together the best solution. But you have judged it already and called it my team. Well, even in the worst case, since I'm an American and some blame America, what should I do to fill up the suffering of Christ about this event? Should I be appointed to forfeit my life to Iranis because they claim my club took innocent lives? I do believe some people are called to similar ministry, but I don't think the call stems from another anon who has an axe to grind about the issue. If I've offended you I could make it up, but when I've asked you what I could do in good conscience we haven't gotten that answered either. You keep attributing motive with words like murder and charges about my intent, and that's not logical. I write because I have hope that you'll come to answer the questions I ask, but if you devolve to the illogic then nothing proceeds of it.

If your Israel figure is correct (and I hear the Iran figures are similar incidentally), even though it's only based on one side and for the sake of argument we'll say neither side is trustworthy, then what do you want done? We can say "big if true", and we can say "bad optics", and then, well, it's happened and it's in the ICJ. You could take the law into your own hands, but oh you don't believe in that. But the amount of ranting you do does amount to warfare because it's dehumanization of your enemy, and Jesus amplifies "do not murder" to "do not call your brother retarded" (that's an accurate translation).

All the little kids getting doubled tapped in the head and genitals by snipers.

That's not anywhere near 50,000 and, based on the evidence you've presented so far, isn't above 0. Present your evidence and then tell us what to do about it. If "what to do" means "call them murderers", you've declared war on them by abridging their human rights. I point out, you're free to, but your rulings can be reviewed by other humans too. In particular, when you call them murderers but you don't allow them the right to call other humans murderers, Golden Rule fail.

If there are intentional war crimes, of course they should be punished. Who do you trust to make that determination, Graph? Only yourself? Is this a case where the judge should be without sin? (The ICJ is plenty sinful but I trust them as having general accord as being authorized to proceed; if they blow it then Jesus will come after them at the right time.)

I can't comment on Dresden not knowing the facts. If you mean it as an example of the general question, I'll answer after you do because I asked you the same. We might both finesse it the same way by agreeing it's a tough call for the warrior to make on the field on a case basis, but you don't seem to accept that. Now, I still can't approve your phrasing because of the bias issue, but I'll try to give a guideline answer. One intentional civilian death is too many, because as you pointed out it's a war crime and the army should punish such a person, and if they don't then the nations at large may agree to punish; but those that are judged unintentional deaths are not war crimes and are not to be numbered (unless the numbering itself is taken as circumstantial evidence that some were intentional; though courts don't usually rule that way). However, all modern armies already know that and, like modern police forces, admittedly protect themselves with paper trails and brother coverage to claim that every such situation (with very rare exceptions) is indeed "provably" (i.e. documentedly) unintentional. So maybe we do need to move the question further, since you don't pick up on intentionality but assume it (as if the aggressor is always intentional and of course the proposed "civilian" is always unintentional in his baiting; but many nations also admittedly train people to pose as innocent solely to paint another as the aggressor). The question is quis custodiet ipsos custodes, in this case, Who Judges? You've judged one side as murderers, the other side as innocents among a vanishing number of (also judged by you) valid targets. The point of the war is that both sides disagree on the valuations, and you're taking one of the two sides on most of these reflexively. And, oh look, the side is always against Israel and America, but that's not important right now.

So the framing, as if it creates a dilemma, is not problematic if unpacked. Ultimately, does your standard by which you judge murder admit of any colloquy with other sovereigns, or are you dogmatic about it whether or not others might charge it with illogic? Because if it's impossible for you to change, there's no point in my going on. It's possible for me to change, because for me everything is on the table except the One who holds me. But I don't see you being open to discussion, seeing as you continue to use bias and prejudice in your allegedly unbiased framing. In my judgment. Once we've gotten an understanding on whether we are dialoguing to create a joint answer, or whether there's no swaying for you, then we can talk about how that standard (murder) should be applied in reviewing partisan evidence. But you don't seem to be interested in reviewing all evidence based on your conclusive language. So ultimately my second question might be: What else is there to discuss? If my purpose is not to convince you because you've convinced me you don't want to be convinced, I would indicate that by bowing out. But so far I remain doggedly convinced, against the evidence, that you are open to being convinced.

Well, as Jesus says, “let he who is without sin cast the first” accusation of sub-humanity.

That would be an idealist reading. If you want to take that extreme, you can try starting an anarchist community that is totally pacifist, like others have. But then you also would presumably be peaceful enough that you'd accept other Christians who tell you that their consciences affirm just war (instead of your calling them dehumanizing names ...). If nobody can do capital punishment but Jesus, it's a consistent position, but it doesn't allow the group to get up in arms about the views of others who also affirm Jesus's other words (such as I've listed). If one is seeking the whole teaching it'll all reconcile the same basic way for any truth seeker.

If you are so enamored of modern states that you accept their claims on a monopoly as to warmaking, that's quite a different view than pacifism, I call it statism. I'm a sovereign citizen who has, first by birth and then by volition, deigned to delegate certain warmaking rights to my servant representatives, who don't always serve me that well. I don't give up my right to justice either, I delegate it, but I reserve the right to disagree with any court and govern myself accordingly; and there are procedures by which people take laws into their own hands (not so much anymore). This covers most cases of life and death, but you're asking about the special exceptions so I work from your hypotheticals. The fact is, though, if I or my club decides another race is subhuman, we have put ourselves in a state of war with them (conflict), and we have responsibility for that decision.

