Good, now let's remove the ambiguity. Do you mean saying "you must kill a baby" i.e. ending the life of one who cannot possibly be charged with a conscious crime is a good thing, or do you mean saying "you may kill a baby" i.e. given certain circumstances (just war) your prosecution of righteousness might accidentally include death of a baby? Add: You've answered, so I'll follow up separately.

Add: I'll have to look at the context for your second question. Add: Yeah, in this case (given the rapid fire of your off-topic complaints) "you’re right, my bad, I shouldn’t be ... disingenuous". That permission applies in other circumstances, but in 1 Sam. 15 the context was clear that all were intended, where the prior charge was given (verse 2). That's why I said there were a couple such cases. If you can answer the first disambiguation I'll comment on that. To the second, I'd return to my question to you of whether just war is ever permitted to allow death of children or whether human shields always take the high moral ground.

Read it. "Warred indiscriminately" means without "regulations, negotiations, and humanitarian steps". Plus the imperative voice isn't what we mean in English, not "you must kill all children", but "you may kill children", because the offers of peace were refused and the prior crimes of Amalek were judged and documented.

Would you like to make a binary proposition, without namecalling arising from your disingenuous reading of my words, about when a just war includes the risk of death of children and when it doesn't? Or is putting the kids at the bomb targets as human shields always a trump card because no moral person would ever bomb the same? That would mean the pedophiles could just trot out their soul-sucked pandas when they were threatened militarily and continue to complain that they the aggressors are being victimized. I don't think that's your view of proper warfare. Either there does exist a time to call the bluff of human shields, or there does not exist such a time, pick one.

^ disingenuous

First, I don't use that word to mean your definition of "willful misinterpreter".

Second, it's very rare that I'm willful and disingenuous about my misinterpretation. The closest I come is when I say something like "if you really want me to believe what you're saying literally", to demonstrate the gap between what's said and what the person thinks he said. That did happen here. Also you didn't see the gap, so I failed that.

Now, I do admit mistakes, including greater ones than misguessing that a person was able to follow my argument. We two have indeed had conversations where I've said I was wrong to make a hasty judgment from a difficult parse. But this is not one of those times. But, since you don't see it, I'm not pressing it, because that's not the point of OP. I have edited the comment out of consideration, even though I believe it was not namecalling or violation.

I suppose I also deserve a little pushback for my trying to honor you by returning to your material and my seeking to be honest with you enough to get conversation going. So I won't complain about your side swipes. But we can return to collegiality anytime. The central issue I'm working today is whether you ever want to make a commitment to a worldview or whether you want to be free to promote anything based solely on gut emotion without reference to logic. Sometimes I work with you winsomely to suggest propositions, sometimes I work more antagonistically to narrow down propositions. But it seems like when it's time to come down on a core belief, Graphenium Usually Always Chickens Out.

If we were to explore "all is one" we might get so far as agreeing that all that exists is true creation and all that is false does not exist. Reality exists, thoughts exist, thoughts map reality truly or falsely. Thoughts that map truly harmonize the reality of the thought and the reality it refers to; thoughts that map falsely refer to no reality. So the thought that "evil is good" would be false, because evil as a construct can never be a real creation but only an absence or deficiency effect of a real creation. And I don't see Ra/HH saying anything differently from "evil is good", no matter how we slice it. So try a proposition for me.

It's not a slur when it's a reasonable inference from your uncritical endorsement of what you now call a Hollow Earth joke (Prov. 26:18-19 "As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?").

These we discussed.

It's better overall for freewill to exist with a limited amount of evil actions than for it not to exist. Thus creating a knowledge of good and evil is good.

When a just war has been declared and the aggressor refuses terms of peace that would protect its children against war deaths, the fact that they are exposed to death and some die, with the exact circumstances left to God's judgment, is better overall than permitting the culture to remain and corrupt them further. The child who dies is spared from evils to come. On the human side, every effort is made to prevent collateral death while still carrying out an objective of stopping crimes against humanity; on the divine side, God gives justice according to his good view of it, and questioning his own justice is actually your next question.

