Not everyone cares or listens. But the original point of the question you were responding to was that it seems strange that God would communicate with people in an intelligible or familiar or baser way. So being all powerful is irrelevant, because if we do it then why couldn't or wouldn't God do it? There's nothing wrong with communicating in the way that the targets in question will comprehend. That's the point of communication.
So that...you can comprehend the communication? Are you going to forget how to write or speak with your mouth when there is telepathy available and the next thing? Does Telnet still work?
They would've known about God 3,000 years ago. No, Chinese and Native Americans and etc did not ignore him. Abraham was of a pagan land when he first encountered God.
In any case, it was definitely communicated across the world. If you're picking a specific point in time when first contact was established according to a specific tradition, that might raise a question of why first contract there and in that way. But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and scribed history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
I don't think the Year of Jubilee would eliminate capitalism. It just adds a reset into the assumptions so that nobody is ever screwed. Instead, there's a reset available for people every so often. I also think the Bible says a lot about wisdom and how to earn a profit, not just in financial terms but in time management too. Proverbs has many examples.
So I would say that on the Bible, we'd still have free markets but with more guard rails so that nobody falls through the cracks if they're at least trying.
I do think we should bring back the Year of Jubilee though. Ironically, 2025 is a Year of Jubilee. I'm a big fan and I'm sure there are viable modern interpretations for it.
In history, America has been one of the most generous nations, if not the most generous, as far as charitable contributions go. I think people say "Jesus was a socialist" because they consider it an easy way to win more points in a debate or to ask for more social benefit spending. You can be a capitalist and still distribute wealth to the poor and needy, help the sick, forgive debts, be nice to immigrants, etc. There are entire products that are built to facilitate those things and enterprising individuals are able to donate from their surplus for those things too.
None of those things have anything to do with who owns the means of production or taking things from people who produced them, though. Jesus advocated for voluntary selflessness, not charity by compulsion. And certainly he didn't advocate for there to be a hall monitor on someone's personal life and income in order for that hall monitor to be the arbiter of whether or not it's all according to Jesus' "socialist" tendencies.
In modern American political discourse, if Jesus showed up he'd be expected to do miraculous things like multiplying resources. So...I don't see how meaningful it is for someone to say Jesus would be a socialist as if it is any kind of informed or useful commentary on the state of American discourse.
Because that is part of what he came to do at that time. He intentionally chose to die on a cross and fast in the wilderness. If he wanted an escape hatch from that fate, he would've not come or he would've summoned a bunch of angels to defend him.
Who said he ignored the rest of humanity? That's not what the record shows. Most people know about God. Who said that in all the universe he chose just earth?
You're assuming too much about the motivations. I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
Jesus was a socialist? Was that before or after he used supernatural powers to increase the quantity of food instantly? Easy to be a "socialist" in such cases, but let's not pretend that there's any serious economic theorizing being done when people say this about Jesus. It's usually just a convenience for people looking to grift or instigate. lmao.
If this was the case at any point, or is still the case, DOGE should definitely be quarantined until CAT audits DOGE's accesses and changes. There should be two teams operating alongside each other on this. Not just DOGE. I do believe so far they were claimed to have received read-only access...but other reports were that they even had some admin access. Do we know for sure what access they had unmonitored?
If I had to make a determination about it, I'd trust my eyes and quarantine DOGE's access until its accesses and changes can be audited by CAT. That is because the consequences of being wrong on this are too high, and there is plenty of time to be cautious about things and to ensure that everything is good. Zero legitimate reason has been provided for the level of rushing observed.
My position is very clear and I maintain it. DOGE should be audited by CAT and CAT should operate alongside DOGE to review all changes. DOGE should also be on a leash, even quarantined, while reviews are ongoing as to ensure sustainable changes and accesses.
My interest in having any kind of "superposition" is simply to be impartial and accurate to the greatest degree possible as to get the greatest results possible. That is it. In any case, you got it wrong when you said:
> * a veneer of emotional maturity over others: "we don't have to be so stressed about needing to trust DOGE's changes"
There is nothing like that at all in my posts. What I was saying is that DOGE should operate with such a level of transparency and controls that would eliminate needing to simply trust DOGE's changes. Tthus the stress that goes along with that level of trust would fade away.
> * a surrender of high-ground via tenuous appeal-to-authority "Bibi says he's not a nazi"
That is not an appeal to authority. It is saying that the people who are most equipped to answer the question, because it is a matter of their own history and hide, are the ones saying that it warrants overlooking or good faith. By all means, continue that line of investigation on your own if you want.
> I should not have done my drive-by
I agree! Because it's poor faith and on top of that you're questioning my own consistency and integrity to boot, even though it's clear that in one case X has premium features warranting a credit card...whereas there's no reason at all to blast my bank account details on here...
Anyway, to summarize it all...CAT should audit DOGE and DOGE should be on a tighter leash or quarantined if they cannot be trusted to make changes.
Different contexts. Regulated in my comment meaning observed, reviewed, audited in kind. They should not be operating on any site and in any system without someone watching over their shoulder, figuratively and literally too.
Whereas the regulation in your context pertains to regulations that are codified as laws or rules to follow.
This is correct. Depending on the stakes, the right answer would be to err on the side of caution. Certainly repeated incompetence in a private setting would be grounds for suspension or termination.
DOGE and POTUS are incentivized to follow through on this type of thing because it would increase good-faith in the masses big time. I don't think they'd renege on it. I'm certainly not naive! You can see that I've been contradicting DOGE on things since they became a thing. (@cyrsbel on X)
So far they said 20% refunds, 20% against the debt, and the rest...presumably they are determining to what extent to put that into tax cuts and the other two buckets some more. This way everyone wins, assuming their savings so far are sustainable and annualized.