Basically by definition when someone “declares war”, they likewise “declare self-governorship”.

Well, yes.

the guy who’s wife and kids were blown up because they happened to be on the same street as “a terrorist”.

C'mon, Graph, get specific if you have particulars, without inventing a case. Since you made me aware of it, I've been for years empathizing with the family and church of Nahida and Samar Anton, just as I seek to empathize with all victims of violence and warfare. To whataboutery, Jesus says, unless you repent you will likewise perish. But there are still the same two cases, either they were sniped unjustly while they were taking reasonable precautions, or the sniper didn't intend to kill innocents and was using reasonable (but mistaken) determination about the shooting. Case basis determines what was just and unjust about the war plan (and in this case history will likely favor the nascent martyrs). But by calling something "murder" you've already judged the case rather than recognizing the difficulty, and you've avoided dealing with the hard calls. I empathize with the LPJ who promotes them as martyrs, and I empathize with the IDF who proclaimed innocent error and may have much they can't say about it for their own reasons. And I leave the case open even as I lean one direction because it's not my job to judge it.

Your rewording hasn't changed the scenario much. If the war was declared under law of nations and is active in my region then my family is already known to be at risk of death just as if a hurricane was approaching. We take precautions. If we're poor or negligent and can't prevent the death, then people die, in fact people are kinda used to that happening around the world. Of course the survivors are tempted to be violent, and they too are subject to the same law of humanity as everyone else; a mistake under severe provocation is not punished the same as one under minimal provocation, but they're both mistakes. But what, of the two states, should I tell the state that hasn't taken precautions to protect its citizens and may be committing war crimes against them that it's my job to protect their citizens, but the state that takes precautions not to kill innocents but knows that some might be killed anyway is to be judged as murderers? That doesn't necessarily follow. Your conclusion (again prejudging the case as "murder) doesn't deal with the issue. If it were "murder" i.e. intentional killing of an innocent, of course it's wrong. The question is when it's unintended and collateral, and you haven't answered that question.

In the hostage situation, the problem is that we're talking about people powerful enough to be surrounded by many effective slaves and to have sycophants all around them who are interested in protecting the leaders' lives. Apologies if you pivoted to a different case. But even hostage rescue teams recognize the risk of hostages dying, and they proceed anyway. So (not to ask who is retarded), such teams use creative means to take down the aggressors without intentionally killing the hostages.

Do you understand that by going through the motions of ordinary life, there's a slight mathematical risk that an innocent person might die by your actions? I suggested that risk be 1 in 100k per day. Is that risk acceptable to you, seeing as there's no way to get it to zero short of eschatology? If that risk is acceptable, would it also be acceptable that a military, or a rescue team, could engage activities if they reasonably judge that the risk of innocent death is equal to the same number? Because if you see that much logic, then at least we're putting a number on it instead of the problem of acting like it's totally zero. I do believe that God always gives an option to anyone at any time where conscience would not be betrayed on any point, but I don't believe that we should strain out gnats and swallow camels; we should deal with the weight of mercy and justice at all times, and deal with matters that have the weight of a pinch of spice only at liberty. The type of anarchism you're proposing leaves nobody free to deal with the powerful who surround themselves with innocents who would suffer if their horrendous abuses were forcibly stopped. And that abuse is worldwide, well-known, and weighty. If a nation goes in and makes every effort to prevent collateral casualties and in all their efforts a single lapse in judgment leads to a civilian death, it's a death but it's still a lot less weight by comparison. If we're letting the camel destroy the whole house while we're objecting that the homeowner let in a gnat, that's sinful.

So I've answered your questions. Mine remains. I'm framing it in terms of zero tolerance versus the ordinary tolerance of the unforeseen that we accept getting in cars every day. You do get in a car most every day, correct?

Plenty of wars in the Bible without "states". You basically declare war anytime you decide another people is unworthy of being treated as human. 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). There are many regulations, but we're focusing on notifying the representative agents of your enemy about your intent and of their unaccepted aggressive behavior; allowing reasonable time to negotiate prior to declaration; and then not engaging in war crimes, as well as honoring attempts to negotiate during the war (parleys). Obviously you're also subject to the judgment of the rest of humanity that's not participating, because if you ignore their judgment you're at war with them too, so there must be common standards ("law of nations") by which details are understood and worked out among sovereign groups. Nowadays most non-states don't call it "war" because a modern state is basically a monopoly upon lethal force, but declaring war in principle isn't limited to states.

Yes, individual soldiers decide whether they obey or disobey orders based on conscience; but the same conscience dilemma applies to the whole chain. Now your comprehension will be tested again as we proceed. I'm told "intentionally killing civilians" is a war crime, but so is "forcing protected persons to serve as human shields". I tried to state the question unequivocally but it appears it still isn't sufficiently long. If the warrior's morality is that "it's always wrong to attack if a person forces human shields to constantly surround him", then any people could be as abusive as they wanted, without fear of retribution by these "moral" warriors, as long as they kept the forced shielding in motion. I would presume the just warrior's morality is more like "we will seek to deceive targets into attackable situations and therefore if there is collateral damage due to our miscalculation then it's unintentional and thereby moral". That is, unintentional civilian death, which is what my scenario intended to cover. Would you refuse to join such an operation, even presuming you agreed with the elimination of the enemy, because any risk of unintentional collateral death is morally forbidden to you?

