The Original Sin: who is to blame?

[9-18-1]

I'm sorry, I missed it.

I respectfully decline this. My beliefs are influx. I am a work in progress.

I simply cannot define it, and why would I.

In this way, I feel like the conversation is shifting it's focus to me. Isn't that ad hominem? Literally?

That is all you are doing is attacking me. So, to put a stop to it, I was going to have you explain your knowledge (if any), understanding and/or "beliefs" re: the ten commandments to clarify how you actually are appropriating your OWN "belief"-based problems to me, when the most fundamental problem is inside of yourself.

Why would I ever do this?

Better question: why would you might not want to?

I just don't follow you, I am very sorry. Why should I start a thread about something that is not my focus nor is my interest?

You absolutely do follow me - you just attack, slander, undermine, erroneously try to dismiss arguments which still stand etc. based on your own "belief".

Looking at the 10 commandments backwards? If you find something valuable in that, please start the thread yourself.

They refer to the ten sephiroth of the body - therefor following from bottom-up yields sequentially is the same thing as Moses climbing the mountain to "receive" them.

I will read it with an open mind.

One is required for that.

If what you find is valuable, interesting, and fact based, then I think you should post it.

It is only valuable insofar as you relentlessly attack me and I am trying to find a way for you to stop. It can stop very simply: if you don't like what I write, don't read/reply. Otherwise, don't try to slander me by dumping your own nature on to me. It is exactly what you are doing.

But I think, if you do that, be careful not to overstate the confidence of your claims because that will dilute your message and degrade the quality of your writing.

Mirror.

You can't overstate something that simply is true (even if known/unknown - what is true is true regardless). Besides, even if I state something as true, nobody should "believe" it or take it as true anyways, unless they are simply stupid.

If you don't have any understanding of the Ten Commandments and/or are unwilling to even discuss them (despite them being the most important "Law" in the Torah) there are obviously insecurities there. That you won't even provide anything about Torah despite having been asked citing:

I'm sorry, I missed it.

I respectfully decline this. My beliefs are influx. I am a work in progress.

I simply cannot define it, and why would I.

Because you're hiding... fear? Shame?

Sound familiar?

I'm in the garden, and you're in Egypt. You can't even face the Ten Commandments?

People who identify with/as their "BELIEF" will protect/defend it (ie. them) at all costs. Shared/group identities (ie. Jew, Christian, Muslim etc.) protect their own (tribal).

I'm not afraid to talk about the Ten Commandments or Torah - it seems you are afraid to even say a single thing about your knowledge/understanding/"belief" in/about Torah and the nature of it? Can't even answer if you "believe" a god had something to do with its coming into existence? Afraid of facing it may not actually be "true"? Was it there at the foundation of the world? Can't answer any of these?

Well this one doesn't hide behind rocks - he hides from them!

Accusations of ad hominem, or simply deliciously satisfying rhetoric? I guess it depends who is insecure and who is secure - who takes life seriously or who doesn't actually care what others think/perceive. Yes, people can be ********. If I am one to someone, that is what I am to them. But nobody defines 'I AM' but me - so I actually neither care nor suffer the things others suffer (esp. on account of others).

But that doesn't mean ******** can not know and/or be right/correct about things. Besides, I'm not an authority (authority is only bestowed by outside individuals based on how they treat the object) I'm just one person. Never "claimed" to be anything more. If you don't like the direct language, I direct you to the exit door.

Good day - and that "belief" is not a virtue lends itself to your own state: influx. Same as chaos and void. That's even BEFORE light lol. There is no order in chaos - the universe tends toward order over time, and the being should be the same. Influx of "belief" means chaos and void - no form - darkness upon the face of the abyss.

The spirit of Elohim is Abraham - which is why I told you to get out of the emotions. Can't do anything while those are present.

Understand the archetypes and their works - Nuach had to build the Ark (tree of life) which reflects the Ten Commandments which... you are afraid to even look at.