When God determines a mass casualty event, it is just because the second cause of the casualties can always be traced to human abrogation of its responsibility for itself, and the first cause is that the narrative of when any person dies is, when reviewed by us "auditors", demonstrably connected to that person having had a full chance to choose right or wrong, however short or long the demonstration. History indicates that he has conducted only one significant mass casualty event (IIRC you believe in about 16), and that it had the beneficial effect of redirecting mankind toward laws of Noah, which appears to be more redemptive than the alternative of continuing the prior status quo. You're free to question God's justice, but then you'd need to come up with a better scale of justice in all respects, which you haven't; you just pick at tiny oddities without seeing any overall pattern.

Also the plan to come personally to conquer death after four millennia, when it appears we have many more millennia to come than that, is another deliberate choice. One could imagine a world in which he took much longer (and in fact you do), or much shorter, but the balance of things seems to have made this a good setting just like the other settings of the universe that work well together. He stated specifically that he gave mankind enough time to develop consistent universal methods of communication and transportation that are not subverted by deception and tyranny such that the message of his salvation could be spread the fastest in a single generation ("fullness of time"); seems like a good fit to me.

Do you want perhaps to pick a specific binary proposition so we can focus on it again? That's worked before, better than the typical sniping at God theory that hasn't worked since it was first refined in the 19th century.

The text is:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matt. 7:12).

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass (1 Sam. 15:3).

Yes, Graph, there's no conflict. I would rather that men had a just war policy than that they warred indiscriminately or that they regarded all war as wrong and allowed subversion indiscriminately. Therefore I would rather that they had an opportunity to go to war, assuming all regulations, negotiations, and humanitarian steps are taken, and on the rarest occasions (maybe twice in the Scripture) even include the children. In fact you have heavily defended the right of Gazans to have recourse to principles of just war that preclude what you think is their violation (being judged by the ICC right now). But, unlike Gaza, in the case of Amalek there was a prior evidentiary determination that they committed crimes against humanity and continued unabated, and there was a period of allowing any who wanted to exempt themselves, or their children, from an eventual war. Those that remain with a failed system after sufficient notice are responsible for their and their children's lives. If there were not a right to conduct just war then the pedophiles could continue their takeover unhindered despite their criminality.

Now, you don't have to believe that the Bible implies my interpretation, but if "all is one" then you would accept that all truth is one and falsehood is just a nullity, and so it's true that (binary commitment time) either just war exists or no war is just against any crime or subversion. I've given you a path to make that choice, but you have shown an aversion to committing to choices. That would be fine if you weren't so hard against those who have made commitments and stick to them, while you reserve two contradictory rights at once, the right to judge others for believing in just war, and the right to declare yourself effectively just for warring on criminals against humanity.

Since the time on the thread is almost run out, I'm using the luxury to be direct.

The namecalling as soon as something is questioned, yeah I remember it all, Graph. If "the worldview expressed" "far more accurately than any other" feels free to play fast and loose with Hollow Earth, that's more likely revelation of method than it is actual belief and allegiance. I don't know why you cling so uncritically to particular crystallized moments in time if it isn't some kind of euphoric experience you've gotten out of them and a hope to recover it; it isn't about logic, as it goes to a defense of some kind of inerrancy at least as strong as my reasoned defense of Biblical inerrancy.

Okay, I've got the intro page open to "it is also my opinion that this book and the subsequent volumes of the Ra material contain the most useful information that I have discovered". Now I'm currently reading a complete different book on a different subject by a guy who thinks he understands science and trances, so I'm not guaranteeing I'm coming back to this soon because it's unhealthy to do too many of these at once, but I'll keep it open.

