• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Original Sin: who is to blame?

9-18-1

Active Member
Important note: It's not his diagram. It's plagiarized copywrited material unless 9-18-1 is Leo Tavares.

The diagram is lifted off a website promoting a belief system called:

View attachment 28431

hyperlink >>> Mathematical Monotheism

It's hilarious you digging and digging to try to undermine me.

I used the graphic as a visualization for 2701-(666x3). I don't follow the site, the owner or even 'know' what "Mathematical Monotheism" is, neither "believe" in it.

I thought you said you don't "follow" me?

Define 'follow'.

I'd actually rather you not.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
I didn't take it as an insult.

View attachment 28432

So what was the intention?

If I told you, would you "believe" me?

There's also a video about it on youtube. It impresses the yahoos.


It's a 3-10 torus field knot. It explains the embryo of creation itself - like an equation.

I read Genesis 1:1 as an equation - that is technically what it is. The "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth" is just the garment.

Again can only point to the work of Stan Tenen and MERU - he has found the correct form.

upload_2019-4-20_7-53-48.png


This is how/why Genesis needs to be read as 'continuous creation' rather than historical, which immediately is idol worship.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
You're doing the digging. You are undermining yourself.

I wish they had a 'mirror' emoji. Here is an example of a deluded man trying to project his own nature onto another:

john-brennan-tweet.jpg


John Brennan is describing himself here, because he has the psychological/emotional/habitual binds which make him "believe" he is describing another person, but it is in fact himself.

That's how it works - I don't blame others for my own suffering - I deal with mine, and expect everyone to deal with theirs.

If they can not, they project, like dybmh is doing as per above. He is digging endlessly trying to cross-check / verify anything/everything I say because he is obsessed. He could prove he is not by ignoring the thread and walking away. I don't have anything against him - except to suggest he is not sound within himself ie. some sort of paranoia.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I can't point you anywhere: I didn't get them from a place on the "outside" but used a number of "outside" resources to put it all together. I do this with my conscience in meditation.

Plagiarism mixed with meditation? :facepalm:

If you're looking for plagiarism, look in the books of Moses.

So:

Are Plagerism and Meditation the sources used in this thread?

I 'know' what satan is and/or describes:

How do u know anything about satan?

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

Is your knowledge about satan coming from meditation too?

I do this with my conscience in meditation.

It is not "belief"-based: I reduce things into yes/no questions. Rather than good/evil judgments, I simply ask black-and-white questions that resolve what reality reflects.

It is not "belief"-based?

So how does this work?

Are you receiving a transmission?

When you meditate is there a color that you see that means "yes" or "no"?

How is your process of meditation combined with your conscience **not** belief based?

Any answer you receive via this method is subjective. Not objective. Anything subjective is "belief-based".
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If they can not, they project, like dybmh is doing as per above. He is digging endlessly trying to cross-check / verify anything/everything I say because he is obsessed. He could prove he is not by ignoring the thread and walking away. I don't have anything against him - except to suggest he is not sound within himself ie. some sort of paranoia.

OK. I understand why you want me to walk away from the thread. And I'm guessing it's obvious to others as well.

I am refuting your claim. Again, and again. I am highlighting the flaws in your words, again and again.

I am not projecting anything.

I am not obsessed nor paranoid.

that is ad hominem. again.

Please, most respectfully:

I asked you if you have any evidence to support the claim that you **know** what satan is.

Do you have any evidence at all?

I 'know' what satan is and/or describes:

How do u know anything about satan?

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

Please: you don't really know anything about satan, right?

It's all just subjective belief.
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Just a small point FoC... when you see "Behold" in the bible, it means there's gematria in the text written after it. Its also one of the reasons why Ezekiel sounds a bit barmy. He uses a LOT of gematria.


Nope as you are wrong, that is not Ezekiel saying ( Behold ) that is God who is saying
( Behold ) as telling people pay attention to what I am about to say.

It seems you have hard time in determining who's talking and who is not talking.

When God is doing the talking, God always be found in saying ( Behold ) to draw attention to what God is going to say next.
 

ecco

Veteran Member

Your the one that made the statement so give your proof that the whole earth was covered over by a flood of water.

Are you in the habit of saying things without any proof to back up what your saying.
So where's your proof

Gee, you must have not read the post you responded to. Here I'll post it again...