Fear is the beginning of wisdom for a reason.

 

[9-18-1]

LOLOL.. Sharia isn't going to rule the planet.. There is NO place in the Muslim world that is ruled by Sharia

What an ignorant statement.

We have had Beit Din in the US for 250 years and its not a problem.

Beit Din is not Islamic Sharia.

I find it suspect when people are so focused on trashing the other guy whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jew or other.

I find it suspect when someone makes the statement "there is no place in the Muslim world that is ruled by Sharia".

Do you know what Sharia means? It means the well worn path to lifegiving water. How bloody sinister is that?

I don't care what "Sharia" means, I care about what it is.
Same way I don't care about what "Islam" means (peace?), I care about what it actually is (submit).
Same way I don't care about what "jihad" means, I care about what it actually is.

What something "means" is not the same as what something actually is. The greater jihad is supposed to be internal, the lesser outer. Muslims have this backwards: the outer has become dominant.

Sharia begins simply:

i. Can not criticize Islam
ii. Can not criticize Muhammad
iii. Can not criticize Qur'an

And this is where totalitarian fascist suppression comes in:
-OIC unanimously pressuring UN to criminalize all criticisms of Islam as "racist" (ie. Sharia)
-Term "Islamophobia" to suppress criticisms of i. ii. iii. (ie. Sharia)
-Principle division of "believer" (ie. "believers" are superior) vs. "unbelievers" (ie. "unbelievers" are inferior): sets precedent for fascism (ie. superiority/subjugation esp. of Jews) (ie. Sharia).
-Muhammad/Hitler both labeled/committed genocide against Jews and Muslims endeavor to wipe Jews off the planet (ie. genocidal)
-Male central figure held as the highest standard/infallible (ie. idol worship)
-Stealing tax-paying-dollars (ie. jizya collection from non-Muslims) to fund jihad
-Muhammad establishing precedent for pedophilia / polygamy / infidelity
etc.

And this is where we find the root of socialism/fascism: "believers" who suffer their own "belief" being false, and try to appropriate the source of their own internal self-induced "belief"-based suffering with external sources/people.Thus, endeavoring to make everyone else suffer at least as much as they themselves suffer. This is socialism - the gospel of envy. It comes from Jews/Muhammadans who suffer their own stupidity.

This is the scapegoating illness of the Canaanites inherited by the Jews and passed to the Arab Muhammadans. Blame everyone else for ones own sins: on the Jews. Jews, Jews, Jews!

Islam kills; sharia kills; the Qur'an is man-made, and Muslims "BELIEVE" they are installing god's law when, in fact, they are merely replacing man-made 21st century laws with man-made 7th century laws which reflects the barbarism of Canaanite idol worship: stoning over "taking offense" to criticisms of a completely insane doctrine such as Islam.

POTUS was just framed for such a human sacrifice: BHO tried to dump his entire Russia collusion scandal onto Trump (ie. spied on him, false FISA accusations etc.) and BHO just might be outed as... having worked for the cause of Allah to destroy the U.S. from within.

All of the Christian church vandalism? Almost 900 in France alone last year. By who?

Religion of "peace"? All over a man-made book, pedophile war lord idol and one false testimony contrary to the ten commandments?

Tragic.

 

[dybmh]

That is all you are doing is attacking me.

I categorically deny that I was attacking you. I was pointing out the many varied flaws in your words.

Better question: why would you might not want to?

I woudn't want to because this is a debate forum, and if I present something I would need to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise I would look foolish.

I recognize my own lack of knowledge and that I have a lot to learn. Unless and until I have substantial facts to back up a claim, I simply do not see any reason to make a thread.

Does that make sense?

you just attack, slander, undermine, erroneously try to dismiss arguments which still stand etc. based on your own "belief".

I am not doing any of that.

[The 10 Commandments] refer to the ten sephiroth of the body - therefor following from bottom-up yields sequentially is the same thing as Moses climbing the mountain to "receive" them.

