We are not the judge.
Author’s Note: Ed Hurst contributed to the writing of this essay.
Reader’s Note: This essay is composed of several case studies which allow the reader to envision the concept of justice in several different contexts.
Length: 5,600 words
Reading Time: 19 minutes
Case Study 1 — Some Men Get all the Girls
For the first case study, I’ll refer to a previous post, God doesn’t care if you find a wife! (2020 April 13). The title of this particular post is rather click-baitey, but it was seriously stated in a previous comment, and I felt it had some interesting nuances that needed attention.
The first impression on the reader is how he is affected by the title.
- Does it seem arrogantly presumptuous to speak of whether God cares about something?
- Or do you find something curious about this statement that opens the eyes of your heart?
The next step is in asking yourself, why should this statement affect me the way it does? If you are (1), then is it because your mind is attempting to prove or disprove the claim in the statement as either true or false? If you are (2) then what is the nature of your reaction? Is it because you wish it to be true, or because your heart has perceived it to be true?
In this post, it is assumed that God does indeed care about marriage, but ultimately, it remains for the readers to contemplate and discuss the truth of the matter among a variety of contexts. This post outlined four case studies which were offered to help the reader sort out the possibilities.
Case Study 1 is about emotional maturity, and being able to experience life on your own terms.
Case Study 2 is about how people want to blame god for not giving them something in life.
Case Study 3 is about trusting God, and the discussion is tinged with a bit of Calvinism.
Case Study 4 is an example of how the heart and mind are unable to communicate on the same terms.
The Conclusions have one line of sarcasm, and a funny-because-true final statement. But overall, this post is sincere in asking the above questions.
Almost predictably, there was an argument in the comments about what is “just”.
“The crisis in the church for the single man (those who still attend) is [given in this contradiction] that “god gave you this free will, and you have to use it… bench press, lead a bible study, and become an engineer…” and then backhandedly, “god promises you nothing. Deal with it. He doesn’t fulfill your burning [desire].”
“[So] a man who burns and is 34, 44, 51, or 60 [years old]… and is in the loser class of never marrying, doesn’t know his mission, didn’t bench enough… didn’t have “many options” to marry like most of you have had… is now told “god doesn’t owe you this.”
But he “gave” and “blessed” [other men] with this????????”
JPF responded with the perspective of a married man.
“We have a good marriage to the extent that we obey the commands given by God. If [my wife] or I did not have the character that results from striving (imperfectly) to be obedient to God, then the marriage would suck. So, the character that we have, due to obedience to the commands God provided, is a blessing. I am most grateful for this aspect of my wife.”
But Lastmod is speaking from the perspective of a single man with little to no opportunities for matrimony, which is the majority of men these days. He opined,
Yet cloaking all of this under “god wants the best for you”.
Best for a few… sure. Most? No, 80% or whatever pay for a woman’s disobedience and the high SMPV men contribute to the cock carousel and again are unscathed. Blessed. Rewarded.”
True, there are a lot of suffering men as Jason asserts, but is it due to the d!cks of Dons that deflower dozens of dizzy dames, the cockamaniacal women themselves, or is it by the hand of God?
Is God Capricious?
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?Romans 9:14-24 (NKJV)
Case Study 2 — The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
This parable from Matthew 20:1-16 was cited as central to the discussion.
1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. 5 Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’
8 “So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’ 9 And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius. 11 And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’ 13 But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”Matthew 20:1-16 (NKJV)
Here, I need to point out that this parable is not about a man’s lot in life. This parable concerns the reward of salvation (i.e. “the kingdom of heaven” in verse 1). The idea is that some people have a difficult life of faith while others find the burden light. The contention arises when someone objects that some who receive salvation work long and hard in the Lord’s service, while others merely sweep the floor at the end of the day. But this attitude is basically a “salvation by works” doctrine with a little twist, which is essentially, “better salvation by more works”.
In the parable of the workers, there were still those who felt the wages were unjust, even though everyone was paid handsomely. I believe this was the main point of bringing up this parable in the discussion – that there will always be the impression that God’s generosity is interpreted as unjust by those who didn’t get as much as someone else. The error of this approach is that it is an “appeal to equality” based on “equal wages for equal works”. God does not follow the tenets of equality as we might understand it. In fact, the parable describes reality, in that it creates discontent. I am certain that this is one of Jason’s running themes.
Covetous and Discontented Objections to Justice turn God into a Cruel Vending Machine
In the comments, I wrote,
“Why do you see a contradiction there? Think of it in human terms. Your father doesn’t owe you an inheritance (for example), but if he gave you an inheritance, but not your brother, it would be a blessing. Wouldn’t it?”
