Notices by Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital), page 3
-
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 21:11:09 JST 
Ash Kvetchum
>every land is a swamp
Oh, man, lol It was over
I mostly play Commander--a little draft, too.
Cards that grant general unblockable traits (horsemanship, every land is a swamp, that idea) are of course fun, but they also remind me of a deck I use only at times that someone is annoying an entire table (by above table behavior, not gameplay).
In the deck, every creature is unblockable (from the beginning, on their own), every hit mills. Usually I can get out that hitting me destroys your creatures, and often I can get a mana-tax-to-hit-me up as well.
I hate this deck. It is my "Our games will be boring/quick/one-sided until you control your table behavior" deck. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Tuesday, 26-Mar-2024 14:27:14 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>swampwalk
lmao specific, brilliant, very nice -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Monday, 25-Mar-2024 23:06:07 JST
Ash Kvetchum
It's not "fig"; it's pronounced "fij." -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Monday, 25-Mar-2024 22:28:00 JST
Ash Kvetchum
I think the McAfee billionaire posting a Q on instagram after his death/"death" (idk and idc) is the lynchpin that kept the Q following chins up -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 23-Mar-2024 18:44:58 JST
Ash Kvetchum
When I was little, I heard youth pastors say, "Remember in [title in the series] when... " to explain even non-Revelation passages. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Saturday, 23-Mar-2024 18:43:08 JST
Ash Kvetchum
It's a fictional series called Left Behind. Churches ate it up. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 12:48:05 JST
Ash Kvetchum
👆
@GolfCartLady , what did I freakin' tell you -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 12:48:04 JST
Ash Kvetchum
:cry_hq:
Roombas, man
You know the prophecy
Shannon Alexander's kid drew my grave -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 12:48:03 JST
Ash Kvetchum
The witch here
:lookhard:
spoke them into existence in another thread
Then I scroll and see them *again*
I didn't get to make beer bread for the first time yet
:cry_hq: -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 12:47:59 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Tbh i can't tell on mobile
:animu_laugh: -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 12:30:33 JST
Ash Kvetchum
frog and statue head, talking in the same room as me:
>nurse
>milk
>suffocate
>matty -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 07:33:28 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>and put all the burden on the accused to undo it
accurate, powerful naming of their behavior -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 05:33:01 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Agreed. The root of the behavior of purity testing / ego-surfing is that people misunderstand the parameter of "the Body of Christ."
They infer the term means something along the line of:
>all churches
or more narrowly
>my denomination
or maybe half-way between those two extremes, as
>my denomination and those adjacent that share at least xyz belief(s)
But the Body of Christ is not a church, and it does not rest on *any belief.* (Compare that to the "calling out", the ek-kaleo, the "ecclessia", the church, which *does* rest on belief --namely, that the belief that he is the Christ (Matthew 16).)
The Body of Christ contains even non-believers. (Consider when Paul speaks of marriage between believers and non-believers in 1 Corinthians 7.)
We are to contend with one another (not making enemies of one another) to understand him as best as we can. We may even disagree and peacefully part ways till one is proved.
That has nothing to do with being of the Body of Christ.
We--non-believers, believers, faithful, unfaithful--all descendants of Adam, the wheat, planted by the Father--are joined to Christ (the head of the Body) by the Spirit (he is the head of the Body). You belong to that.
It is a statis, not a dynamic.
We are his by the Spirit--not by any church. The Spirit is not a belief. Ha claims us. We are sons.
We can reject that, but that doesn't make one not of Christ nor not of the Body. (However, it would make one not with the "calling out", the church. And that's all. It would naturally have effect on how one treats others--including how one treats the Body--and therefore affect our own judgment. The sheep will be judged by how they treated the least of the sheep.)
People forget that. And then they mistreat members of the Body. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 15-Mar-2024 16:21:25 JST
Ash Kvetchum
First of all, Cain cannot be Bigfoot because I have been to his house and he lets me eat his chicken. [pic (PROOF) related]
>I think being personally called out and expelled by God trumps the need for serpent Sneed
Part 4 (the final effortpost part, I expect) will I think at least be insightful to why I would think otherwise and what I have found convincing.
Here's a teaser of things needing explanation:
Sodom recieves death for its sin once its transgression is "full." At what point is it full? Which sin? Why didn't Cain recieve death for his sin?
And why was Cain (if the eldest son), not accepted with his offering? Why was Abel?
And shouldn't this be about one's fruit, as Christ says? (It should be, and it is.)
What commandment did Cain break? What law? (He didn't. But Sodom did.)
A lot will rest/kick off with this from Romans 5:
>Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Just hoping to show that this is an argument I'll actually build. (And you can observe for yourself and push it with what weight you can. Either it falls and I learn more or it stands and I learned how to convey what I'm seeing well along the way.)