This is not drone-striking a wedding, which would be ruled intentional (and which you tie to the IRGC even though that's not the scenario here; plus, Trump seems to be surviving the blowback from the girls' school story, so even if he did do that your argument against it based on optics fails). The illustration of killing an occupant in pursuit of a homeowner does happen sometimes in war and is more on point. If the warrior judges that the enemy is using human shields, he must engage a plan designed to minimize collateral deaths while still admitting responsibility for their possibility. The plan cannot call for intentional killing in such pursuit. We have a number of cop stories where cops claim they believed their lives were in danger but the dead nonbelligerent victim (sometimes the cops even go to the wrong address) doesn't appear to have contributed to that belief at all compared to the cops' daily off-duty FPS gaming glut. Those are supposed to be decided by competent courts as to whether the death "could" have been theoretically avoided so they are on a case basis. If the soldier misacts, or has mistrained himself, he too should be disciplined in the event of war-crime circumstances, while recognizing that circumstances exist where an unintended civilian death is not a war crime. (The plan does also take into account the blowback from going wrong, but in war the general does not set a moral line against unintended deaths at all costs, only against a generally agreed standard of preventing (or punishing) war crimes at all costs.)

Now, I treat these as AMA so I attempt to answer even the crazy hypotheticals. If I were in a war (which I work hard to avoid), and I morally agreed with its justness (rather than defecting), and I were ordered irreversibly to an operation that had known risk of unintended civilian death, I would trust God for the wisdom for the moment. Ultimately there is no moral conflict that cannot be navigated, and I would seek the navigation in the moment and continue to seek what I should have done after the fact if I were to judge that I failed. I would probably have allowed a backup plan, possibly even risking my own life, if a human shield were encountered; but I might also be able to judge for my conscience's sake that the apparent human shield is not enslaved or accidental but independently belligerent, which would resolve the question. The worst scenario, often described, is killing after judging one's life to be at risk and then realizing one judged wrong; one can only state one's case and plead one's lack of intent to kill an innocent and submit to God and man for mercy. I cannot say such a scenario would never come to me, but I can say it's easy to vow never to kill an innocent human intentionally and that vow should be easy enough to keep given a clear conscience otherwise. You seem to speak of cases of intent, but my case is only about where there's risk that is avoided by every reasonable means, not about intent.

Your next scenario typically blurs the word "murder" with "in pursuit of a 'bad guy'", which are contrary in intent. I'll presume by murder you mean just kill, and by pursuit you mean authorized pursuit, instead of presuming toward the opposite possible reading. That eliminates the case where the "someone" is not engaging a just war, or failing to give legal notification of the war (in which case the scenario wouldn't apply at all). Of course since war was declared, I'm making every effort to protect my family as a nonbelligerent civilian, but let's also assume I fail in this scenario. So I suppose I should mentally prepare for the scenario if someone who had declared war on me (e.g. on my nation) killed three or more of my family members pursuant to that war despite my best efforts. I think the first answer would not be about the war but about the castle doctrine, namely that I have a right to self-defense regardless of war, and three deaths is a pretty good signal that my life is at risk if the killer remains present, justifying my use of lethal force. (However, even here Moses regulates the case, saying that if it's theft rather than murder and it happen during the day then deadly force is not permitted, Ex. 22:2-3. This implies that the greater case of murder is not so regulated and can be met by lethal force at any time.) If the decision is not in my hands, then I would have a legal injury of loss of life, and I would have the decision of what remedy I would seek from any legal system available. As to the war itself, whether I agree or disagree with my country's stance, whether I enlisted or not, I don't think my stance would change.

You seem to imply, of course, if the killer is "following orders" then my right to kill him proves his error. Well, assuming you mean he is killing violently and without negotiation, he's not following just orders that (as above) are designed to minimize collateral death. If he is following just orders it's hard to imagine a scenario where my family would die due to the warrior's and my own preparations. But let's presume he killed them in error, I caught him and he pled with me for his own life, and evidence supports his plea so that I don't have the right to claim my life is in danger. (If evidence indicated he might be lying, I suppose I could still use the argument of self-defense.) Well, that would be the kind of case I'd pray for wisdom in advance for, as I do generically for whatever tough cases I may face in future. I don't have the makeup where I'd be likely to justify killing someone I've captured without believing it's justified self-defense because the person has not engaged a just war. It'd be more likely I'd either plead self-defense (including avengement) myself and execute the killer, or I'd turn him over to my authorities (not his own people). But there's not a place where just war and self-defense are at moral odds with each other.