Is this fact or is something you believe?

One is required for that.

That is an insult. You are saying I do not have a mind.

It is only valuable insofar as you relentlessly attack me and I am trying to find a way for you to stop. It can stop very simply: if you don't like what I write, don't read/reply. Otherwise, don't try to slander me by dumping your own nature on to me. It is exactly what you are doing.

I am not attacking you. I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments. As long as you reply to my posts, I will reply back.

Also, I reserve the right to reply to your posts to correct false claims that you make.

And I repeat that what I am doing is not slander. Slander is a false statement. What I am saying about your claims and what I am saying about your words is all true.

If you can show it is false, I will apologize and admit I was wrong.

If you don't have any understanding of the Ten Commandments and/or are unwilling to even discuss them (despite them being the most important "Law" in the Torah) there are obviously insecurities there. That you won't even provide anything about Torah despite having been asked citing:

I am only unwilling to discuss them here because it is Off Topic. If you want to discuss the 10 Commandments, I think you should start a new thread about it.

I'm not afraid to talk about the Ten Commandments or Torah - it seems you are afraid to even say a single thing about your knowledge/understanding/"belief" in/about Torah and the nature of it? Can't even answer if you "believe" a god had something to do with its coming into existence? Afraid of facing it may not actually be "true"? Was it there at the foundation of the world? Can't answer any of these?

It's just a very complicated subject. It would be something maybe I would journal about. Or perhaps if I agreed to be interviewed on the subject...

Does that make sense?

I don't know if my beliefs on G-d and Torah will ever be refined enough to present in the way you are asking from me to present them.

And, this thread really isn't about me and my beliefs.

Look, I did answer the question in this thread. Maybe you missed it.

I said, ( paraphrasing ):

"I am fully aware of the academic, historical, evidence that shows that the Torah is man made, but that does not supersede G-d."

If you want to talk about that claim and how it is false, it is your thread. I will reply to you as long as you reply to me.

OK?

your own state: influx. Same as chaos and void.

I don't deny that my beliefs are not easy to define. I accept that they are influx. I don't see that as a negative. I see it as positive.

My beliefs are organic, complex, and adaptive.

 

[ecco]

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?

Nope not at all,
that's man's teachings that say God is
omnipotent in all knowing.
There is no where in the Bible that supports God as being all knowing

Man's teachings will say God is all knowing. But I would like for anyone produce where it's written at, That God is all knowing.

All knowing is omniscience.
All powerful is omnipotence.

You should know the difference between the two.

Your holy scripture says God created the entire universe and everything in it. That, by definition, includes/ Satan/Lucifer. If God can flood the entire earth, as it says in your holy scripture, and kill almost all humans and almost all animals, then surely he is capable of eliminating one wayward cherub.

He hasn't. That makes it clear He doesn't want to.

 

[ecco]

Lucifer was created million of years before Adam and Eve were created.
Back during the first earth age.

When you mistakenly thought I was saying that God is omniscient, you called me out by indicating that there is nothing in scripture that says God is omniscient.

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"?

 

[ecco]

Some dictators, like Hitler, worked with the churches and religions to further his goals.

Yes. And one of those goals was to get rid of religion. I'm not putting the emphasis ON religion. YOU are trying to claim that because there were other goals, that getting rid of religion wasn't one of them.

If you are under the impression that Hitler wanted to end Christianity in Germany, then you are ignorant of the facts or being willfully deceitful.

In either case, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

 

[9-18-1]

Either you have no clue what you are talking about or you are on a deliberate hate mission. Muhammed taught that when a slave is freed Allah smiles.

Children born of a Muslim and a slave woman had all the rights of his other children..

Shahada is a false testimony contrary to the Ten Commandments.

You can't bear a true testimony of a dead man.

The Qur'an is not the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. It is forged from Christian strophic hymns as demonstrated in the work of Gunter Luling who presents four principle premises and sets out to establish their validity by indicating who/what/where/why/when/how certain words ended up getting completely mistranslated and frame-references being imposed onto a rasm-text which never begged for it.