Problem is, just as HH is easy to fake, Ra is so perfectly aligned to the Biblical narrative in which the channeled entities are the Bad Guys that there's little room for a view in which the channeled might be Good Guys. If they say the Bible is wrong without a commensurate evidentiary argument, that's a marker of Bad; if they say there's an amoral or supermoral sentient race beyond our ken, or common human morality is misguided, that's a marker of Bad; if they promote sympathy for the devil in some way other than those Christians who are seeking to define a hopeful universalism, that's a marker of Bad. Not because the Bible is automatically subjectively "Good" but because the Bible has objectively passed many tests of truth that Ra has not. For people who don't have a Christian mythopoeia, any developed fictional worldbuilding will do because it feels "better" (more constructed) than other things one has confronted. Especially if a person gets deep with the myth and shallow with the Bible, having had some bad experience with it because people do misinterpret and mischaracterize it, they insulate themselves doubly against truth, (as the Bible says) building their own broken cisterns and rejecting the spring of the water of life in the same move. But the youth who has been exposed to the whole Bible consistently can gainsay the weltanschauung zeitgeist.

Now I suppose I should say that since the generic grey-reptilian alien war story is easily debunked for its cover I should be glad that you're giving me opportunity to investigate the potentially more insidious 4th-density harvest story. But of course it's the same, the greys want to take us to the age of Aquarius (an event you also believe in), the Ra entities want to take us to the 4th density, it's just about getting our misleadingly informed consent. Genesis 3 again. Yesterday we campaigned, today you voted. I'm already on record for the heaven that I chose, or that chose me, I don't have a reason for review of the 4th-density attempt, or the Urantian or Mayan attempts. For your sake if there's something I can learn to help us communicate, well and good, but if your worldview is "whatever Carla Rueckert says in a trance" then you're kinda tied to a particular Gospel that is at its core contradictory to the good news I've learned. If "all is one" then destroying you is the same as blessing you and there is no basis for social relationship or in fact doing or not doing anything.

If you think it worth my while, the pages I'll keep open are Previous Synopsis and Synopsis (!) and check their links, at my convenience.

6,018. "Let's stick to the facts here." Plus the point is taken, you're not defending OP language so there's no point to OP.

Just not that interested in what Ra has to say, compared to other pursuits. I'm actually not writing to convince, but I have a whole lot all ready to share and so it looks like conviction. OTOH I can't say that you have convictions in your mind, just a couple unaccountable ones in your actions. "I want to talk Ra", e.g., and whether one agrees with Ra or ignores him or ridicules him or fights him your desire to talk doesn't change. That's called "groupie".

Okay, so username doesn't check out. Spouting out theories without thinking them through critically doesn't go over well here. "Journey" to "heaven" is great, Truth is the only Way.

Thanks Critical.

If there are sentient spirit beings, will they too enter heaven, even if they're as bad as the Biblical devil?

Will the worst tyrants turn into perfect people in time, so that in a million years you might laugh in the heavens with someone who literally killed 10 million people (or billions over many lifetimes) about how (s)he doesn't deserve any punishment for that (and what does that mean for morality today)?

If you believe in reincarnation, have you considered the differences between gilgul, metempsychosis, and transmigration, and come down on a definitive position of the interim time, the nature of memory and amnesia, and the relationship of souls and oversouls?

Is there perhaps a time when a person's freewill has the power to "lock in" the desire to reject good and morality forever, or is a person not free to lock that desire in because such desire will always be thwarted sooner or later?

Things to think about.

u/Graphenium, you didn't pick up on my prior thoughts here.

Since I met you, you've had this interesting tack. You really want dialogues on the whizbang feeling you get about some very specific data points that inspire you so much that you appear to love to speak about them endlessly, Ra or Chang or Atlantis; but then you don't actually seem to contribute much to dialogue. It's odd to hear myself saying that but it's an attempt to diagnose.

When I ask what you've got in reality, it's all generic maybes and kindas. When I supply my own definite beliefs, those too are met by more of the same. You seem committed to truth while also not responsible to select any particular truth beyond that original commitment while also excessively evangelistic about particular experiences about how great these things make you feel and how much you want to talk about them yet without saying anything committal.

