a lot of folks would want to say "energy is conserved" .... There’s nothing incorrect about that way of thinking about it; it’s a choice that one can make or not, as long as you’re clear on what your definitions are. I personally think it’s better to forget about the so-called “energy of the gravitational field” and just admit that energy is not conserved, for two reasons.
So I understand you may be looking for an article saying "energy is not conserved" but what you found was an article about how both can be true depending on definitions. His preferred language is:
"in general relativity spacetime can give energy to matter, or absorb it from matter, so that the total energy simply isn’t conserved"
but this is giving/absorbing spacetime identical to according a ZPE field to spacetime that receives energy (such as from redshift) and releases energy (such as to the background field). Which is conservation.
The problem he cites at the beginning is a biggie, across the field, not something that qualifies his view as better or another as worse. More simply it's the idea that some observation suggests there's a giant energy field holding everything together and other observation suggests this field is excessively generally uninterested in working with things, which seem to be contradictory behaviors for the same energy, which can be quantified as many orders of magnitude apart.
My basic solution, though I don't have all of it and am still studying, is that the variability of certain "constants" changes the timescale and removes the calculation errors that lead to the discrepancy. (This also removes the need for imagining dark energy out of nowhere.)
His proposal doesn't solve the problem either, though, it merely attempts to improve the description so that we can get around to solving the problem of why the zero-point energy appears massive.
Now, cutting to the chase, what everyone wants to know is how miracles get done. The answer is that they arise by tapping the hidden energy of the universe, not by breaking laws of conservation but by opening up yet-unexplained phenomena that access that energy. Scientists and theologians are scrambling over each other trying to get control of that phenomenon, but it's elusive for a reason and knowledge will proceed according to plan. Whether we define miracles as conservative (as I do) or as nonconservative (as OP does) won't matter as long as the definition accords with the data.
And my point has been that all scientific observations have problems that don't complete the explanation of the data, and that this proves the universe is not closed but instead contained. And for that purpose we'd conclude that there is something that doesn't follow conservation somewhere in the system until we define it better. For Big Bang Theory, that lack of following, that connection to the container, is found in the first Planck instant. Maybe Carroll is defining other connections to the container (which theologians would call "providence") but he still follows the general rule of leaving the universe open to a Creator.
Dark energy is peculiar because it's a deceitful epicycle attached to a failed theory to attempt to patch a hole in the theory. Specifically, dark energy has no function except that it keeps cosmic structures together for as long as materialists say they existed because otherwise we'd have to admit they didn't exist that long. But they forget ....
I'll just get that out of the way before reading the article.
Over ~2 years of my watching him he's made very few changes to MO, which is pretty good proof of unwillingness to be reasonable. All the regular trolls at Conspiracies make more changes to MO with a few nudges than this guy has.
The admin is either unwilling or unable to prevent him from returning (an asymmetrical attack cannot be answered without greater risk to the innocent than they wish to permit). They could devote special resources to trapping his content faster, but I don't think they wish to engage that either as that could be troll-feeding. He's not one of the top 10 OpSec threats here. But concrete authority has its ways of working on the soul, and leaving the account active without discipline causes more indirect community strife than dealing with it consistently.
So talk to him when you see him, but recognize admin's carefully staked position on it too.
Yeah, (assuming identity of these accounts) he has testified that he is titillated by the thought of controlling others, especially the weaker, either by forcible sex or by murder. At this point any quotes are not retained and are also relatively unnecessary (though we trust admin is keeping a good record for posterity anyway).
If he asks sincere questions, he might get answers, but if he manifests the same antisocial, violative behavior he gets the same penalty each time, even if he gets a question answered in the lobby. However, I agree that Don't Feed The Trolls should be used by me and others a lot more here in times to come.
Welcome to c/Conspiracies, what a fun place you chose to jump in.
So you mean Odin, the one who hung on Yggdrasil for nine days pierced and sacrificing himself to himself?
Since we all come from Odin in Adam, we all have spark of divinity in us. If there's any hybrid it is simply a different reflection of the spark that has it own purpose. Children are not punished for the crimes of their parents.
Of course, didn't you see the water damage on the sphinx?
Compare Antiquities 2.1.3 against the Lemuria post here.
Whiston thought Josephus was conflating a narrative of Seth with one of Sesostris I of the 12th dynasty (probably the pharaoh that welcomed Abraham). But there is no such structure for Sesostris and so it is more probably a tradition that reflects prediluvian structures.