This time, I highlighted the important part.

Or, perhaps you don't believe what your scripture states. If that is the case then you need to show why you don't believe it and where you get your information from.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
It's not my place to explain what you said, seeing your the one that made the statement, so I'm within my right to ask you to give your proof of evidence, that the earth being covered over by a flood.

your the one that's doing the duck and dodging the question, Seeing how your the one that made the statement in the first place that the whole earth being covered over by a flood,

Just to let you know just how wrong you really are, The flood of Noah's did not cover the whole earth as you think it did.
So again where's your proof of evidence, that the flood of Noah's covered the whole earth as you say it did.

See my post #291, above.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Now, by the same criteria, I must call you out. Where in your holy scripture does it state that "Lucifer was created million of years before Adam and Eve were created"?

There are many places, if you care to read them and do your own investigation on the subject.

Is that your duck and dodge way of admitting there is nothing in your own holy scripture that supports your nonsensical allegation regarding when Lucifer was created?

It's not my place ...

You just continue to try to avoid answering the simple question...Where in your holy scripture does it state that "Lucifer was created million(sic) of years before Adam and Eve were created"?

Yes, you made that assertion. It is for you to address it. It is for you to justify it.

You tried to shift the burden to me and the Great Flood. I addressed it. Now, address the Lucifer comment.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
So:

Are Plagerism and Meditation the sources used in this thread?

No: you will want to check the Torah for plagiarism.

Do not apply a standard of evidence to another that you have not applied to yourself.

The derivation 2701-(666x3) as being linked to the Edenic fall is my own. The picture was a mathematical expression displaying the mathematical framework (which people "believed" represent an equilateral triangle, which I never indicated, neither does it).

You will not find the 2701-(666x3) as being linked to the Edenic fall anywhere in this "Mathematical Theology" because it doesn't purport it: however I do, and it is my own finding.

It's just a picture - you're melting down over it trying to character assassinate me for "plagiarism" despite the Torah being plagiarized which... has lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions due to:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

How do u know anything about satan?

Comprehending ones own binds and understanding (binah) their origin as being internal, rather than external.

You externalize everything - it is your own bind(s).

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

Yes - not the least of which is chastity. It is the standard of evidence demanded by Jesus re: satan having no bind (over him).

Are you chaste? If not - I can only explain why chastity is required to 'know' satan and you would either have to accept it, or accept that your standard of appraisal re: "satan" is not to the same standard as mine given you are not chaste. In which case, you don't have an argument either way because the same standard of evidence I employ is not employed by you.

Is your knowledge about satan coming from meditation too?

In part - but chastity is required. In other words, I did not know anything about satan until becoming chaste.

It is not "belief"-based?

No - that is religion. Imagining satan as an external anything is "belief"-based.

So how does this work?

It's really quite simple.

Edenic state is 703 - as like the original Adam and Eve. This is the 'unchanging' reality: it exists archetypally in the world of Briah. The individual archetypes (ie. the patriarchs) beginning with Adam and ending in שם המשיח is the fall and return, as the latter is also 703.

Therefor, who/where is שם המשיח ?

Are you receiving a transmission?

No - I am just one man. In fact I argue: anyone who is appointed and/or self-appoints themselves as receiving "transmissions" (ie. revelations from an angel) are mad, suffer madness, and develop the same archetypal warlord dictator-types such as Muhammad and Hitler.

Both "believed" they were doing the work of god.

When you meditate is there a color that you see that means "yes" or "no"?

Are you talking about red-shift and blue-shift? Or is this just a rhetorical question?

If one parses question-answer and/or if-then strings, it is possible to understand which way they tend. It is how one can identify roots, one of them being:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

How is your process of meditation combined with your conscience **not** belief based?

I'm not afraid to be in darkness to see where light is. I don't place objects that are only reflections of how I want things to be, before understanding and accepting the way everything is absent my own personal wishes/desires/... and... wait for it... "BELIEFS".

Any answer you receive via this method is subjective. Not objective. Anything subjective is "belief-based".

It is a good thing you don't speak for this "method". It is not a method - though there are many devices one can use, that being the yes-no if-then fundamentalist calculations to derive the reality. However, that speaks nothing for a solution, or knowing what to do 'about' the reality.