It may have to be a two-parter. I think 1 is enough (succinct and weight bearing) and 2 would be going through the "and even here, this part agrees because."
I'll try to get Part 4 out tomorrow. We'll see! Thank you for discussing with me along the way.
(And did you see Part 2? Listing in the order of Melchizedek who was the first, second, third, fourth, etc.)
Thanks again
🥂 -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 15-Mar-2024 12:28:40 JST
Ash Kvetchum
[Part 3 .2]
Let me repeat one *essential* part of the 1 Corinthians 15 passage that deserves emphasis so that I better trace the method of salvation:
>As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
>We bear the image of the earthy (Adam, our father by the flesh)
and so were condemned by one man (read Romans 5, which talks about being condemned by one man, Adam) when Adam--the earthy image we bear--strayed by breaking the commandment to "not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." We were dead by the Spirit because our earthy image Head (Adam) fell to sin (missing the mark, astray from God's Spirit). His earthy body would have a spirit body straying from God. We, bearing the earthy image of Adam, upon death would also have a spirit body straying from God.
So what was the solution?
Christ and the Father are one. "Before Abraham was, I AM." Yahweh became a Son of Man, earthy. However, Adam is not *his* father. *You and every other descendant of Adam* has a father whose father whose father whose [...] father is Adam. Christ is a new Adam. Adam is not Christ's earthly Head. Christ is his own earthly Head. Christ would not bear the earthy image of Adam, our earthy Head.
At his baptism, the Yahweh "descended his Spirit" upon Christ. What is this? This is God breathing the Spirit into the second Adam.
Then, when Christ, a Son of Man in the flesh dies--and being Yahweh, a father, the first of fathers, the Father of Adam--the eldest living son (earthy image) (i.e. Christ, who is Yahweh) of that earthy father who just died (Yahweh) by the order of Melchizedek becomes the Spiritual Head.
The next living son earthy, living? The living, the resurrected, Christ.
And *that* Spiritual Head was not in sin, remember?
What's more: He is Yahweh himself. He will never stray from Yahweh.
So now by the Spirit (by the order of Melchizedek) the Head of our Body is Christ, not Adam. We bear an earthy image of Adam. We will die, but by the Spirit we live in Christ *because we are already saved*.
Salvation is not our reward. It is by grace alone. All descendants of Adam are saved.
We bear the image of the earthy Head (Adam), which will die to sin.
By our Spirit, we cannot sin (1 John 3:9) as our Spiritual Head is Christ.
On the last die, on the resurrection, we will have new bodies. We will bear an earthy image after Christ. (Back to Paul talking about the spiritual body being before an earthy body.)
Though all descended from Adam are thus saved by the Spirit, not all will be rewarded equally because they will be judged by how they treated one another.
Again, everything Christ and Paul and John et al. say makes sense *only* if Seth was the second in the order of Melchizedek because Seth was the *eldest living son* of Adam--and Cain was not Adam's, though born of Eve. (So descendants of Cain would *not* bear the earthy image of Adam--nor the Spiritual image Yahweh gave to Adam--and thus would not be under the salvation of Christ. In fact, you might say they would be a blasphemy of the Spirit (stray from God)--the only unforgivable--and liars after the image of *their* father. Christ says one may blaspheme the Son of Man and be forgiven (saved) but one may not blaspheme the Spirit.)
Christ calls the descendants of Cain devils, vipers. He talks about children of the wicked one.
I'll do a Part 4 either tomorrow or the next day. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 15-Mar-2024 12:28:39 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Also ignore typos, friends. Sometimes "were" should be "we're". I did not mean "the" Yahweh, haha. I was speed editing before switching over to cook. Thank you all for your patience. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 15-Mar-2024 11:24:42 JST
Ash Kvetchum
[Part 3 .1]
>I am trying to understand more about this specific view, because it's not a common biblical hermeneutic.
Thank you, Bowsac.
Some say I'm wrong. (I have yet to see them successfully restate things I am actually saying.) Meh--at least we'll gain something. The order of Melchizedek isn't something churches touch, now is it? (And it is critical to an understanding of *how* Christ's death saves us, rather than a surface understand (and leaving room for misunderstandings beneath the fact) *that* his death saves us.)
>I will still have people who insist [...]
I know that feeling.
Sometimes I feel like I'm waiting for ourguys to see that, just as there's an Overton window to look into politics that lies as a film to filter, there's an Overton window to look into Christianity--and it's even older. Its hellthread (the millennia of church denomination dogma and documents) cooled down. What it cooled down to is still deteriorating. ("Trannies can lead churches," "God is trans," "Homosexuality is not a sin," etc.)
I'll start by saying we are saved by the Spirit--not by our blood.