The Atlantis date is given by only one source, Plato, who puts it at 9600 BC (12000 BC is modified from that so actually has zero sources). There is no prehistoric, humans have always had history. Atlantis had larger structures but they were not traditional pyramidal or else we would have found them by now. There were no 13 cataclysms (those are invented by lying geologists), I showed the paucity of the evidence separately, there was just one at the 4.2kya event and everything else echoes that or echoes primordial creation.
Let's focus on the organic tech that is awakened by tech-assisted telepathy instead and not worry so much about claiming great antiquity or power for our enemies. They are defeated now and we need not quote their own lying stories to prove it.
Welcome back. Yes, I've considered that everything I know might be mistaken, and I concluded that the One Thing in which I cannot be mistaken is the One Thing that has power to keep me from being mistaken. That is, I'm fallible in everything, but I've committed myself to there being One who is infallible enough to keep me on the path. If I'm mistaken about that One it's too bad because I'm committed to him keeping me, and I've also concluded that pursuing him is better even if I'm wrong. But everything I know about that One is subject to improvement.
That One is Truth, so the enemy is any adversary of Truth (satan meaning adversary). That One is the Way, so I know the Way because the Way keeps me.
Yes, like everyone, I select from my mental database that which seems to fit what others say. My data are always improvable, and I want to know where, so I submit them for others' judgment, I have no need to hide them. If someone has an alternate view I compare it to data I've accumulated because the Truth will rise from the conflict and the lies will be defeated.
If history has been erased or rewritten, we can't trust the likes of Josephus or Sheridan or Laitman or Wikipedia, we can't know when the J was invented. If we agree on standards for detecting and defeating althist, we can know these things substantially enough to proceed. You are in a position where you like being absolutely 100% sure of things but you also cast doubt on the knowability of other things; where you posit your history but also cast doubt on another's history. If you understand how to break the double standard and be open-minded, good.
If "it doesn't matter", then it also doesn't matter if I get it wrong, or if I understand you. But you act like it does matter, which means it matters to learn the rules of Truth and apply them to getting history right. There are only two ways to understand "it doesn't matter", one being that nothing matters, and one being that at least One Thing matters, and you always have the choice between those two.
I actually totally agree. But I do heap burning coals on the heads of trolls from time to time. And new accounts get a very slight grace period, long enough to verify they're not new. Your advice applies well to old accounts and in particular doomers.
We want gore posts gone because this is not a gore site, and especially not a spam site that hosts the same content over and over or the same philosophy over and over without variation or adjustment. If you want to act human and learn from your mistakes, that's different, but none of these accounts ever act like that.
He has asked us to ping him directly when accounts of your style and contribution methods come around. You are being fought with the power of the admins' tools because accounts like yours have refused to fight in the sphere of human reason. If you wanted to fight with reason, you'd recognize that this is a platform that rejects certain content and you'd behave accordingly. If you do not, you end up facing concrete authority rather than the abstract authority of societal honor code. Your personal code about what is acceptable public discourse is not shared by anyone else here and it's important for you to realize that if you have any goals to disseminate your views at all.
Thank you for contributing. Let's see what the text says:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God (1 Cor. 1:17-18).
So the cross is of the preaching of the powerful rather than of the fools.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:22-24).
So Christ crucified is true power and wisdom, but to Jews and Greeks scandal and foolishness.
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1-5).
So Christ crucified contrasts with human wisdom.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory (1 Cor. 2:6-7).
The message of wisdom in mystery to the perfect is not separated from the message of Christ crucified, since the two have already been identified together (1:23-24); Paul's purpose in shifting focus from human wisdom to divine wisdom is to emphasize how the divine is spiritually discerned, not to deprecate the cross that he has just been exalting.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:12-16).
Paul invites his readers into the "we" that have Christ's mind, that are spiritual and not just natural men, that speak spiritual teaching and not just human wisdom. Spiritual wisdom is given freely by the Spirit, not inaccessible.
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Cor. 3:1-3).
Finally Paul distinguishes that the mark of the immature was and is division (strife), not the message of Christ crucified. Paul then explains why the cross is preached to the simple:
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is (1 Cor. 3:11-13).
All wisdom is founded on Jesus Christ, whether it is of the foundation, or of precious metals and jewels.
Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's (1 Cor. 3:21-23).
The contrast to the message of division, which must be the message of mature wisdom, is that all things are Christ's; and thus the foundation of the cross informs all true wisdom.