Based on your view (thanks for being direct), if all activities that might possibly involve any unintentional civilian death, or even injury, were forbidden, I don't know how any general could prosecute any modern, or even ancient, war. The argument from "possibility" has too much contingency; my stepping outside my door might lead conceivably to an innocent death, but so might my staying indoors, so unless I allow that my behavior might be blamed for innocent death in ordinary living then I'd be unable to do anything. But perhaps we might set an acceptable risk level, say one in a hundred thousand, as to whether our plans for any day might involve unintentional innocent death. Then we could argue that the army should use the same risk level in its plans. If we did, my question remains unanswered as to whether you let the "bad guy" win with his enslaved human shields, or whether you increase the risk when the bad guy has by his actions exempted himself from all humane treatment, and exempted any innocent lives that he has recklessly endangered from being another person's fault who is seeking not to kill them. So if you regard this as an advance in the conversation I'm still looking for your thoughts as to the dividing line.

Thanks for thinking of me as "mainstream Christianity". Obviously the ability to brand heretics is closely related to just war, and so if you want reparations done for any heretic that was branded unjustly then Christ will see that his body ensures the reparations are done. As for us, no mod took any steps to wipe out pacifism or any dissent except incivil disagreement with the creeds. There was no content-based exclusion whatsoever; it seemed to me that those who had difficulty with a community where the creeds were upheld simply migrated to their own preferred locations instead. The only forum member currently banned is the probable alt "Kill_Yourself". I'm open to any criticism at any level of the policy of drawing a line beyond which enforcement is moral; I just don't see how someone could utterly fail to draw such a line, or to place it so far out that one cannot be responsible for protecting one's own life (unless one is an anarchist forsworn to forsake self-defense and who has no responsibility for any innocents who have not made the same vow). Your ball.

Great analysis, fren. Creatio ex Deo FTW. Any secular philosopher should come around to the same principles, and when they don't the failure of their system is obvious.

One other note, technically, we cannot know beyond what we can know, and so whenever one speaks of a hypothetical state of God as if "external" to creation that definition always includes an assumption of unknowability that makes it contradictory. What we are actually talking about is not "unknowable" if we have the power to talk about it; it's merely a shorthand way of talking about our inability to know beyond what we can know. So the whole "god" that is believed to "forget" is not ultimate being because it's something we comprehend. Rather, Being that reveals itself always as Love is defined as Love, and for simplicity's sake we think about it still being Love even in the counterfactual where we're not thinking about it.

You're welcome. But it's funny how you read: no, I never said Christian State. "War" means conflict between two parties. The party that declares just war must also declare its reasons via some authoritative channel. (An individual can declare war but that's not usually wise. Groups (which do include states) are formed by voluntary compacts or by birth into a group such as a family, so there are established procedures for determining group consensus.) The principle for this regulation is called "offering terms of peace", Deut. 20:10, but that's the barebones version for people who can read between the lines. Jesus's affirmation of all Torah principles, and their just promulgation, appears in words like: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (Matt. 23:2-3a). Since Jesus speaks about God's kingdom more than anyone else, I suspect his body has a form of government capable of declaring war. For his view on war, a quick search includes Luke 14:31 ff., Rev. 12:7, 17:14, and 19:11 (particularly).

If you could answer the question it might help, so I'll restate it: If you were in an army fighting a foe (e.g. modern Israel) that your army has told you might use human shields around your targets, and your commander tells you that the war has been justly declared and children have been ruled to be fair game in a particular engagement you're in, and so you are instructed that you may kill them if necessary in that engagement, would your conscience be satisfied or would you have opted out at some point saying that God could never authorize killing of innocent human shields and therefore all armies should capitulate when human shields are used? Those are the only two options: collateral damage is either moral or immoral. Would love you to commit to an answer.

It's not easy for me to search for whether we ever banned u/DMKultra or u/ColloidalAlumina for a day or two, or not. I have a goal not to repel people (as shown in my fora that are legal-speech) but where I'm representing an extant community I want to follow their desires. I'm happy to see that you never ban people, but would you use the option if someone kept trolling you? Because if people realize you're a pacifist they test that, just as belligerents test other nations' war policies. We've had much discussion about moderation and I sought to answer all your concerns when you raised them, but you are free to raise more. I don't see that your pivot to that topic means something contradictory: at worst, if I've erred in relation to another user that can be addressed; but my policy of carrying out enforcement as approved by a freewill community doesn't mean I slaughter people metaphorically. If anything I've sought to be more merciful if possible even when my gut impulse would be to slam down a tool. If you'd like me to research reasons anyone was banned, I can take time for that, but if just war is moral then right to ban is moral and the question is not morality but abuse.

So let me know what you'd do in these cases because then you're actually coming down on a firm position rather than sniping at someone else's.

He's citing Micah 7:1-10:

Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit. The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD shall be a light unto me. I will bear the indignation of the LORD, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness. Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the LORD thy God? mine eyes shall behold her: now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

More context is Luke 12:49-53:

I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

For Luke's "I am come to send fire" Thomas has "I am come to cast ... fire". For Luke's "I am come to give ... division" Thomas has "I am come to cast divisions ..., sword, war". So, same event. But when he quotes Micah he is combining his causality with the local causality of human sinful nature without putting himself directly in the passage, but the indirect is implied.