“Because your scenario is unjust.
In the parable of the workers in the vineyard, the owner of the vineyard gives everyone the same reward for different amounts of work. To use your analogy, it would be as if the father only had to give the inheritance to the firstborn (or no one), but gave it to all his children out of love.”
That’s right. So is this unjust?
“God is generous and delights in giving good things to his people (e.g. Psalm 37:4; Matthew 7:11). Having declared that humanity should marry and have many children and extolled its benefits, it stands to reason that God actively desires that those who seek marriage accomplish their goal.”
I could agree with this statement, but then Derek added,
“To suggest that God doesn’t care about something he told people to do is callous and wrong.”
Two things: (1) “God doesn’t care” is a reaction of subjective perception, not a fact about God’s character. (2) God obviously doesn’t expect all men to pursue marriage, because some men don’t ever have the chance. The issue of contention has more to do with generational heritability, both spiritual and carnal (e.g. DNA), and with our relationships with other people.
“So if “God” the Father who doesn’t owe us an inheritance (including me), gave you one……and didn’t give me one. tough breaks???”
But you also did get stuff others of us didn’t get. “Why are you 6′ 4″ and I’m only 6′ 1″?”, etc. We need to be content with what we have been given. Contentment with godliness is great gain.
It sounds like your brother got even less. Yes, it sucks to be the one who gets less, but in eternity, many who were last shall be first, and many who were first shall be last. God will reward us according to how we used what we were given, our stewardship. To whom much has been given, much will be expected.
This life sucks much of the time, but it is only a test, to decide where you fit in eternity. Don’t blow your test, just because somebody else seemingly is getting an easier life. They may very well mean going to hell for eternity. Just focus on glorifying God with what you do have and can do.
If you weren’t given as much, just having a good attitude about it, can be a major victory over selfish desires. Coveting is a sin, and we should work on ridding ourselves of it. We should learn to be able to be happy when others are blessed even though we are not.
There isn’t really any equality here in this life, but the Potter is free to make what He wants from the clay. Just try to be thankful for what things God did give you that he didn’t give to others.
I do sympathize, and I know it is tough, but that is how it is.”
“But you also did get stuff others of us didn’t get.”
“This is a dodge. It addresses the question “Will God give every man a wife?” to which the answer is “No”. The OP question “Does God care if you get a wife?” has a different answer. God is neither vending machine nor cruel.”
This is a counter-dodge, because Derek missed Sharkly’s main point about contentment and stewardship. Instead, he assumed the claim was that God is a cruel vending machine, and he didn’t offer the “different answer” he alluded to.
Furthermore, I feel that this argument hinges on the definition of “just”. This is complicated, because God’s idea of “just” is a completely different animal than mankind’s concept of justice. This is what motivated me to study this matter further and write this essay.
Case Study 3 – Patrilineage and Generational Curses
In the Bible, God says the firstborn get twice as much as all the others. Yet the firstborn can abdicate/forfeit for any reason. Looking at the example of Jacob and Esau, we find that Esau forfeited his whole inheritance, and was kicked out of the covenant completely. Among the Twelve Patriarchs, Reuben forfeited by invading Jacob’s harem. Simeon and Levi abdicated by an act of violence that would have justified reprisals on the family. Thus, Judah received the birthright — the double portion and the right rule. (Ancient tradition says that the firstborn can abdicate for good reasons, too.)
But the buck stops somewhere. Somebody in the covenant has to step up and take the helm. God decides this, and sometimes His choices make no sense at all (like David as the youngest over his brothers). Yet being accountable to the tribe is expected under God’s justice as well, so the outright oppression of the people by the ruler is wrong.
This much is clear in the scriptures, but our own experience of life is not like what is described in the Bible. Once you get to a certain age somewhere in mid-life, you’ll begin to see that it is the children who receive that which the parents deserve. I covered this phenomena in my earlier studies of divorce and generational curses. According to the Bible, this is God’s doing. (See Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Psalm 79:7-9; Psalm 109:13-15; Isaiah 65:6–7; Jeremiah 32:18.)
Furthermore, the scriptures are filled with stories of people who did wrong, but then God “relented” upon their repentance, such that the consequences came to rest on their children, rather than upon themselves. David, Solomon, Jehoash (2nd Kings 12, 2nd Chronicles 24:25), and Hezekiah are noteworthy examples.