The tares--more concisely called (as Christ's explicit mapping/explanation to his disciples of the metaphor within the parable, after he had stated he would utter things kept secret since the foundation of the world) "the children of the wicked one"--also have ancestors descended from Adam. Even more: They also have ancestors descended from Abraham! And so they claim not just the promises to Adam and his descendants but also to Abraham and his descendants! And to Jacob! Yet I follow in Christ's statement that they will not be saved from destruction in the lake of fire. How then could someone say I claim it's your blood that saves you?
As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15
>There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Paul is talking about two things simultaneously at once because both topics have a "type" in common, poetically--much in the way you could talk about:
>Jacob having 12 sons, losing 1 (Joseph), replaced by 2 (Ephraim and Manasseh), and growing a body through them, and
>Christ having 12 disciples, losing 1 (Judas), replaced by 2 (Matthias in Acts 1 and of course Paul), and growing a body through them
The two topics Paul is talking about in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage above about having a natural and a spiritual are these, simultaneously:
> 1) You have a natural body and you have a spiritual body. You are born with your natural body first. Second is your spiritual body. (i.e. You are created. There isn't a spiritual you until there's a physical you.)(Paul goes on to say that the resurrection will be of a purified body, an immortal body, in the flesh. The spiritual body is something you have *now*. It is what we have inherited through Adam and he received this from Yahweh in Genesis.)
> 2) Adam was born of the earth, and he was the first earthly father--and he had an earthly body first, before he was in the Spirit (by the "ruach" (Hebrew for "breath" or "spirit") act of Yahweh in Genesis) (i.e. Adam was earth, and then he acquired a spiritual body / was made a branch to the vine, became a child of God). Second to be born of the earth was Christ (when considered by the flesh)--yet he (being Yahweh) was (and is) a Spirit first--he became earthly after.
That's the double-topic Paul is talking about. He's using each of these topics to poetically trace the other--a symmetry, a "type" as biblical scholars of all stands like to call these patterns--this specific "type" is meant to trace the method of salvation (and successfully doing so).
[I need a second post lol So I'll split it up here into an immediate comment of this post. A Part 3 .2 ] -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Friday, 15-Mar-2024 04:37:42 JST
Ash Kvetchum
Brother, I have the Part 2 out now (I've labeled it over in the other fork of the thread as [Part 2] to help everyone keep order). That goes over "only begotten." What you've said is very close. There is more to that term.
>You are not already saved
Note that "salvation" is not always about the lake of fire. Christ had spoken about the fall of the very real and present temple of the day. Notice in, Matthew 24, Christ tells the disciples that the temple will not have one stone left standing on top of another. The disciples then ask when that will be *and* when the end of the world will be *and* what will be the sign of his coming. (Keep in mind that the Revelation had yet to be given, and here's Christ saying the temple will fall and he'll come like a thief in the night. It was not--yet--evident to the disciples that the last day, Christ's return, would be a time much after the fall of that temple. We can see this by their questions.)
The temple fell some 40 years later.
Only after this did John receive the Revelation of things that must come to pass--revealing to us that the last day would be some time (from then) and not concurrent with the fall of the then-recently-fallen temple.
Apart from verses discussing what Christ accomplished and finished--the word "salvation" is often in verses akin to "Save yourself! Look after one another!" That is a salvation they could have *participated* in. Warn others. This temple is going to come down. Be vigilant. Something big is going to happen soon. (It did. Judea fell. The Judeans were dispersed for two millennia thereafter.)
Some salvation verses are about how Christ's death saved all Israelites (all under the law--whether Israelite Judeans or Israelite Samaritans or Israelite Hellenists (the "Greek" of "neither Greek nor Judean" fame) or Israelites dispersed far away since the Assyrians and Babylonians centuries ago who've even forgotten they were under the law). The death of the Husband saved the unfaithful Bride (Israel--meaning all Israelites, as listed above) from a deserved earthly death that would be according to their Vow (the law).
Some salvation verses are about the judgement / the reward. Saving up treasures, our reward, by our works. Saving our brothers and sisters from shame (when judgment of their works will come) by teaching them to help one another. (Our judgment will be consideration of how we treated the sheep. On the last day, the sheep and goats will be divided (also called the wheat and tares). The sheep will be judged by how they treated the least of these (the sheep), as we are called to "Love thy neighbor (one "near you," not geographical person) as yourself.")
We cannot add to nor take away from, complete nor leave incomplete, what Christ accomplished. He saved the descendants of Adam. The wheat. The children of the kingdom. The children of God. The body of Christ. He is the vine (Yahweh) and we are the branches (every one born from Adam, to whom was given a spirit by Yahweh). One cannot enter the kingdom of God unless he be born of above, of the water (flesh) and of the Spirit; what is flesh is flesh and what is Spirit is Spirit.
Please read 1 John 5. Note how "Christ came through water and blood" ( or "Came by water and blood" in some English translations; either is fine). That is not about baptism. That is about coming in the flesh as a descendant of Adam (water) and even more specifically as a descendant of Jacob, an Israelite (blood). Note how the chapter even speaks of being "born of God."