Well, there seems to be a little bit of pent-up analysis coming out fast now that I've opened that valve a little bit.

To take it somewhere, OP is: "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." I respond that HH is just recycling simple illuminatist talk like I could fake anytime (who's to say I haven't or won't) and isn't even consistent. You're literally (Add:) DEFENDING a Hollow Earther according to HH on 10-24 21:53 and you're literally defending that as the most accurate explanation of any in the world. Now you could back off and say, no, what you mean is that the general picture of the devil actually being good (by his own judgment) is the most accurate general picture of all, the specifics are unimportant, but (a) that's not what you said and (b) that too is merely a theodicy copout that we haven't plumbed yet between us.

So can we at least find out what you actually mean in OP without saying Hollow Earth is more accurate than anything? Can you come down on a solid position such as "Helel is a Good Moral Agent" or do you just want to continue playing gadfly and pretending you're not getting bugzapped?

So universalism? Sympathy for the devil? Where do you put this forum's favorite despots and tyrants when they die, are they Jesuses?

I appreciate your saying it's your opinion because I have relative respect for universalists who don't insist on everyone else agreeing with them. (Kinda defeats the argument of universalism to believe that some argument is necessary to get others to agree with you if you believe they will already.)

I stick to God's Word revealed in the Bible; if that's an "apologist" sobeit.

If you accept "the Father and I are [plural] one" that implies that Father and Son have both diversity and unity. You, mind and body, have unity, and you, mind and body, have diversity. Pretty simple.

What would be confusion is if someone said something is unity and diversity at the same time and in the same sense; that would be a contradiction instead of a resolvable paradox. But nobody says that. If you think people are saying something contradictory, just go a bit deeper to see the different things that different clauses refer to. You are one, mind and body are two, but you are yet mind and body, because you are not one in the same way that you are two. If you understand how that paradox works then there's no problem applying the same reasoning to All Being.

You say "united somehow", but Jesus also says "one" i.e. united somehow. If you're mindboggled it can be resolved simply by analyzing what you or others are saying; there's always a resolution. I apologize for the billions of Christians who have copped out and said it can't be understood. I've concluded anything can be understood.

The Church managed to change a lot of things

Correct! Yet what else did Jesus's own disciples see in him? Omniscience ("you know all things"), omnipresence ("there I am in the midst of them"), omnipotence ("none can snatch them from my hand"), eternity ("before Abraham was, I am"), I have a list of 40 divine attributes around here somewhere.

Jesus was declared to be the very Word of God made flesh, who was with God at creation and through whom God made all things.

Yeah, John 1. As Christians we accept the whole Bible as infallible in the original manuscripts. You haven't objected to that so if you have a problem with texts you might want to explain it so I know where you're coming from.

Eventually Jesus came to be seen as God in every respect, coeternal with the Father, of the same substance as the Father, equal to the Father within the Trinity of three persons, but one God.

Yeah. There is one exception, which I already pointed out to you: when an opposite has two complementary poles, like father and son, or greater and lesser, God is both of them in his diversity (and God is the whole spectrum in his unity). The rest of the time, when the opposite of a thing is a nothing, God is the the thing (being all being). So Jesus is God in every respect in which the Father is God, except a very small number of respects in which Jesus and the Father are two diverse expressions of the same spectrum.

I looked at the development of these things and sought to be very considerate of antitrinitarian concerns. I found that the sincere antitrinitarians (not the reactionary ones) were willing to agree to uphold the whole text and then it's simply a matter of not forcing any propositions that aren't clear in the text. The development of the doctrines was not the problem, it was the adding of words that are very tenuously tied to the text (like Latin "person") that distances the doctrine from the text and allows mistakes in the minds of modern readers. I am very hopeful your sincere inquiry will get all your questions answered and confusions dispelled.