Now, though he alludes to the very broad "peace upon the world" (aka "peace on earth"), he does not pivot to world war but to Micah's war in a single household. In rabbinical style that means he is arguing "lesser to greater": he is implying that just as he casts division in one house he certainly can and does cast it in larger divisions. But that implication is a secondary reading and his primary focus is that even single houses have blood betrayers that will be "trodden down". The context implies that the solution to the division is justice. 1 Peter 4:16-18 alludes to the same then:

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

This passage is also about betrayal in households and comparison to judgment of the nations. Traducing was common then as statists betrayed others to the government with the insulting name "Christians" (compare the fate of Jesus's disciples in the Talmud). Peter makes the lesser-to-greater (kal wekomer) argument explicit (which affirms that Jesus intended it also), by pointing out that righteous houses are judged more strictly and exactly, and thereby judgment cannot fail for sinful nations that heap up their ungodliness. So it sounds like Peter (especially with the rest of his context) is confident the sins of the nations will be judged righteously.

You focus on the ordinary daily work of love that is designed to wear down via its light. Sure. But pacifism cannot be the universal rule because you know that evil nations must be judged by competent courts. Let me share a 42 with you if it will not tempt you to object to my related treatment of OP. I discerned that the earliest teaching can be read as saying the good work of a weekday leads to resting on Sabbath in 1/6 proportion, but the evil work of unjust murder yields evils that must be fixed in 7 times the proportion (even if it pretends to be just vengeance like an attack upon Cain). Therefore we can adjust a truism by saying that for every time one speaks negatively one should speak positively 42 times. (This may be seized upon by the calculation that you need to be 45 times further from average for evil than you need to be for good; but I think it kind of inverts it.) An evil act automatically does 42 times as much evil as a good act does good. That is, good is intended to be cumulative because it is eternal and unlimited and rewarded forever, but bad is permitted to have a limited short-term "high" because it is temporal and limited and judged asap. Then when Lamech mocks this principle and declares the right to be avenged seventy and seven (which can mean 490), that is shown to be a disproportion and distortion, and Jesus later redeems the number 490 for forgiveness indicating there is no limit on goodness like there is on evil. (So note that even "Ra" has to admit a qualitative difference between good and evil and cannot pretend they both go to the same place.)

But I recall that when I gave a list of passages about Jesus's approval of just war you started with changing my inference by using the word "fulfill" from the text where it didn't apply and then saying the first two-millionth of my text had such a blatant error. I understand you want to communicate MEGO about math but if you're asking the meaning of 2 vs. 3 then let's allow it. "The question might be put to you: If you belong to a military at war with modern Israel, dedicated to destroying targets where it is known that Israel is constantly using children as human shields, how would you proceed: give up, or attack after all regulations are met?"

u/Thisisnotanexit

Add: While we're at it, Jesus's Father is violent:

Jesus said: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who wanted to kill a great man. He drew the sword in his house and drove it into the wall, that he might know that his hand would be strong. Then he slew the great man. (Thomas 98)

And Jesus appears to be comfortable blazing up a world full of children (context of 16 shows this is not peaceful fire):

Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze. (Thomas 10)

Shall I declare victory on the three contradictions? Or shall we both, seeing as it doesn't matter because both sides of a contradiction are right? Or do you want to pursue truth someday?

Thanks for at least joining an argument even if your demand that namecalling be permitted remains in use. I have a little experience with mathematical infinity so I'm not sure the illustration will help you.

A set is not a set element.

A set does not go from zero to infinity as infinity is not a natural number.

Counting to infinity cannot be done in spacetime.

Physical objects do not have neatly assigned rank to compare them to countable numbers.

To try in all sincerity to make some meaning out of your illustration, in set theory a set either includes itself (recursively) or it doesn't. If it includes all things and even itself (i.e. the included "infinity" means the "set"), and it represents a God that knows Itself, then yes it would include something (Itself) that fully knows Itself, and it would include many other things that do not fully know themselves, but there is an unbridgeable gap between the infinite Itself and any finite thing (number or set). There is no point at which you can count from a number "to infinity" in the same way as you count from a number to the next number. There is nothing you can point to to represent a "becoming" between a finite number or set and an infinite number or set. Mathematicians do not speak of becoming infinite but of approaching infinity (infinitely): something is either infinite or it isn't, there's no bridge between them. Even if you approached an asymptote at a speed approaching infinity such that there's a finite time at which the function becomes undefined, there is still no becoming, either the value is finite or it's infinite but its remaining distance to infinity is always infinite no matter how close it gets. Further, our creation is quantized and granular, not infinitesimally divisible. So there's no infinite approach to infinity either, there are natural limits, like lightspeed; so you can't even use an asymptote.