Christoph Luxenberg demonstrated many of these words are actually Syriac words whence... the white grapes discovery.

This is not difficult unless one is:

לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה אשר בשמים ממעל ואשר בארץ מתחת ואשר במים מתחת לארץ
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth

The heavens above are in the highest of ANY temple: the body being the head (psychology).
The earth is the fruit in the midst of ANY frame: the earth being the heart (emotions).
The waters is the polluted (tob) /impolluted (ra) pool: whence water becomes wine (sex).
Hence the word: mayim: the "waters" above flowing open mem (ie. cerebral-spinal fluid) and the waters below flowing into a closed mem pool: the sexual waters.

Define 'chastity'.

yud

I am presently chaste - but it was not always so. I "fornicated" in my earlier days - taken with women. That is how I 'know' the Edenic mystery: I lived it. I am my own witness OF it. When the lower organ commands the higher, this is degeneration. When the higher organ commands the lower, this is regeneration / everlasting life (only way). It is the same as Christ.

Jesus taught chastity is a requirement. I test claims.

I categorically deny that I was attacking you. I was pointing out the many varied flaws in your words.

But the "flaws" you BELIEVE you are pointing out, are actually your own. You just don't "see" it yet. I want you to, but... there are obstacles.

I woudn't want to because this is a debate forum, and if I present something I would need to have evidence to back it up. Otherwise I would look foolish.

Define 'evidence'.

What evidence is sufficient beyond personal life experience whence to arrive at the conclusive state of 'knowing'? Who is the testifier of ones own experience?

Who does one Ultimately answer to re: this? Think Adam re: G-d asking him if he ate. Remember: G-d had not indicated AT ALL that Adam had done ANYTHING WRONG by this point. G-d does NOT condemn Adam for ANYTHING until, until... wait for it.

G-D ASKS ADAM: DID YOU EAT FROM THE TREE WHENCE I TOLD YOU NOT TO EAT?

...wait for it.

Adam has a choice here. Still, he is NOT assumed to have done anything wrong yet - this is not indicated yet!

...wait for it.

He could say "Yes, and it was my fault."
Or, something else...?

Adam responds how? "IT IS THIS WOMAN YOU (G-D) BROUGHT TO ME".

Here is where Adam "sinned" - emotions. He used the woman as an "outlet" for his own emotions (ie. scapegoat - Canaanite), as angry men have, do, and will continue to unless Judaism, Christian and Islam reconcile the Edenic state as 'I AM'. Anger, therefor, finds itself to the woman, she suffers, the planet suffers, the "spirit of G-d" suffers, and the planet dies, because "havah" is the mother of all that lives. Adam named her that for her function - and this brings us to ISIS of Egypt: the most divine mother/woman/womb (virgin). Who becomes the virgin Mary serving Christianity/Islam. Gnostic groups/kaballah know her simply as "The Divine Mother" and I observe her the same: present in/through every single woman on the planet.

A poem:

She is the Eden womb
through which Delightful wills are shared,
e'er a will to bestow, and receiveth she so-
e'er a will to receive, and bestoweth he so-
la ila night into day, illa allah day into night
six times over from 'let there be light,'
and last a day of rest.

Which biblical character has a name meaning "rest"? Nuach.
What letters comprise this name? Nun chet.
What is nun? Fish.
What is chet? Vav+Zayin.
Seed joining vav and zayin?

Define "anger".
Apply to "Adam".

He could say "Yes, and it was my fault." Or...
He DID say "IT WAS THE WOMAN YOU (G-D) BROUGHT ME!")

Anger = scapegoating on to the woman.
Leads to: women being blamed/shamed for man's own iniquity.
Leads to: well, look at Islam. It is the 'Original Sin' in Perpetuity (ongoing state).

I recognize my own lack of knowledge and that I have a lot to learn. Unless and until I have substantial facts to back up a claim, I simply do not see any reason to make a thread.