Some opposites are between something and nothing, like real and unreal. God is real and God is not unreal, God is all being and is not nothing.

Some opposites are between two poles that ultimately resolve, even if paradoxically. God is Father and God is Son, God is Reality and God is Symbol. In Greek, fathers and sons have the same "living" and "substance", referring to their estate; that's what bios and ousia mean.

If by "trinity" you want to mean that God is nothing or is unreal, that won't work. "Trinity" literally just means threeness but has come lately to mean triunity, three-in-oneness; it doesn't mean nothing or unreality.

The lesser (Samael) is so much less that he does not deserve the titles creator, deity, demiurge, or Yahweh. If gnostics are so monist you'd think they wouldn't deify some subaeonic upstart. The whole Sophia shtik is simply kicking theodicy down the road. Christ is about timeless emanation, not sequential emanation, which literally comes from Kek of the Egyptian ogdoad.

Israel and Yahweh both have a few historical citations prior to 1000 BC, and David has a few by name shortly after. Shoshenq I left records in Byblos, Megiddo, and Karnak of his conquest of named cities of Israel in 925 BC, exactly the time at which the Bible chronology says he (under the name Shishak) attacked Solomon's son Rehoboam. But Israel was generally recognized as similar to other Semitic tribes, i.e. they were Hyksos and Aamu; Abisha the Hyksos was drawn for a hieroglyphic display at around the time Abraham's family kept visiting pharaohs like Sesostris.

I'm pretty confident that the pig-free settlements go back to ca. 1200 BC, that being the primary marker of the Israelites seeing as such nomads left very few other traces.

[Assyrian] "Sennacherib's third campaign, directed against the kingdoms and city-states in the Levant, is very well-documented compared to many other events in the ancient Near East and is the best-documented event in the history of Israel during the First Temple period." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sennacherib&oldid=1345345960

You suggest the Philistinians should have left records about a Jewish state. Did the Peleset people leave any records about anything at all?

You say "There is also no any historical proof that Jews are descendants of biblical Jacob." Why are they called "Jews" then if they don't come from Judah? What would be wrong with identifying the founder of the tribe by that name and the founder of the Levites among them as Judah's brother Levi?

Thank you for supporting Jesus, I appreciate your views generally and am not speaking or asking antagonistically. All records of Jesus indicate that he believed literally in Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, Levi, Judah, Moses, David, and Solomon. Was he wrong?

Read the link you replied to separately and tell me a better explanation for the suddenness of a complete resurrection narrative (now believed by 2.5 billion people) arising from an otherwise defeated cluster (like any of a half-dozen other circles built around dead messiahs known historically of the era, like Theudas), i.e. something better than a very imaginative, compelling, and wholly consistent moral-spiritual narrative arising around a historical Jewish hippie named Josh.

What was Josh executed for if not miracle?

Yeah, there were lots of people outside the Gospels in the 1st and 2nd century that said Jesus raised the dead. None of them gave this particular detail that Matthew gives, but it's not significant compared to Jesus himself coming back, which is the core claim that either is completely true or is so amazing that it would take a Jesus to invent it fresh. It wasn't a "massive" number, probably a dozen or so would suffice. And the Talmud demonstrates that the Jews are constantly expecting, and mythologizing, that their fathers are often returning to them bodily to give advice, so all those testimonies also reflect the Matthaean event.

There was no party among the seven or eight Jewish political divisions and many subdivisions that had incentive to popularize these particular "Elijah sightings" as opposed to any others more in line with the emerging Pharisee consensus. Except the new completely unfunded movement, the Messianics (the Way). So it's natural that the Messianics are the only ones to be specific about that resurrection. But about healing, raising the dead, and doing wonders in general, there are many such contemporary testimonies, starting with Tacitus, listed in the link I gave.

You call me "false on every count" and then provide no proof, even though all I did was ask questions. This is an inquiry board but you seem to have your mind made up. Feel free to give evidence rather than circumstantial inference about something I didn't say.