Now, maybe you want to imagine a narration in which "counting to infinity" actually "gets to" "infinity", despite this betraying all math and logic. As I explained, "getting" somewhere is the same as "becoming" something; you envision it as a tertium-quid transition between two things, a finite number and an infinity. But the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, philosophers note. The transition between temporal and timeless cannot happen in spacetime as you propose. If it could possibly happen to somebody at a point in time from which the rest of the universe had a future, the somebody would disappear from the universe as a self, having become one with all being including all future; or, if it happened to the whole universe, there would be no more future but only an Omega Point at an end of time. However, this hypothetical is ultimately something we cannot experience except by being God, therefore by definition we cannot know for certain that it ever will happen or has happened; if it had happened to somebody there would be no way to prove it or describe it. We could not speak of "Me Becoming God", let alone "God Becoming Me", because a temporal subset (timeslice) of being is already present in all being and therefore its relation to that subset, which it already is, would not be "becoming". If we were to speak of all Other "becoming" Self, that might make more sense, because then Self remains Self but absorbs Other; but in that case the distinction, the Self-Other boundary, ceases to exist, including the boundary that separates the present from other times. And that would mean Other is not "becoming" Self at all (because the distinction between them ceases to exist) but both "become" One. And that's not a becoming at all, it's just a perspective or name change, and we could just as easily shift perspective in the opposite direction. That is, I could pick any Self at any instant and decree that I am perceiving that the Self and the Other are One and that I perceive that One to be God, and I could also decree in reverse that I am perceiving God to be delineated as a Self in a present, and all Other. But God always means the infinite, all being, and Self and Other always mean subsets of being. There's no bridge.

Any concept you propose as the meaning of "becoming God" cannot be proven because by definition it is beyond anyone's experience except God's. I could claim to have experienced any definition you propose, just as easily as I could claim that any definition you propose is impossible: because either way it's unprovable. I could say I end at infinity, I know myself, I have gotten to infinity, I count to infinity at any point in time, and you couldn't possibly contradict my statement of experience. You can only say it's unlikely because of your substantial rather than infinite knowledge of human behavior. And the fact that knowledge is substantial rather than infinite, and that Planck units are granular rather than infinitesimal, indicates that we should focus on the finite rather than pretend that we comprehend all infinities.

So: it's fun to try to interact with your poetry, but there comes a point where it's no longer useful. I try to redirect to what I find useful (choose either the changeable God or the changeless God but not both or neither), but that only works if two are playing. More important, the way you've always operated here has not led to real-world growth IMHO, such as the fact that you don't seem to find any path toward the morality of avoiding namecalling, nor any peace about the atrocities you see Israel committing, nor any power to call down fire yourself, etc. You're bowled over by these things but you don't connect yourself to any commitment. There will come a finite time at which you and I will be done discussing this, conclusively, and the conclusion will be binary, either we will agree or we will disagree, forever. My choice to respond is always based on whether I think some good exists in it, for you, me, or the audience. The degree to which you avoid direct questions and dance to sidelights without making any commitments will factor in heavily. Your proposal of all being having a becoming is by definition a Temporal Timeless and is a contradiction. I'm concerned that every day you amuse yourself with such contradictions is a day you avoid the commitments that matter. I've hung with you, often defended you, because I've believed you don't ultimately avoid. When your comments have the same general tenor one after another, the ability to comment ends after a finite number, it doesn't go on infinitely.

1. Not semantics. You imply you wish to use "become" in the sense in which one's perception of the Creator changes because one is changing when the Creator is not (e.g. Ex. 15:2, 1 Sam. 28:16, 2 Sam. 7:24, 1 Chr. 17:22, but that far there is no passage of the emotion-based kind you describe). But the material speaks of the Creator in Itself, "the Creator becomes that which may know Itself". 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; if we argued that the implication was instead that from someone else's temporal, changing perception, Creator that actually knows Itself fully and timelessly appears to change in Its knowledge of Itself, it's contradictory to assert the appearance as reality if the reality is otherwise. (Now obviously the "all is illusion" assumption logically means that any contradiction can be entertained, but I'm assuming that we've previously established that no contradiction is to be entertained. If you don't want to pivot to "all perception is illusion" being the contradiction, then we're stuck with an "Infinite Temporally Changeable" which cannot be One and which would be inferior to the spacetime that contains it.)

2. The contradiction is between affirming "no right and wrong" and affirming some things are "true" and "great". If all polarity is one then all action on a true-false or great-small spectrum is one, nothing can be called out as essentially false seeing as nothing is absolute-zero false. Humanity routinely affirms right and wrong as polar opposites because if all actions have the same ultimate effect then there is no bar to breaking down any social norm. It would be impolite to directly refer to the type of life you would face if people followed the logical consequence of the denial. In the present case, affirming no right and wrong means that Lucifer is just as true as Logos and vice versa, which means satanists (and Israelis for that matter) can go on doing whatever they please without any right for you to complain. The reference to "primitive tribe" clearly entails Edenic man, which is simultaneously treated as negatively lower-density because not acting on freewill, and yet as positively embodying the oneness principles of not having right and wrong, and of having perfect contentment. That's playing both sides. Either absence of good can be rejected as such, or no evil can be rejected.

3. It's contradictory to say the Creator has an identity (Creator) but becoming one with him I don't have an identity (neither his nor my own). I actually have considered temporally unlimited processes. And this is not one because each phase has a finite period; in the seventh destiny we are to become one with all having "no past or future, but existing in the all". This is not logically temporal but a change from temporal to timeless; the individual is promised a (temporal) event of past and future ceasing, and that's not temporally unlimited. The eighth destiny doesn't matter then because there's no "me" going through it but some other being "created" by the Creator and all "my" experience of that other being would not be as me but as the timeless Creator (and thus already present in the 7th density). (Your appeal to ineffability doesn't deflect the fact that a contradictory statement is logically meaningless. If you move the contradiction to "reality is indescribable", it would be another pivot like before to a deeper contradiction because no proposition can be made without describability.)