Define 'fact'.

Elohim has two qualities:
[IMAGE] - factoid/particle
[LIKENESS] - narrative/wave
Two hemispheres of brain.
'Facts' can only ever be exactly 'half' of the whole.
Islam: testimony of woman worth half than a man?
Derived from: image and likeness must be a contrast between both.

Does that make sense?

Mirror.

I am not doing any of that.

Not anymore.

Is this fact or is something you believe?

"Belief" is not a virtue. If you "believe" what I say is not something I know, but rather merely "believe", this again is your "belief".

That is an insult. You are saying I do not have a mind.

Everyone has a mind. The firmament of which like a pool of water. Only when it is still does it reflect the majesty of the highest heavens. Emotions are the stormy seas.

I am not attacking you. I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments. As long as you reply to my posts, I will reply back.

You are not, though. According to *your* logic, they are flawed. According to my logic:

If no potent delivery = no potent god. If one can not point to an historical delivery, there was no "miracles of god" being performed, but rather as accounted for in the historical record the Egyptian monotheist got kicked out of Egypt for being allowed to take his followers (of Atun), who mixed with the Canaanite 'el' and created a political division between 'el' and 'yhvh' leading to different "monotheisms" etc. and... Torah.

Also, I reserve the right to reply to your posts to correct false claims that you make.

This right is already yours.

And I repeat that what I am doing is not slander. Slander is a false statement. What I am saying about your claims and what I am saying about your words is all true

Was saying "here comes the Jew" a false statement? Who is projecting/imbuing "meaning" and "intent" here? I said: just to remind me how a Jew might see the world before talking. You took offense.

That's pretty much what this whole thing is about - emotions. I have been trying to tell you there is no shame in being a Jew. Remember Adam?

 

[ecco]

Did God change his name from Lucifer to Satan in order to try to cover up that they were one and the same evil entity that He created?

It is mythology.

I agree. All stories about Satan/Lucifer are mythologies. Some mythologies have more acceptance than others. Some mythologies are more rooted in tradition than others.

Your mythology...

Lucifer is the sexual energy of a being - it can be used for good or evil depending on how it is utilized / acted upon (via CHOICE). This is the Edenic state prior to the fall: Adam and Eve had not yet touched or eaten from the tree of KNOWLEDGE of [GOOD AND EVIL].

Eve is the desire for sex: when it feeds the brain (Adam), the lower organ begins to take control of the higher which reflects that person's own yetzer ha ra: satan.

...is completely off the wall. Is this something you came up with on your own or are there other people that actually believe this?

 

[9-18-1]

If you can show it is false, I will apologize and admit I was wrong.

I don't want you to admit you're wrong about anything - all I want you to understand is 'I AM' - that is all. I know you identify as a Jew (which is why I referred to you as one) and I told you I think you have a brilliant mind. But there are emotional and securities issues that incite a sort of madness that finds expression through... paranoia? Again it is fear: remember Adam.

I am only unwilling to discuss them here because it is Off Topic. If you want to discuss the 10 Commandments, I think you should start a new thread about it.

Your answer was sufficient for my purposes, but I may do it later just because. First will be about chastity as a virtue, and how it is a standard of evidence.

It's just a very complicated subject. It would be something maybe I would journal about. Or perhaps if I agreed to be interviewed on the subject...

I'm not affiliated with anyone or anything - just one man. No authority beyond that. I am, simply.

Does that make sense?

I understand you.

I don't know if my beliefs on G-d and Torah will ever be refined enough to present in the way you are asking from me to present them.

You have (attempted to) claim that you have "pointed out" faults in my reasoning/logic when it is my understanding the fault(s) upon which you might base such assertions can be clarified, but I can't point to them without the requested thread re: the Ten Commandments. I could have cleared the issue there, but it would have required you to provide only how you understand the Ten Commandments, not speaking on behalf of anyone but yourself. I don't have a particular interest in the Ten Commandments myself but they relate directly to my "belief is not a virtue" statement and how the Ten Commandments can put two stones' weight in favor for, rather than against. Ultimately it would have lead to how to derive sahten but... c'est la vie.