In the Bible there is an apparent contradiction between two passages of scripture.
6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth; 7 who keeps faithfulness for thousands, who forgives wrongdoing, violation of His Law, and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, inflicting the punishment of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”Exodus 34:6-7 (NASB)
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone.”Deuteronomy 24:16 (NASB)
So which is it?
One interpretation of all this is that God has a different standard for divine justice than what he expects of men who execute justice. But even this explanation doesn’t cover it, as this interesting passage makes things even more confusing.
1 Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned for twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. 2 He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, only not wholeheartedly. 3 Now it came about, as soon as the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, that he killed his servants who had killed his father the king. 4 However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, which the Lord commanded, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin.”2nd Chronicles 25:1-4 (NASB)
I could be misreading this, but it seems to be implied that if Amaziah had been serving God wholeheartedly, then he would have gone against the scriptural mandates and killed the descendants of his enemies. His adherence to the law in this case seems to have been a mistake.
Anyhow, bearing the consequences of generational curses certainly does not strike me as being very just (nor most other people). Yet, God is just in all his ways, by definition. Certainly, God must have a much different concept of being just than we do.
Case Study 4 – Executive Clemency
Another facet about God’s justice is that not only do ostensibly decent people (from a human perspective) get railroaded, but blatant criminals receive executive clemency. As an example of the latter context, we might view President Trump’s last minute pardons as being in accordance with God’s rendition of justice.
“I respect a man who looks out for his associates, even if he and they are scumbags and criminals. Props to Trump, not necessarily for the specific people he pardoned, but because in the end he did take care of his people. And that is at least something.”Tony Odarg: Trump’s Latest Filthy, Though Necessary, Pardons (2020 December 24)
Odarg gets the point. Trump is an archetype of a God who looks after his own, and He does so according to His own good judgment, not ours, and certainly not that of his enemies.
Justice is Perceived Relative to Values and Ethics
In this section, I want to review values and ethics, because a thorough understanding of their origin, purpose, and function might help us gain a proper appreciation for God’s justice.
Value is the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
Value refers to those qualities of something, a piece of literature, or a jurisdictional ruling, etc. that make them worthwhile to one’s self. If we feel our time reading is well spent, or that the ruling is “in our favor”, then we can say that a book or a rule has value for us. If reading the book, or going to court, etc., was a complete waste of time, then we might say it has no value to us. Of course, this is a completely subjective evaluation. These same items may have great value to someone else.
Values are a collection of principles or standards of behavior that reflect one’s judgement of what is important in life. In practice, one’s values take the form of ideas and beliefs that an individual accepts to be predominantly important in life.
When a person can offer poignant words to express his/her values, then we say he is an articulate speaker. This trait is highly valued, and those who have it are highly respected, especially by those who share the same values.
Values are strongly influenced by one’s race, gender, ethnicity, location, heritage, culture and religious background. These factors all play a role in how a person perceives cultural attitudes, ideas and beliefs. For example, someone from Taiwan can identify who is from (or has a background related to) China based on what they say. This difference in cultural perspective is why it is said that “A prophet is not accepted in his own land”. (See Matthew 13:54-57, Mark 6:1-6, Luke 4:16-30, and John 4:44.)
If one grew up in an exceedingly insulated culture, it is possible for him to be completely ignorant of his own value system, and unaware of other value systems exist in other cultures. Upon first exposure, he would gain the impression that the other culture is bad in some way, simply because it does not perform well according to the value system to which he is accustomed. This is the basis of culture shock.
Ethics is a set of principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. These moral principles reflect the shared values, such that the right thing to do is that which preserves the shared values of a community.
Morality is often couched in terms of ethics, whether something is “right” or “good” within the context of a certain ethical system. However, true morality is based on the discernment of God’s concept of justice given a certain context.
Culture is a collection of general ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society. The values and norms of a culture influence how those people within the society act and form decisions.
People have (or should have) mental models of reality that are coherent with their individual system of values. In most cases, our mental models are a product of our cultural lore and family of origin.
Popularly acclaimed literature (hereafter termed “lore”, including history, the Bible, the Red Pill, and yes, the news and churchianity) has a significant impact on our thinking and our mental models of reality for many reasons.
- Lore conveys stories that are set in the past and which draws on historical knowledge.
- Lore is usually based on real settings and/or sometimes contain real historical persons, and therefore reflects the culture and society of the time period in which it was set.
- Lore forms the Archetypal Mythos of a culture.
- The values, ethics, traits, and concepts that define a culture are showcased through the supporting mythos of lore.