Breaking it down, please choose: (1) either unchangeable or changeable Creator, (2) either fallible or infallible human freewill, (3) either substantially identifiable or completely unidentifiable Creator. The material declines to come down on either side, unless we decide that it has and interpret it to make it do so. Since you seem to want to engage now, I'd appreciate your answering those three binaries.

Side point: I told you 51% good (+1%) versus 5% good (-45%) were sketchy numbers. By inventing those numbers, the proposed system incentivizes evil 45 times more than good, in Frankist fashion. If the fourth-density "preferred" outcomes are only engaged at those thresholds and the third-density "deprecated" outcome covers the rest, then a person who wants to escape will either seek to be as bad as possible or seek to be a little better than one is worse. However, it's much easier for people to be destructive than constructive, in the short term anyway, so the same temptation comes up as in any religion, but it's inverted as it is in satanism. That's not a contradiction per se, it's just a tell.

You also include a wondrous goalpost move, from up-down determination of contradictions in OP to comparative weighing of alleged contradictions in different systems. So let's try it. (a) Creator that appears blindsided because of a 1-year event with a death toll of millions, despite planning for survival and flourishing; versus Creator (without characterizing how he appears) that needs 7 billion years to carry out a plan for flourishing. (b) Plan that appears sketchy for perhaps 200 billion deaths that happen on one planet under natural conditions for 6,000+ years; versus plan that appears sketchy for having 7 billion years of deaths on 67 million planets (16.26) times an uncounted number of galaxies, where over 100 million years of those deaths are sentient 3rd-density creatures. (c) Plan where one cataclysm that does not extinguish most species is characterized as "wiping slate clean and starting over"; versus plan that may involve 16 similar cataclysms over 25,000 years, times such 3 periods to make 75,000 years, only for the very briefest of eight density transitions, without wondering if that counts as wiping slates clean. (d) Creator that appears overcome with emotions by expressing Itself in human terms; versus Creator who cannot express Itself to creatures at all but allows sub-sub-Logos creatures to express everything and to still constantly complain about the weakness of using our "sonic vibratory symbols" (words) to communicate (and also the weakness of using a human instrument (channeler) as if they are different from any other channelers, who happen to be described accurately in the other Creator's book thousands of years ago). (e) Single timeline from Alpha Point without any temporal end being experienced; versus cyclical timeline where eighth density is the same as the first without any advance from the previous time around (seeing as our first density has no evidence of being the eighth density of some prior experience), with the same Lethe fallacy as reincarnation but on a more cosmic background. (f) One Creator to all creatures without mediator; versus an aeonic hierarchy to sub-sub-Logos that mediates the incommunicative Creator. (g) A destiny of spirit-body harmony in the Creator's presence as his Bride "soon" (not millions of years ahead); versus an apparently contradictory destiny of loss of identity, of knowledge of good and evil, of past and future, after 100 million years of reincarnative striving to meet percentage quotas, without reference to the observed body or the perceived spirit. (h) A covenant delivered over many centuries by many authors in agreement, culminating in a demonstration of a body raised from death, which has a large (though imperfect) body of upholders that advance good in the world; versus a material delivered by one channeler without any promises or guarantees except all destinies ("good" or "bad") being one, whose most salient points are its responsive rejection of essentials of that other covenant. (i) One changeless timeless being encompassing all phases of all temporal beings; versus an apparently contradictory temporal "event" of a temporal being "becoming" timeless and yet continuing to undergo more "becoming" "afterward" in another "density" that recapitulates a prior one.

Would you like then to propose that one of those two systems is obviously more contradictory than the other? Are we agreed that we have certain power to winnow out contradictions and come to preferred versus deprecated narratives?

Thank you reminding me via an indirect link made to a different person, as my perception of how we'd have this conversation didn't retain this view of the form. Going forward note: Telling me to search "three" didn't work because I thought I found the right one and it was too vague to answer so I didn't actually press on to find the right one.

1. Becoming or No Becoming? "The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator." (4.20) "Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself." (82.10) If All is Infinite Creator, that must include all time because otherwise Creator would not be Infinite. But an Infinite Creator including all time cannot "become", or have "become", because that which becomes, like that which has become, cannot include all time.

2. Right or No Right? "Let us illustrate by observing the relative harmony and unchanging quality of existence in one of your, as you call it, primitive tribes. The entities have the concepts of lawful and taboo, but the law is inexorable and all events occur as predestined. There is no concept of right and wrong, good or bad. It is a culture in monochrome. In this context you may see the one you call Lucifer as the true light-bringer in that the knowledge of good and evil both precipitated the mind/body/spirits of this Logos from the Edenic conditions of constant contentment but also provided the impetus to move, to work and to learn. Those Logoi whose creations have been set up without free will have not, in the feeling of those Logoi, given the Creator the quality and variety of experience of Itself as have those Logoi which have incorporated free will as paramount." (77.17) "There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love." (55:2) "The vibration or density of love or understanding is not a term used in the same sense as the second distortion, Love; the distortion Love being the great activator and primal co-Creator of various creations using intelligent infinity; the vibration love being that density in which those who have learned to do an activity called “loving” without significant distortion, then seek the ways of light or wisdom." (27:13) But, if there is no polarity and no right (4:20), there is no true and no great, and nothing is "the true light-bringer" compared via polarity to anything else like the distortion Love being the true light-bringer, nor any magic "greater" than any other distortion.