It's a good start and I'm generally supportive. The problem with abandoning everyone and embracing Sitchin is that one particular superpower (Yahweh as taught by Jesus) seems to be winning the game of superpowers right now and that's the side I've chosen. Near East scholar Michael Heiser takes a much more balanced approach that doesn't IMHO contradict the core of the "Anunnaki paradigm".

Correct, Ezek. 28 ties the prince of Tyre and king of Tyre so closely that one might well be the identical son of the other. I think that the current satan is too smart to have been one to have gotten caught up in human flesh in Phoenicia, though, he may have left that to other satan(s).

The Collapse was sudden like Sodom before collapsed suddenly: the culture reached a point of immediate self-destruction, as archaeology attests. It was complete for those cultures for the same reason. We can argue that Jephthah gave fair warning in Judg. 11:24 (which I date as 1174, 300 years after Joshua's death), published widely, that Chemosh would have to fend for himself from then on.

Spiritually, the many nations taking over while the Canaanites collapsed could easily mesh with a satanic consolidation, as satan's game is always to sacrifice one failed work to save others, the more "glorious" the destruction, the better, he thinks. IMHO the corruption and then destruction of the Templars in the 1300s AD was a similar consolidation.

I'm fine with an 1100s Tyrian king being an incarnation a la Anunnaki, but Ezekiel is talking about a 500s Tyrian king if any, so it won't be the same human. If you want to say the satanic HQ was Byblos or Sidon for a long time, that's very reasonable, though I would expect him to have been using backups then too. So I don't see much for me to abandon given your approach so far. How about laying on us the next chapter?

Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?

Do you know that most historical figures of the era are not mentioned by authors for hundreds of years after their death?

Do you know that most scholars agree 1 Cor. 15:3-4 indicates an oral creed circulating about Jesus 3-5 years after his death in 33?

Do you know that Jesus is better historically attested than most other people who lived in that era?

Do you know that if Jesus didn't exist as a person, it would take a person as great as Jesus to be able to invent and propagate such a complicated origin narrative?

Have you read the top pinned post and reply at c/Atheism?

Add: The mods here will be very interested in the most recent several handshake accounts (at least four). Welcome back.

That twists the word "Jew" out of all proportion and just makes it mean "anyone I hate", which is not very communicative.

Christians know that "Jew" is Hebrew for "praiser".

But at least I understand now where you think it went wrong. Very funny. Emperor Theodosius I (347-395) and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386). Both Nicene, very funny. I thought you were thinking of something that happened in the 5th century but no.

So who or what is God if not unity in diversity?

Complacency to government corruption has been a problem for a very long time.

110% voter turnout in 1860

The Bronze Age collapse ca. 1200 was the fall of Canaanite pedophile culture under its own weight allowing lots of Semitic (many), Japhthetic (Caphtorite, Athenian), and Hamitic (Egyptian) tribes to control regions of the Levant. We have all the idols and temples to prove it. The Sea Peoples were Phoenician and were one of those many tribes who benefitted but there were many others. Satan is usually behind all nations that collapse and most nations that replace, so no surprise there. You're right it's not talked about enough, but most of the replacing nations left records of their conquests that modern history thinks are too dull to review. The fact that "bad guys" run most nations at most times isn't a surprise either. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

I'm not as interested in the thoughts of OP "Dr. Professor Eric H. Cline, Ph.D." or the "National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)". When he sells his book on the idea that in 1177 "with their end came the world’s first recorded Dark Ages", he's kinda ignoring the fact that Egypt had a strong New Kingdom from ca. 1540 to ca. 1070 with no interruption due to the nearby Bronze Age Collapse. I suppose you could make a case that Egypt was somehow "subjugated" to priestcraft in the latter of those days but that is a highly speculative theory that doesn't indicate a historical trajectory or a connection to Canaan or Israel. The House of Ramses and the priests worked together throughout the whole later New Kingdom. So I doubt OP is worth it.