That is the gap between binah and chokmah.

Wisdom and ha meshiach are the same - 'it' comes only through understanding first, then 'he' comes through wisdom and is 'one' with the father, which is keser. You can't know the father until you know wisdom (they are one) and this first requires understanding, hence:

'I am'
truth (keser)
way (chokmah)
life (binah)

which is the secret of the Christian triunity.

But Jesus is an idol worshiped by idol worshipers. If the "belief"-based Christian worldview is true, and truth is unchanging, why are Christian churches being over-run by Muhammadans?

This is why Judaism has a phobia of the cross, which Islam inherited.

OK. I understand why you want me to walk away from the thread. And I'm guessing it's obvious to others as well.

Virtue signalling - how you see things is how everyone else should see?

I am refuting your claim. Again, and again. I am highlighting the flaws in your words, again and again.

But you're not. You only "believe" you are. I understand you "believe" I am using "belief" to argue against belief, but you still don't understand that this is your "belief" given how you understand/defined "belief".

Whatever Adam named the animals, that is what they were.

So you are on a loop of "believing" to highlight flaws, when the flaw is inside of your own being.

It is related to satan who makes people "believe" he/it is god. Therefor:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

because satan requires "belief" in the first place.

No "belief" = no satan.

If you want to continue to assert the things I say are merely "beliefs" and not things I know, that is your "belief". What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. There is no room for "belief" in between those, and your definition of it allows for such room.

I am not projecting anything.

You are not aware you are, I understand.

I am not obsessed nor paranoid.

You are not aware you are, I understand.

that is ad hominem. again.

Your entire campaign against me is ad hominem - you can leave at any time. Because you haven't, I derive that you are obsessed - why listen/respond to someone one is not obsessed with?

Please, most respectfully:

I asked you if you have any evidence to support the claim that you **know** what satan is.

Do you have any evidence at all?

I have something better: where to find the evidence itself.

Inside of yourself.

How do u know anything about satan?

Satan makes people "believe" he/it is god. Therefor, "belief" is necessary for satan to entire the picture.

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

Diagram is not evidence of satan.

Please: you don't really know anything about satan, right?

It's all just subjective belief.

This is your own projection: to 'know' satan is different than to "believe" something about satan, because satan requires "belief" in the first place.

Therefor, to 'know' satan requires 0 "belief". Knowing satan is the same things as knowing ones own binds: psychological, emotional, habitual.

Just becoming triggered at "here comes the Jew" revealed the insecurity / small identity. That is a bind I see that you do not see, because your emotions were involved and Abram was told to get out of the land of his kindred to a place that will be shown to him, but Abram was stubborn and is still spinning in a whirlpool of tohuwabohu.
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
Well, that's a nice story. Where did you get that information? But, nevertheless, isn't your God omnipotent? If an omnipotent God allows a cherub, great or otherwise, to become so evil that he messes with people thousands of years later, that doesn't say much for your omnipotent God.

Your omnipotent God could zap Satan/Lucifer out of existence. But He doesn't. Therefore He is the cause of Original Sin and Continuing Sin.

I doubt you would allow fire ants to keep biting your kids when they played in your backyard. If you didn't get rid of them, who should your kids blame, the fire ants or you?

Where did you get that from, As I never said nor do I support the idea that God is all knowing.
As there is no where in the Bible/scriptures that supports nor teaches the idea that God as being all knowing.
That's man's teachings that say, God is all knowing.
Goodness Gracious.

How many times must I show you that the term for "all knowing" is omniscient?
How many times must I show you that the term for "all powerful" is omnipotent?

They are two different things. Your God does not need to be "all knowing" to zap Satan/Lucifer out of existence. You God may not be omnipotent, but if He can create an entire universe, he is surely potent enough to zap Satan/Lucifer out of existence. But He doesn't. Therefore He (your God) is the cause of Original Sin and Continuing Sin.


The same as man's teachings well say about the Rapture ...

Let's not start a new topic - again. Let's just stick to why your God doesn't want to get rid of Satan/Lucifer.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
33943_00f8b6ba55d9317faeadc3465a4f85c9.png
Correct: three exterior are 666, center is 703, consistent with what I stated: the three exterior are smaller. I never indicated an equilateral triangle anywhere.