- Societies and generations are educated by lore by learning from mistakes and events that occurred in the past, and thus improves cooperation and collaboration as a community.
- Lore is a tool that assists in shaping the society and culture of the future by giving us examples of both the mistakes and victories of our ancestors. This informs us of things that occurred in the past that both should, and should not, be repeated, which we then learn from.
All these are good and proper facets of human sociology. However, there are certain elements of our Archetypal Mythos that fail to conform to God’s prerogatives – that which would glorify His image and aid men in carrying out His will.
The point of this section is that all our words and thoughts are couched within the Archetypal mythos and language of culture. The reason we see God as being unjust in certain instances is because the entire culture stresses values and ethics that are not in accordance with God’s prerogatives, methods, and purposes.
Whenever we are tempted to conclude that God is being unjust, perhaps it is only because we perceive that God doesn’t follow the code of ethics that we are most comfortable with. Yet, we hardly ever venture to understand God’s code of ethics. Instead, we simply dismiss it as being inscrutable and ineffable. And perhaps it is, because it can only be understood by the heart and soul.
Case Study 5 – Democracy Attempts to Supersede God’s Justice
In several posts, Ed Hurst has compared the Biblical Covenant under Patriarchy to Democracy, stating that the latter is flat out evil because it elevates the human concepts of fairness and equality (which are not outlined in the Bible, although they are typically read back into the Bible) above the authority of the Patriarch.
When we are consternated by what we read the Bible and left utterly confused about the justice of God, the issue here is that we are seeing things through a Western perspective by default, and not the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) traditions which form the context of the Bible.
Western concepts of justice are a mixture of Greco-Roman reasoning and Germanic Tribal notions of goddess worship – all pagan and largely anti-Christian. The organized church leadership lost their way very quickly after the Apostles died, and departed from the mystical ANE traditions well before they fell prey to Constantine’s political seductions just two centuries later.
The modern Western brand of Christianity was an outright fraud committed by the Roman church hierarchy as the means to bringing the invading Germanic hordes into alliance. The church leadership knowingly perverted the Hebraic mystical thinking into something more Germanic so the tribes would swallow the leadership of the churches and accept the politicized power of church leaders.
We are left with the task of very openly and consciously, and sometimes quite forcefully, reintroducing the Biblical standards of justice against a massive under layer of Western standards. A critical problem with uprooting Western ideology is that Western thinking is so very presumptuous about its own superiority. It’s quite a chore helping people who want to follow Christ to make them recognize the value of humility within the hierarchy of a Covenant, as outlined in ANE lore.
Case Study 6 – George Floyd
The American court system assumes that one is either innocent or guilty. Legal proceedings therefore attempt to establish either innocence or guilt, based on evidence.
At face value, Floyd had a long criminal history and he was a drug addict. Since he was not very intelligent and not able to hold down a job, he was not able to earn for himself, and so he turned to a life of crime. On the day of his death, he was passing counterfeit bills and resisting arrest. All in all, it seems obvious that he was a guilty person.
In most other countries, Floyd would have been written off as a basket case and no one would bat an eye. To pose a comparison, in Taiwan, anyone who shows up in a court of law, either as a prosecutor or a defendant, is taken to be guilty. This is because they have mishandled their own affairs so badly that they require external arbitration, and thereby become a burden to society. From a judicial standpoint, the overarching purpose of legal proceedings is to settle the matter and get them back to being functional members of society. But in America, the issue of guilt is more nuanced, because it is assumed that a specific person other than Floyd must have been responsible for his death, and that one or the other must be either innocent or guilty.
Recently, there were some new developments in the George Floyd case. Some eyewitnesses had some moving testimonies (link to BBC news article) which presented an underlying theme that Floyd was a product of his culture (viz. a victim of an institutionalized system), and that his actions were entirely understandable and forgivable. One witness was the clerk in the convenience store where Floyd was before he was arrested. He said Floyd tried to buy some items using a counterfeit $100 bill, and he accepted the bill. (CNN reports it was a $20, and that he “attempted” to use it.) In his court testimony, the clerk said he felt very guilty about this because if he had not accepted Floyd’s fake bill, then this whole situation would not have happened.
Ultimately, the responsibility for Floyd’s death comes down to the issue of cause-and-effect.
- Did the store clerk tip his hand to an evil course of events when he accepted the fake bill, as he sincerely believes?
- Was the morbidly high level of fentanyl in Floyd’s body responsible for his death?