The hidden wisdom is not "secret" in the sense of guarded, but it is not received except by the "perfect" defined as those "of the Spirit of God". The sense in which secrets exist in Christianity is not best described by Clement's and Origen's principle of "reserve" (secrets that it is believed harmful to share), but in the sense of Paul's principle that secrets can be shared freely because only the mature will receive them, which echoes Jesus:
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matt. 10:26-28).
Therefore the dispute between Irenaeus and Valentinus was not a matter of politics ("a dispute over who was authorized"), but a matter of which esoteric teaching was gold, silver, gems, and which was wood, hay, stubble, a matter that was and is publicly decidable.
The fact that Valentinus treats Scripture "not as a literal account of supernatural events, but as a symbolic and transformative narrative describing the human condition", shows that Valentinus stood outside Jesus's tradition that not a letter or serif would depart from Scripture but that all would be fulfilled, that Adam and Noah and Abraham were real people with real covenants, and that Christ crucified was the culminating historical event demonstrating the succession of literal truths transmitted as the foundation of hidden spiritual wisdom about unity in Christ. Valentinus actually teaches, according to Irenaeus, that "the anointed (Christ) was not emitted from the aeons within the fullness. Rather, he and a shadow were engendered by the mother, according to her memory of the superior realm, while she was outside (of the fullness)." This is contrary to the literal recognition that the Christ was conceived of the virgin at a verifiable historical moment, and thus only one system can be golden wisdom, not both.
To say that Valentinus achieves salvation not through "belief in historical propositions, but through recognition—an awakening to one’s true identity", is to substitute one set of competing propositions for another, allowing the external judgment of which propositions are stubble. Valentinus's core teaching as cited in Irenaeus is: "There was a duality, of which one member is called the ineffable and the other is called silence .... Then from this duality a second duality was emitted, of which one member he calls the parent and the other he calls truth. The quartet yielded: the Word; life; the human being; the church. This is the first octet. And—he says—from the Word and life ten powers were emitted, as I already said. And from the human being and the church twelve powers were emitted." None of this has to do with any Pauline or Biblical tradition, and even if we were to take it as most charitable it would only be a systematization of divine attributes that does not yield either useful indications of proper divine or human activity or judgment about any historical testimony; therefore it meets the category of building stubble on the foundation, upon which no man can be supported.
According to Tertullian, Valentinus did perceive himself as a rebel: "Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith."
It is very true that "Jewish precedents for non-literal engagement with sacred texts were already well established prior to and during the first century." These are exceptionally well-attested in the prophets, the Mishnah, the New Testament, the Essenes, and the patristics. The difference between this continuous covenant strand and Valentinus is that Valentinus rejected literal teaching about Christ while the covenantalists built upon literal teaching with their spiritual applications. For instance, it was a canon of statutory construction that, no matter what allegorical meaning had been drawn, one must always return to the question, "But what is the plain meaning (pshat, literal)?"
The fact that Ebionites upheld Moses but didn't literally apply all tenets is identical to the fact that the Jerusalem Council (c. 50, before most Pauline theology) also upheld Moses but didn't literally apply all tenets, and is explained by the fact that both the Council's audience and the Ebionites were largely Gentiles and had not been inducted into Jewish traditions but only those Messianic traditions that applied to both Jew and Gentile.
Thus there is no evidence that in the covenant people "spiritual discernment was privileged over literalism", but rather spiritual discernment supplemented literalism. (Similarly, in the modern church, literalism should not be privileged over discernment but must supplement it.)
TLDR: While much useful background appears herein, the central issue to be taken from Valentinus's case is whether spiritual wisdom contradicts or supplements historical truths. That can only be judged by actual statements that reject historical truths, and not from statements that draw spiritual applications without rejecting the historical truth basis, because such applications were commonly drawn by many without rejecting the history, as Paul clearly taught about the symbolic meaning of Sarah and Hagar. The only group of this period that clearly rejected literal teaching as a group was the Sadducees, which ceased to exist by the 70s AD. Therefore to the degree that Valentinus was quoted as rejecting literality he was unique and unsupported in Christian tradition, and to the degree that his teachings do not explicitly reject literality they cannot be used to support that practice, even as spiritual wisdom is to be commended.
Your contributions are being escalated to u/Paleo.
Correct, in 2337 BC. Like with many events, the devil wants you to think it was older so that he gets undue credit for being older and wiser than he is.
All history prior to 2337 BC is prediluvian. Quite a lot is known about it.
Yes, except it was written in 1900 with the Fed created in 1913 so it's an allegory of where Baum rightly thought economics was going. More about federalized manipulation and panic than about a specific central bank.