The picture clearly shows four triangles. Each of the four triangles is labelled with a number. Three are 666, one is 703. The 703 is in the center of the three 666's.

The graphic was just meant to demonstrate removing 666x3 leaving the 703, which is the same as like the original 'the Adam' and Eve.

You posted the picture.
You talked about the mathematics.

Now you would have us believe that the picture and the mathematics is meaningless. That's something I could agree with. However, it is the basis and foundation of your argument. You can't just dismiss it. The picture is fraudulent because a triangle with an area of 703 cannot fit in the center of three triangles with areas of 666. If the areas are of no consequence, then you could have just as well labelled the triangles 17,89,69,72 and made up a whole bunch of different (equally meaningless) stories.

I think you're focusing too much on the picture (which is not mine anyways, as pointed out) and not what the implications are: it is easier to understand if one forgets the picture entirely, it was just a visual aid.

Riiiight! You make an argument using the pictures and numerology based mathematics, and now say "forget the picture, it isn't mine, just believe what I'm saying anyway".

Are you hoping we'd forget that you posted the picture with the commentary:
Can I 'prove' something mathematically?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Gee, you must have not read the post you responded to. Here I'll post it again...

This time, I highlighted the important part.

Or, perhaps you don't believe what your scripture states. If that is the case then you need to show why you don't believe it and where you get your information from.

Yeah as the flood was upon the earth, As to where else would think the flood would other than the earth.

Genesis 6:17, does not say the flood covered the whole earth, only that the flood was upon the earth, So where else do you think the flood would have been, if not upon the earth.

Just because Genesis 6:17 said the flood was upon the earth, you take this as covering the whole earth.

But Genesis 6:17 does say the flood covered the whole earth, only that the flood was upon the earth, So where else do you suppose the flood would be other than the earth.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
33943_00f8b6ba55d9317faeadc3465a4f85c9.png


The picture clearly shows four triangles. Each of the four triangles is labelled with a number. Three are 666, one is 703. The 703 is in the center of the three 666's.



You posted the picture.
You talked about the mathematics.

Now you would have us believe that the picture and the mathematics is meaningless. That's something I could agree with. However, it is the basis and foundation of your argument. You can't just dismiss it. The picture is fraudulent because a triangle with an area of 703 cannot fit in the center of three triangles with areas of 666. If the areas are of no consequence, then you could have just as well labelled the triangles 17,89,69,72 and made up a whole bunch of different (equally meaningless) stories.



Riiiight! You make an argument using the pictures and numerology based mathematics, and now say "forget the picture, it isn't mine, just believe what I'm saying anyway".

Are you hoping we'd forget that you posted the picture with the commentary:

Now that's amazing, Seeing how Christ Jesus foretold in his book of Revelation what the number 666 stands for and who it represents it's all there in Christ Jesus book of Revelation.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@9-18-1 ,

It's plagiarism to take the image off someone else's copyrighted website, without giving them credit.

That's what you did.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Do not apply a standard of evidence to another that you have not applied to yourself.
I didn't and I don't.
It's just a picture
It's a plagiarized picture. You didn't give credit. And the picture is copyrighted material.
you're melting down over it trying to character assassinate me
Nope... and Nope. You're character is not on trial here. Your words are flawed. Your arguments are without evidence. It's a long list. But all of it, is your own doing. I am just pointing them out. I am tempted to re-post all the false claims, just so that the audience can have an accurate count.

And before you get all high and mighty about ad hominem... please don't forget. You opened the door to ad hominem when you replied, "Oh boy, here come's the Jew". As the first reply to my post on this thread.
"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE
Please: Most respectfully:

Can we agree this is your central claim?

You have repeated it, many times. It is usually bold. I think it's important to point it out, because, there might be some really valuable insights that you have to offer.

But, those valuable insights started out from belief. Without belief, there would be no valuable insights.

The whole claim about belief is ridiculous. Because you consistently use belief in this thread to argue point after point after point.

Belief is a virtue. If not, why do you keep using it in this debate?

I think, what you either can't see or refuse to admit is:

Your beliefs are good. Other beliefs are bad. That's hypocrisy.
Yes - not the least of which is chastity. It is the standard of evidence demanded by Jesus re: satan having no bind (over him).