And, this thread really isn't about me and my beliefs.

You "believe" it is about mine.

Look, I did answer the question in this thread. Maybe you missed it.

I said, ( paraphrasing ):

"I am fully aware of the academic, historical, evidence that shows that the Torah is man made, but that does not supersede G-d."

'G-d' is completely undefined until defined by your usage according to it. I can't know what you mean by 'G-d' unless defined. If claimed to be undefinable, this is catastrophic for Judaism itself. Is G-d not anything but one? Whence G-d derives any status/potency as G-d if the Biblical events are falsified to justify a 'state' (ie. Israel)?

If you want to talk about that claim and how it is false, it is your thread. I will reply to you as long as you reply to me.

OK?

Only point of interest is your intended meaning of 'G-d', that is all - when this is rectified a lot can be resolved.

I don't deny that my beliefs are not easy to define. I accept that they are influx. I don't see that as a negative. I see it as positive.

My beliefs are organic, complex, and adaptive.

Then they are not actually "beliefs". I'm not sure we exactly have the same idea as what constitutes a "belief" as this would explain a lot.

How about a definition of terms shoot-out at the 'ol corale? I'll provide definitions of G-d and "belief" along withprose to explain what is meant for clarity, and you can however you see fit.

How is that? We both define terms: G-d and "belief".

 

[ecco]

[A vs. B] and C
A "believes" A is good, B is evil.
B "believes" B is good A is evil.
C knows.

Who has power here?

What makes you believe you are the C or the proponent of C? Maybe you are just an A.

 

[9-18-1]

I agree. All stories about Satan/Lucifer are mythologies. Some mythologies have more acceptance than others. Some mythologies are more rooted in tradition than others.

Your mythology...



...is completely off the wall. Is this something you came up with on your own or are there other people that actually believe this?

It is not "belief"-based. There are two "trees" one has to learn: tree of life, and tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life refers to kaballah (to receive) and the tree of knowledge of good and evil refers to alchemy - no, not transmuting metals, but energy - including sexual. They don't teach any of these things in the monotheisms.

The relationship between higher and lower organs (brain and sex) balances at the heart which is Christ. In chastity this energy can be sent back up the spine to nourish the brain. If spilling (seed) the brain is deprived. The Edenic mystery is inside the body, not outside. Adam is the brain, Eve is the sex. Lucifer is the sexual energy, can be rooted in/for good, or evil (ie. lust). People who lust for control/money etc. are drawing this through their lower organ. This is where the serpent lies coiled unless raised (in/through chastity) and the sexual act.

 

[9-18-1]

What makes you believe you are the C or the proponent of C? Maybe you are just an A.

But I didn't.

You're trying to read that into it?

If I am A or B, there is a C (that is not me) that can see my "us" vs. "them" bind.
If I am C, I can see others' "us" vs, "them" trap.

Personally I always assume C as outside of me, and that is the same as whoever/whatever has full working knowledge of good and evil, as I'm subject to that anyways: call that G-d. That is why I don't "believe" to know it - I admit not knowing it. However, one can still eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and be "like" god which is to "know" good and evil. In this way, I can see when two oppositions are in such a configuration, but I don't touch them because that is where all of the people of power play their stupid games with humanity. I am fine where I am for now, but still see humanity suffering its own stupidity. I don't suffer it - just for the women. I don't even consider myself a feminist - just even knowing that women are at the center of the global problem is enough to suffer until it is re-balanced and taken out of this patriarchal dark-ages idol-infested Jesus and Muhammad "mercies upon mankind" d*ck-waving contest: whose Ken-doll is the nicest. My G-d is the life/honor of these two men really worth all of the bloodshed?