The wizard uses levers to control the Oz. The gold and silver ounce.
Not every question, discussion, or debate is to be had. If I am meant to answer your questions, I will. Please have patience and accept that perhaps the interaction you seek is not meant to be.
Not every question, discussion, or debate is to be had. If I am meant to answer your questions, I will.
Say No To Emotional Manipulation In Religious Settings .... These tactics are not signs of spiritual depth or truth.
The bans were initiated because you violated the rules on the forums.
Please feel free to introduce yourself and share what has drawn you to TheWay. You are welcome to ask sincere questions, reflect on your own walk, and contribute insights rooted in lived experience. Discussion here is intended to be respectful, contemplative, and oriented toward practice rather than argument. Feel free to make a post coming from your heart, and if unsure about whether or not it's appropriate for the forum feel free to ask.
I found a previous post of yours that I removed to have had a veiled threat that if I didn't do what you wanted, you'd attempt to punish me by character assassination on this forum as you have done.
If you're interested in discussing the things you brought up to me in the Emotional Healing forum, I suggest making a post about it on an appropriate forum and pinging me to it. Perhaps you could post it on one of the forums you mod or at the Conspiracies forum (If you want to post anything about me over there, go ahead).
u/Thisisnotanexit since it looks like you're going to be the mod on this forum, can you please assess u/SwampRangers Meta post about me on this forum at https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARdRCVGst/meta-uexpressionofthesoul/c, and assess whether or not it's in line with the rules and guidelines of the c/Conspiracies forum. If you deem the content is in violation I would appreciate if you would undertake appropriate action.
We examine how absolutist beliefs, unchecked authority, and fear-based doctrine are used to control, silence, and harm, often under claims of divine mandate. Our focus is on ideas, institutions, and patterns of behavior—not personal attacks.
There were no Jews in 2000 BC and the artwork is from a known Gentile. I'll add it to my hoaxes article.
Interesting that Kirk was SDA-favorable. The original White vision has been refined and made evangelical with the help of anti-cultist Walter Martin in the 20th century, so it's not solely White anymore. The modern view tones down the anti-Catholic rhetoric but continues to note things like the Catholics priding themselves on "moving" the Sabbath when they shouldn't say that because the reality is much more complex. When you talk Sabbath, all major Christian movements are missing pieces, and it took me over 25 years to get them all and be able to talk reasonably about any aspect of the issue.
My joke is that all SDA predictions about "Sunday law" came true in 2020, when all world governments jointly forbid everyone from most all activity on every Sunday (and also every other weekday). So now we're in the post-Sunday-law era ....
But if Kirk was specifically anti-Catholic it only goes with the territory.
Why don't you answer my initial questions?
Why do you refuse to say straight out that Christians can or cannot contribute to your forum?
What's wrong with trying to accommodate you by giving more exposure to a non-Christian bringing oddities in the Bible to light?
Vatican City is not a legally defined country but a nonmember observer state. All legally defined countries meet a few basic standards defined by the UN for its members. I'm surprised more micronations haven't come forward to join the UN.
https://scored.co/c/Christianity/p/19957g6WI4/i-found-the-real-synagogue-of-sa/c
Both the light and the enemy use narratives to resonate their work through history. This post makes about the worst use of the narrative power that I've seen in quite awhile. Without standards for judging narratives, you will have much less success in rightly selecting the narratives that propagate the light.
I just commented on this at the end of my previous so I'm glad that much is in synch. Sure, you can post FE to the bigger boards, but then I still am unclear on the goal; you're either out to prove it to people or you don't care how big the board is, you're either out to demonstrate that you're a reasonable guy or you don't care if people think you unreasonable, etc. But because I'm the one running c/FlatEarth and c/Holocaust you can make them anything you want and build anything from them, assuming you're clear on your goal.
If you want people to post stuff so you can say "doesn't prove it", that's noble, but I'm not sure how that's better than the autodidactic approach. I like to start by ensuring others are committed to the truth at all costs, because that has a way of unifying open-minded people in coming to consensus on the discussion, but if you thrive on conflict then c/Conspiracies is really the wild west right now (effectively unmoderated).
Will be happy to use your language, ex-glober is nice!
Dark energy is also held to slow down movement in the universe as well as dark matter, but I neglected that it had a second purpose, to support an accelerating expansion model with faulty calculations. The problem is that we know there's some kind of zero-point energy out there but then scientists just said let's make dark energy a category of it so we can get our math to work even though there's no experimental evidence of dark energy otherwise. Until all the math agrees, though, any theory can be entertained.