Are you chaste? If not - I can only explain why chastity is required to 'know' satan and you would either have to accept it, or accept that your standard of appraisal re: "satan" is not to the same standard as mine given you are not chaste. In which case, you don't have an argument either way because the same standard of evidence I employ is not employed by you.

So, the proof is being chaste? How is this objective? { he says while scratching his head }

You have to be chaste to accept the proof. That is subjective, for sure. That's a fact.

If it's subjective it is belief. You have no evidence that is not belief.

I'm sorry.

In part - but chastity is required. In other words, I did not know anything about satan until becoming chaste.

OK, well... there it is. Ya have to drink my cool-aid or ya won't get it.

Chastity is required. That fits the rest of your arguments.

My-way or the high-way. Fundamentalism.

"Fundamentalism indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. Is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions"

Fundamentalism - Wikipedia

"a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions"

Well, that is a perfect discription of the what you are saying. See below:

Are you chaste? ...chastity is required. In other words, I did not know anything about satan until becoming chaste.

In group = chaste
Out group = not chaste

It's the same argument you made about who and who is not Jewish:

That is not always a good thing. If you ask those 1000 Jewish people if Moses was a prophet of god, they will tell you yes - otherwise they are not a Jew.

In group: Believing Moses was a Prophet
Out group: They Believe otherwise

It's just more black vs. white thinking. Which you engage in by your own admission:

I reduce things into yes/no questions. Rather than good/evil judgments, I simply ask black-and-white questions that resolve what reality reflects.

It's Fundamentalism; Black vs. White; Over Simplified; Dogmatic; Belief.

@9-18-1, I thought you agreed to quote me properly. Please explain why you are intentionally changing the quotes around. I think you're baiting me again.

Selection_107.png


Question: what is your intention with the misquote above?
Wisdom and ha meshiach are the same
Another belief... Maybe there is value to it. But it is still a belief. It's not knowledge till you have evidence and can demonstrate it.
Whatever Adam named the animals, that is what they were.
:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy: This is one of your jokes?

Aren't you arguing against a literal reading of the Torah? I think you're flip-flopping again.

The Torah is myth: Flip
Adam named the animals: Flop

Flip-Flop = Sloppy

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

because satan requires "belief" in the first place.

No "belief" = no satan.

@9-18-1,

This is really interesting, because: What you said above has tremendous value. But it simply isn't black and white.

"No belief in satan" is a good positive valuable statement.

I actually really appreciate that.

It's focused, feels true; relevant, useful... it's good stuff.

But how you got there is all based on belief.


What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know.

This is a foolish statement in a debate where the central claim is "belief is not a virtue".

I know what I know, and I don't have to show evidence.

You do if you want to show that belief is not a virtue.

Asserting the negative is very hard to do. All I need to do is show a few examples that refute your claim and the claim you are making is false.

In order to make it true you would need to walk back the Fundamentalism, walk back the rhetoric and the preaching, and say something like:

Belief is sometimes a virtue and sometimes not a virtue.

Then the claim is no longer false.

It really is that simple.

This is your own projection: to 'know' satan is different than to "believe" something about satan, because satan requires "belief" in the first place.

Therefor, to 'know' satan requires 0 "belief".

You're contradicting yourself.

Satan requires belief. Without belief satan doesn't exist.

Once a person has no belief, how can they "know" something that doesn't exist?

Sorry... yet again, your logic falls apart.

Diagram is not evidence of satan.

If the diagram is not evidence why are you posting it repeatedly?

Are you preaching for the Meru Foundation?

It reminds me of other religious people who just want to post their scripture.

Is that what you are doing. Looking for reasons to post your gospel online?

@9-18-1,

I could keep going on and on showing how flawed your posts are.

But I want to focus on this one:

It is the standard of evidence demanded by Jesus re: satan having no bind (over him).

Do you **know** whether or not Jesus is real?

Because if not, then why are you using Jesus as evidence for your claim?

Unless: Belief is a virtue. A Belief in Jesus is helping you make your claim?

Belief in Jesus is supporting your choice to be chaste?

And Chastity is required for knowledge?

Again, you are contradicting yourself. It's a pattern.
 
Last edited:
Top