3. Identity or No Identity? "The seventh density is a density of completion and the turning towards timelessness or foreverness." (41.16) "At the seventh level or dimension, we shall, if our humble efforts are sufficient, become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all." (16.22) If we become one with all, we would not be "in" all as a subset, nor would "we" cease to have identity as "we" because otherwise it would not be "we" doing the becoming nor would it be "all" (the Creator) being one with us.

Separately, I'll give "Ra" credit for not saying the Creator "became aware" in 13.12 as he is wrongly summarized as saying, but "discerned", which does not imply becoming; 13.12 actually says "The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned due to freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One." However, the "becoming" is affirmed in 82.10.

No, I'm not interested in making excessive time for the entirety of a channeled theory of morality that rejects right and wrong but incentivizes the "self-serving" at a rate of 45 times the rate it incentivizes service to others (-45% versus +1%). Only enough time to be confident I haven't missed something subtle about it.

Also, fren, the resurrection must be on Sunday because the Firstfruits always was raised on Sunday, Lev. 23:11. Many of my Hebrew-roots frens have forgotten that Moses authorized this specific Sunday observance, plus Pentecost.

Now, analytically, the Gregorian calendar keeps better pace with the equinox than either the Julian or the Hillel. As a Quartodeciman, I've come around to the idea of celebrating as early as possible, which would also favor the Gregorian. But I'm totally in empathy with the fact that Gregory declined to ask the Orthodox and that there are bigger issues that preclude the table being opened for this discussion. And I don't mind multiple celebrations too much because we gather all the more as we see the Day approaching.

Anyway, have a blessed Resurrection Week, and you're encouraged to post on c/orthodox anytime.

Other Lamech, Graph.

Feel free to disabuse me of any preconceptions. I don't recall what "three" you want me to pick.

Stay with the logic Graph, if you do then your questions are easily answered. The fact that Hammurabi didn't write the Bible shows that the lex talionis was indeed widely known and not used as a literal exchange but typically as a monetary one. The fact that Lamech was not godly is given as an example to show why such laws are necessary. Jesus does not preach "universal love" in the sense of withholding just punishment forever, he preaches more hellfire than anyone; Yahweh does not preach love for (that Jewish word) "genocide" but preaches (to Moses) that he is compassion even as he punishes at due times (i.e. not lightly, or literally not simply to punish). The reconciliation of these two is that actual love for all things means letting those beings go who confirm themselves in rejecting all love for a lifetime, and giving them the one thing they want, freedom from all aspects of love besides existence.

Supersession is when something replaces something else, not when something unfolds and expands on something else. For instance "love your enemy" also expands on "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again" (Ex. 23:4).

Hammurabi also used "eye for eye" as a limiting requirement because (as Lamech shows) vengeance often exceeded the perceived slight. Ex. 21:30 makes clear that monetary valuation of compensation is also permitted.

All historians agree Jesus spoke Aramaic and so whenever he says "I AM" dramatically he is saying "Yahweh" and applying it to himself. John 8 appears ungrammatical in English for exactly this reason, indicating the more common verbal form of "I am" was not the one used.

You're quibbling over basic logic here (difference between agreeing and superseding, between imperative and permissive, between Greek and Aramaic, etc.). It comes from a presupposition that the OT has some evil provenance and therefore Jesus couldn't possibly have agreed with it. I thought I wouldn't need to emphasize that point but let's try. Jesus constantly refers to the OT as historical as to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and many others. He says not one letter or serif will pass from the law, he says all the law and prophets testify about him and all things written about him must come to pass, he says to study the Scriptures, he says the light matters of the law (tithing) are just as important as the heavy matters (mercy), he affirms (imperative voice) the law of stoning if the accusers are without sin, he predicts the destruction of the temple because of Moses and not in spite of Moses. He also isn't milquetoast: he speaks more about hell than anyone else in the Bible, he constantly threatens the wicked with judgment, he will condemn the "goats" of all nations (of all ages) to eternal fire, he calls down woes on the leadership that all came to pass within 40 years, so it's not like he's a stranger to just war against those who declare themselves enemies by word or deed. Do you think that there is no just war and we should let abusers of human shields and of our own laws run roughshod (you seem not to for Israel); or do you think there is just war and its regulations should be upheld such that there will be a time when it destroys the wicked? Do you think the NT lies about Jesus or does it present him historically and accurately? Maybe answering my questions will help, it's worked before.

^ Above account reads a lot better if you pretend everything he writes is self-insertion apotheosis porn.

The prejudice is that you pretend that's what the book says when it doesn't. For instance, Aristotle's Politics says of Cretan pederasty:

The lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex.

That's a straightforward reference to legal permission. But when Talmudic law describes child abuse for the sake of varying punishments, you act like it's an approval like Aristotle. So yeah, you're prejudiced, not because you don't like pedophiles, but because you charge a certain group with being pedophiles without consulting the evidence.