Amaterasu, although I really enjoy a lot of your post and in keeping with the theme of K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid), I still find it lacking those elements of the Ten Commandments which begin with loving God first, and loving your neighbor as yourself. I know you don't agree with that but respectfully submit that as flesh and blood men and women, we are under a higher authority than natural (or what once was called "common law)".
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Mathew 23:8) which places all people on an equal footing. To try to simplify or break down those commandments to just three rules, or even simpler as there are only two rules an a free society 1. Mind your own business, as 2. Keep your hands to yourself also exempts the practice of love by omission of the very source of the materials that these thoughts evolved from. We do have the sovereignty of free will and choice until or unless we are being stripped of our agency to exercise the same.
The "Hunger Games" being along the lines of that song from a Jame's Bond movie of "Live and Let Die", has been systematically burned into the lexicon of our minds that people have forgotten the former things that promoted, "Live and Let Live". I quietly was following the exchange between you and Professor Fred Nazer, and thought I should at least give some of those thoughts further consideration.
Romans 8:5-8 explains humanity very well and simply. Are you of the Flesh or of the Spirit? If of the Flesh-there doesn't seem to be any sovereignty observable and if you are of the Spirit... well... no one, no thing can strip one of their free will and sovereignty. Not their jurisdiction.
Respectfully, I'm sure you've read the 1th amendment's platitudinous logic of "Congress (aka the legislative democracy aka the mob) shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Although it is cloaked in the language of neutrality, it embraces the same hocus pokus of neither confirm or deny arguments. When you use the term "We" respectively, does it reflect the term "I"? The tribalism of "We" are a lot of confused humans who rarely agree on the most basic precepts of life without controversy, why is that?
In answering your question with the focus on the words "chose" and "if" it always comes back to personal choices, and if is a hinge that can swing both ways. Like any injunctive it can be both inclusive and exclusive like the terms "and/or". The reason the statist get away with their force and frauds is because people themselves are too fickle to remain resolute on any given set of rules that are applicable to all. The money interest has polluted the better sensibilities of the general population. If there is a God and a Devil, and if their is such a thing as sins and trespasses, logically it would follow that there must also be such a thing as a fair and impartial judgement which in reality is elusive as the fabled unicorn.
So True and well said Amaterasu!
Let’s create an army letting People know We do not have to consent! Humble thanks for Your payment of appreciation!
So True!
Bravo. Not nearly enough people calling for and offering advice on resistance or action, given all the bullshit we're subjected to.
🙏🏻 💜 🙏🏻 Most humble thanks for Your payment of appreciation! I am enriched! I do hope You will share awareness that We do not have to consent.
To stop "voting" is very essential. It is a lethal clown show and no need to feed parasites. Respect God and yourselves. Withdraw consent.
The Needle Show is pathetic.
Withdraw your arm, withdraw your willingness to run errands for clowns. It starts with you.
Fear holds most people back until they realize DEUS SEMPER MAJOR and so are they themselves!
NEVER consent to cbdc EVER. It is satanic, evil, unworthy of man.
Very well said! 🙏🏻 💜 🙏🏻
Amaterasu, although I really enjoy a lot of your post and in keeping with the theme of K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid), I still find it lacking those elements of the Ten Commandments which begin with loving God first, and loving your neighbor as yourself. I know you don't agree with that but respectfully submit that as flesh and blood men and women, we are under a higher authority than natural (or what once was called "common law)".
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." (Mathew 23:8) which places all people on an equal footing. To try to simplify or break down those commandments to just three rules, or even simpler as there are only two rules an a free society 1. Mind your own business, as 2. Keep your hands to yourself also exempts the practice of love by omission of the very source of the materials that these thoughts evolved from. We do have the sovereignty of free will and choice until or unless we are being stripped of our agency to exercise the same.
The "Hunger Games" being along the lines of that song from a Jame's Bond movie of "Live and Let Die", has been systematically burned into the lexicon of our minds that people have forgotten the former things that promoted, "Live and Let Live". I quietly was following the exchange between you and Professor Fred Nazer, and thought I should at least give some of those thoughts further consideration.
Romans 8:5-8 explains humanity very well and simply. Are you of the Flesh or of the Spirit? If of the Flesh-there doesn't seem to be any sovereignty observable and if you are of the Spirit... well... no one, no thing can strip one of their free will and sovereignty. Not their jurisdiction.
Well, humbly, they will continue that way as I have no religion and do not see how believing in any God works to maintain a free and healthy society.
What problems would there be if We all followed the three Laws of Ethics?
''I say it is equal.''
Where does the debt come from and what collects it?
Sorry, what are You talking about?
Debt. Metaphysical Liability. Karmic debt.
''Where does the debt come from and what collects it?''
''Every infraction of the Law of nature must carry its punitive consequences with it. We can never get beyond that range of cause and effect.''
Justice, will be delivered.
What delivers justice in your three laws of Ethics?
They’re not MY Laws. They are ancient, the foundation of Common Law, and cover the things no One would say are okay to do to Them.
We all are responsible for arresting (or calling for help in arresting) Any who break the Laws… Come to think of it, I have an article:
The Society Of Ethical Sovereigns (SOES) Justice Way (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-society-of-ethical-sovereigns
''They’re not MY Laws. They are ancient, the foundation of Common Law, and cover the things no One would say are okay to do to Them.''
So, would you agree that there is a power that works on the plane of Nature? To cover the things.
Respectfully, I'm sure you've read the 1th amendment's platitudinous logic of "Congress (aka the legislative democracy aka the mob) shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Although it is cloaked in the language of neutrality, it embraces the same hocus pokus of neither confirm or deny arguments. When you use the term "We" respectively, does it reflect the term "I"? The tribalism of "We" are a lot of confused humans who rarely agree on the most basic precepts of life without controversy, why is that?
We. Humanity. Society. Human functioning. What problems would there be if Humanity chose to abide by those Laws?
In answering your question with the focus on the words "chose" and "if" it always comes back to personal choices, and if is a hinge that can swing both ways. Like any injunctive it can be both inclusive and exclusive like the terms "and/or". The reason the statist get away with their force and frauds is because people themselves are too fickle to remain resolute on any given set of rules that are applicable to all. The money interest has polluted the better sensibilities of the general population. If there is a God and a Devil, and if their is such a thing as sins and trespasses, logically it would follow that there must also be such a thing as a fair and impartial judgement which in reality is elusive as the fabled unicorn.
Legal schmegal.
Do you honestly think that ''they'' will follow any law if it doesn't suit them? You still don't get it.
Natural Law is the only law that there is.
And You don't get it. The three Laws of Ethics ARE Natural Law. Merely expressed in terms of the three things not to do.
And no, the moneyed psychopaths in control will do anything, Ethical or unEthical, if it serves Them. They are beneath the beasts.
Beneath the Beasts! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/beneath-the-beasts
Elon coming in with a political reset party so they can start all over again. They too are standing on the edge of the cliff.
An aim at a single party, is My guess. And I ponder whether They’re on the edge, with all Their money to pay Others with to do dirty work and such.
''pay Others with to do dirty work and such.''
Exactly. The person who takes the action collects the lion share of the debt to truth. Metaphysical Liabilities, that is.
I say it is equal. The One who initiates unEthical things with ideas/money is equally responsible as the One who is paid to do unEthical things.
I think you are correct. That's an error on ''them''.
💚✊🧡
🤗 💜 🤗
Some good approaches might be…
I heard X. What do You think?
Some are saying Y. Do You agree?
Frame the approach as if You are unsure and want opinions. And then take it from there…
I do wish You luck in getting through.