There isn't a "born again." The Greek is "born of above."
Those not planted by God but by another--the tares--the children of the wicked one--the works of the devil--and even the devil and his angels--will be thrown into the lake of fire to be no more.
In Genesis, in the beginning, there are two trees. At the end of Revelation, after the the tares are thrown into lake of fire, there is one. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 14-Mar-2024 10:26:25 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>did part 2 poast yet?
Not yet! I wrote today another effortpost to answer a question that was in another fork of this thread. (I'll attach the link to that effortpost here.)
For the coming Part 2 of this thread, I've been reworking today (when I can touch it) to make it "short"er, more streamlined, bite-sized
It is a task to tl;dr a thought that (imo) runs through the entirety of Scripture, lol
Here's the effortpost I wrote today for the other fork of the thread, though:
https://nicecrew.digital/notice/Afoly7OgeX0DRVvqk4 -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 14-Mar-2024 08:29:51 JST
Ash Kvetchum
>I'm tl;dr-ing here a non-Calvinist, non-Arminian view of scripture, so please be patient with the effortpost
Friend, I'm neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian.
I'm sure every one of ourguys has had the experience of having put to them "This is leaning [Republican / Communist]. Do you believe in [Republican point / Pelosi]?"--depending on whether questioner is more to the left or right but still within the Overton window.
With politics, ourguys know both views are not the way and not true; that both options are fed by the same small, concentration; that the vast population sways (allowably) only within the guardrails set.
We don't notice the same of ourselves when ourguys speak on theology. There is an Overton theology, a state-tolerable theology. So I'm going to give a metaphor of three views--each looking at the same building--to emphasize the difference (and failure of two of the views, imo) between Calvinism, Arminianism, and the third--that which I believe scripture describes.
Metaphor:
You're a boss, an employer.
There's a building.
Within the one building are multiple companies.
What will you do? What was your goal?
>View A (Arminianism):
You're going to keep all those that believe you are the boss. It doesn't matter which company in the building they're from.
Some believe all they have to do is believe you're the best boss. Others believe they have to show they believe with their work.
Some think you'll pull all of the employees who believed you out and then set the building on fire for 7 years to give those inside a chance to change their mind.
>View C (Calvinism):
You've known from the beginning which employees you'll keep, of all companies. Those employees would follow you no matter what. They have no choice in the matter--or they do but it is inevitable that they would choose you; that they'd know you were the best boss.
You'll fire the rest. Some think you'll kill them. Some think you'll torture them.
Both A and C want the news of what's happening to get out, and have questions/exceptions on what will happen to him that didn't receive the news. Or they ignore obvious records, errantly saying everyone who has worked here, through all companies, would have heard the news.
>View B (Biblical, imo):
You are the boss, the owner of the building. You had vanguard employees oversee the construction of the building itself. Some of these vanguard employees did more and started their own companies, counter to your will.
You start your own company. "No mergers," you tell them. "We're going to accomplish the dominion of the whole building. I will guide you."
They disobey. And every day more are hired to your company. You wrangle to keep your company separate. You even choose the smallest team within your company and head them by a representative--promising that you'll lead them in person soon. You make a particular contract with that small team.
The team splits into two. Team 1 and Team 2. Team 2's supervisor was more loyal. When you come in person, you will sit at Team 2's table. Team 1 has been considering merging with other teams within your company, but also--worse--with other companies.
You give many warnings to them. You won't protect Team 1 as other teams (within your company) come for them. You give startling predictions of what will happen.
Team 1 is scattered throughout so many of the teams of your company.
And above all of this, there's the looming threat: that particular contract with the small team requires everyone that leaves the team to be fired. Now even Team 2 is acting de jure with your particular contract but de facto working as if they work for another company. In fact, Team 2's supervisor positions are almost entirely seated by members of another company.
You arrive in person, during the time you said you were coming--but undercover, asking those of your company that recognize you to spread your message but not your identity. You spread the news: "The boss is going to save the company. He is going to save the team he made. He is going to reconstitute the team he made. And not a bullet of the particular contract will be broken, while he does it--through me."
The board of Team 2 fires you.
Guess what? That "particular contract" made long ago remains only while both parties are employed: those being the entire team (no matter how many teams it has fractured into) and you. And you just got fired. So now you won't have to fire everyone under the particular contract. It's fulfilled.
And though you can be fired (when you come as an employee), you--as the boss--can hire yourself again.
The word is out. You're coming. The other companies will be booted. Those vanguard employees from long ago will be fired. Every one among your company will be kept employed, no matter whether they believed you were the boss or not. And they will be rewarded by how they treated one another, protected one another. Some will have a small reward.
Better known your intentions, better they'll treat one another.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the