I see everyone eating from the tree, us vs. them, us vs. them, and here I sit and say:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

 

[dybmh]

@9-18-1,

You have said many things in this thread which are not true. And to this point you have not corrected the record on any of them.

If you want to continue the discussion with me, I think you need to demonstate some good will.

To do this please correct the record:

1) In your first reply to me in this thread you said, "oh boy, here comes the Jew". Then later you claimed that this was a neutral statement. True of False?

2) In this thread you claimed that in order for a person to be Jewish they must believe that Moses is a prophet. I said it was false. You said "show me 1 person", I brought overwhelming evidence to show your claim was false. Then you did not accept it saying that Judaism is not a person. True of False?

3) In this thread you made the claim that Muhammad engaged in a physical relationship with a prepubescent girl without strong evidence. I brought 2 sources disputing the claim. Along with evidence that your source is an Unsubstantiated Rumor. True or False?

4) In this thread you claimed that you **know** the Qur'an is forged, but you have not brought any strong evidence to support it. The evidence you provided is based on your claim to have read the Torah eventhough less than 6 months ago you had no knowledge of Hebrew. True or False?

5) In this thread you have made many many claims about my beliefs in spite of my repeated corrections to the contrary. True or False?

@9-18-1, You have over reached so many times in this thread and others. I choose to reply to your most recent post as follows:

I know you identify as a Jew

I do NOT identify as a Jew. My parents are Jewish. My grandparents are Jewish. I on the other hand do not identify myself that way. I am a very poor example of a Jewish person. For many reasons. My religion, what I believe in is Diversity. That is how I identify myself. I am an individual.

If you choose to label me anything other than that; it is a misrepresentation.

If you want to speak about my bloodline, OK, if you think it is relevant. But my parents are Atheists. They do not believe in G-d. They do not believe in the Torah. They share many of your views that you have said in this thread.

You "believe" it is about mine.

I do not believe that.

How is that? We both define terms: G-d and "belief".

I think that Hinduism does the best job at defining G-d in words. In my view G-d = Brahman.

For belief:

In my view a Fact is a claim whose evidence surpasses all reasonable doubt.

A belief is a claim which is not a Fact.

So, a belief is a claim whose evidence does not surpass all reasonable doubt.

All I need to do is introduce reasonable doubt, and then a claim becomes belief.

Does that make sense?

 

[ecco]

It is not "belief"-based. There are two "trees" one has to learn: tree of life, and tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life refers to kaballah (to receive) and the tree of knowledge of good and evil refers to alchemy - no, not transmuting metals, but energy - including sexual. They don't teach any of these things in the monotheisms.

The relationship between higher and lower organs (brain and sex) balances at the heart which is Christ. In chastity this energy can be sent back up the spine to nourish the brain. If spilling (seed) the brain is deprived. The Edenic mystery is inside the body, not outside. Adam is the brain, Eve is the sex. Lucifer is the sexual energy, can be rooted in/for good, or evil (ie. lust). People who lust for control/money etc. are drawing this through their lower organ. This is where the serpent lies coiled unless raised (in/through chastity) and the sexual act.

Of course, it is belief based. All religious/supernatural concepts are belief based.

You said, "They don't teach any of these things in the monotheisms." OK, where are these things taught?

As I asked previously: Is this something you came up with on your own or are there other people that actually believe this?

 

[ecco]

But I didn't.

You're trying to read that into it?

If I am A or B, there is a C (that is not me) that can see my "us" vs. "them" bind.
If I am C, I can see others' "us" vs, "them" trap.

Personally I always assume C as outside of me, and that is the same as whoever/whatever has full working knowledge of good and evil, as I'm subject to that anyways: call that G-d. That is why I don't "believe" to know it - I admit not knowing it. However, one can still eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and be "like" god which is to "know" good and evil. In this way, I can see when two oppositions are in such a configuration, but I don't touch them because that is where all of the people of power play their stupid games with humanity. I am fine where I am for now, but still see humanity suffering its own stupidity. I don't suffer it - just for the women. I don't even consider myself a feminist - just even knowing that women are at the center of the global problem is enough to suffer until it is re-balanced and taken out of this patriarchal dark-ages idol-infested Jesus and Muhammad "mercies upon mankind" d*ck-waving contest: whose Ken-doll is the nicest. My G-d is the life/honor of these two men really worth all of the bloodshed?