- Did the long turbid history of interaction between Chauvin and Floyd contribute to Chauvin’s harsh treatment of Floyd?
- Did the stress arising from Floyd’s arrest, combined with the cocktail of drugs in his body hasten his death?
All of these facts present reasonable causes. Since there are multiple factors leading up to the event of his death, the legal proceedings are complicated. How then can justice be found in a court of law?
Furthermore, how we might interpret God’s justice in this matter is a subject that no one wants to touch.
Spiritually, we are all Floydian, and we are all Chauvinistic to some degree.
Case Study 7 – The Sacrifice of Christ
If you think about it through the lens of western justice, the crucifixion of Christ was one of the most unjust events in the history of man. He was betrayed. He was subject to a mock trial in the middle of the night. He endured false accusations. He was rejected by His own people, and His own Father, and abandoned by His friends.
From another viewpoint, it could be said that this sentence went through democratic process, since the Pharisees, Sanhedrin, and a large mob of people, all called for Jesus to be crucified. No one “voted” for him to live.
But any way you look at this democratic injustice, it was God’s will to sacrifice the innocent in order to redeem the guilty.
If God treated His own Son in this manner, and then declares it just, how can we ever claim that God is unjust whenever we don’t get our own way, or when something happens to us that we feel we didn’t deserve?
We want God to conform to our own concept of justice. We want certain desires to be satisfied, and most of all, we want to avoid suffering and sacrifice, especially for someone we feel is inferior to ourselves. But if God had adopted our own concept of justice, then all of us would be d@mned.
One recurrent theme concerning God’s justice is that God loves and cares for his own, although this sometimes requires certain individuals to suffer and sacrifice in order for the flock to be well cared for.
Another recurring theme has something to do with God respecting the choices of people, and allowing them to bear the rewards or consequences of their decisions. Thus, it can be understood how a person, or a large number of people, can suffer and sacrifice as a result of an individual or a society (respectively) turning away from God and wander away from under His protection and care. (I believe the latter reason is why so many men are unable to find a decent wife in today’s culture.) If the whole society wants to flirt with feminism and then the next few generations go through the meat market grinder as a consequence, then is it just to call God unjust for allowing such a result?
I have a theory that I’ll call The Mob in the Crucible Effect (c.f. “frogs in the pot”, or “crabs in the bucket”), which is based on the premise that we influence those around us, for better or for worse, and that it is the will of God for us to act as independent agents. We are all subject to the decisions and actions of others, especially those in positions of power (including power players in the SMP). From a wider perspective, this could be interpreted as just if we admit that God allows us to hurt and/or help one another according to our own choices. This would also explain generational curses, but it does seem unjust from the perspective of the subsequent generations, because children do not have any choice about which crucible they are born into in life.
True justice requires taking into account the whole picture. God alone knows the whole picture. It is the nature of living in fallen flesh that we cannot possibly see all that God sees. He has revealed a way of seeking peace with Him that includes leaving open the door for things we cannot comprehend in our flesh. Thus, He retains prerogatives that we must swallow sight unseen. That’s part of the definition of “faith”. Our only recourse is to repent of any participation we have in the matter, and ask God for forgiveness and clemency.
Yes, God’s justice is mysterious and hard to “justify”. Yes, some sons are disinherited for reasons God alone can comprehend. Yet, we must have faith that it is still just. We must be careful not to reject God’s justice in this life simply because it does not match our own, preconceived, solipsistic notions of democratic “fairness”. Otherwise, we will have nothing to show for what we could have claimed from the vast inheritance of faith.
If anyone could articulate a better distinction of the different concepts of God’s “just-ness” versus human justice, feel free to articulate your thoughts below.
- Σ Frame (Jack): Trump Appeals to Dignity, Not Racism (2016 March 7)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Foundations of Cultural Ethics and Chivalry (2018 February 18)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Cultural Ethics, Patriarchy, Chivalry, and Christianity (2018 February 24)
- Christianity and Masculinity: Happy wife, happy life should be sanctified wife, joyful and peaceful life (2020 April 11)
- Radix Fidem: Conversational Labor (2020 April 15)
- Σ Frame (Jack): The Morphing Ethical System in the U.S. (2020 June 26)
- Do What’s Right: Accountability 02 (2020 September 16)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Haidt’s Ethical Foundations Theory (2020 November 4)
- Lexet Iustitia: No Justice (2020 December 13)
- Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): On the Ethics of Teenage Marriage (2020 December 18)
- Σ Frame (Scott): Archetypal Therapy and Innate Personality Traits (2021 March 20)