I see everyone eating from the tree, us vs. them, us vs. them, and here I sit and say:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

I don't have the slightest idea of what you are trying to say. And I'm OK with that. I'll not trouble you for more explanations.

 

[9-18-1]

Can I 'prove' something mathematically?

Gematria of Genesis = 2701 (37 x 73)

Remove '666' 'mark of the beast' thrice from three organs: head, heart, sex.
Remainder: 703


כמו האדם הראשון וחוה
[same as] the Adam [the first one] and Eve.

So, removing the 'mark of the beast' from:
heavens above - head - psychology
earth below - heart - emotions
waters below - organ - yetzer (ha tob/ra)

And that leaves only yetzer ha tob, because yetzer ha ra is 666 'the mark of the beast'.

Gamatria for 666?

סקס סקס וסקס

When all three organs are wholly expressions of a (series of) bind(s) which exist in an ongoing (unresolved) state. Hence: satan.

This is the cycle of birth and death; samsara; the wheel of becoming, the path, the journey to discover what was never actually lost, but only forgotten.

ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור

 

[dybmh]

Can I 'prove' something mathematically?

What did you just prove?

What is the source for the diagram?

And how is Gematria strong evidence for anything?

Where does Gematria come from?

How do you know the number letter equivalents you are using are accurate?

All you have shown is more of your beliefs.

 

[dybmh]

ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור

Rough translation for non Hebrew speakers.

And G-d spoke, here is Light, and there was Light.

 

[dianaiad]

If you are under the impression that Hitler wanted to end Christianity in Germany, then you are ignorant of the facts or being willfully deceitful.

In either case, there is no point in continuing the conversation.

Did I mention Hitler?

No. I did not.

Hitler may well have been atheist; I think he was. However, he used religion rather frequently in his politics, and as far as I am aware, Nazi Germany did not have 'state atheism.' Hitler used any means he could to rile up the mob, and that did indeed include religion, in particular, Christianity. He was the ultimate hypocrite. He was not, however, 'anti-theist.' At least, not while he was in power. He might have become so, eventually, but then again, perhaps not. A stance on religion is too useful, whether one waves the "God is on our side" flag or "religion is the opiate of the people and we have to get rid of it and of the believers in order to have a proper society."

Hitler also was not the most murderous 'dictator' of the twentieth century. He actually comes in at around third, after Stalin and Mao, and they DID have 'state atheism,' or 'anti-theism.'

Uh, what made you think I was even thinking about Hitler, when I never mentioned him? You attempting to pull a Godwin's law thing here?

If so, please note: IT'S NOT MY FAULT, because I didn't mention him. Nor did I ever intend to do so.

So, ecco, if you can find, in any of my posts, where I included Hitler in that list of democidal anti-theistic governments, I personally would like to know where it is, so I can fix it. Good luck with that.

 

[dybmh]

What is the source for the diagram?

Answer: It is from a belief system called: Mathematical Monotheism.

It is belief... 9-18-1 is using this belief as a virtue. While at the same time claiming that belief is not a virtue.

Classic Hypocrisy.

ORDINAL GENESIS 1:1/JOHN 1:1 TRIANGLE (Part 1) - Mathematical Monotheism

And credit for the diagram was not given... lack of attention to detail again, 9-18-1.

The person who developed that diagram appears to be: Leo Tavares

@9-18-1, Are you Leo Tavares? If not, why did you plagiarize this material? Just another honest mistake. Or, is it a lack of attention to detail?

Note: The diagram is copyrighted:

"Copyright 2019, All rights reserved, Leo Tavares"