I see a TON of conspiracy theories on here (SURPRISE!) - and rather get lost down the rabbit hole of guessing, I'll just straight up answer them to the best of my knowledge.
A little background about myself: There isn't anything I haven't tried (aside from the insidious stuff), I see ghosts on a daily basis, I have out of body experiences that were provable etc. I probably have almost every book on the subject from Crowley to Castaneda, and I was raised Catholic.
I'm also a staunch constitutional supporter and often straddle the Republican - Libertarian divide. My grandfather was a 33 degree mason from the Scottish Rite and is in the Ukrainian history books for sniping a TON of Nazis and Russians (my family led the underground Polish army within Ukraine during WW2). My father also worked for the mob and worked alongside Danny Greene until he blew up my father's boss (Shondur Burns), then he got out when Danny asked him to come work for him.
Thought this would be fun, we'll see...
I have Rudolph's books. Good stuff, haven't read them all though. Ahriman, the evil one in Zoroastrianism is fascinating. I like Zoroastrianism, a Persian mysticism that some would say holds the legacy to monotheism. The only thing I have against a personified evil that is absolute is that EVERYTHING is created from The One, which comes from Nothingness that contains ALL. Which means there's not an absolute evil.
Evil I believe stems from non-truth that pollutes one's perceptions and causes suffering from its actions. Some would say killing someone is evil, but what if they were going to kill millions in the future? It's all really perspective. The ALL must contain within it three urges the Hindus call Timurti. Things are created, preserved and eventually destroyed. Creation eats itself all the time to sustain new creation.
Sorry if I didn't answer your question - just some musings...
We are currently surrounded by infinity couched within eternity. Zooming out that far and much of the evil we see just doesn't exist. How much LOVE does whatever created this have - that they would include every possible permutation of existence? Now that's true unconditional love imo.
Now I do believe in prophecy, but nothing that's set in stone that can't be changed. Now I'm not talking about the eventual dissolution of structures, which happens to everything - nothing prophetic about how nature operates, but I do believe that there are currents of probabilities that are so enormous due to various factors within nature that it can be construed as prophetic to a degree (unalterable).
Here we go again...suggested creationism implies out of "nothing"; while perceivable transmutation implies out of everything.
Question unity (Latin unitas) - "the state of being one; oneness". To be (one) implies out of (all); hence the one perceiving out of all perceivable. Growing comprehension about being one within all; form within flow; perceiving within perceivable; finite within infinite; temporary within ongoing; resistance within velocity; choice within balance; growth within loss etc. represents self discernment.
This self discernment of being one within all is required to further grow comprehension about the oneness of all (flow/form aka loss/growth) aka the self sustenance of EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power".
Energy represents the base oneness that transmutes (self segregation) into differentiated ones within a collective all. One can call energy God; but calling God creator tempts one to ignore transmutation and ones position within as the center resistance (choice) within the momentum (balance) of the natural order velocity (form to flow aka forwards motion).
Bro, you're playing semantics with the undescribable
Try implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false; want vs not want; believing vs not believing etc.) and take a shot at anything I wrote and I'm gonna try to describe any and all of the processes I comprehend of the perceivable.
Question impression (perceivable) to compression (comprehension) for either expression (growth) or repression (loss)? The more one comprehends about the perceivable consequences of ongoing motion; the more efficient one can describe it and more importantly express it.
The issue with describing the perceivable through suggestion represents tempting others to ignore perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information); which represents what the parasitic few are exploiting the ignorant many with.
Example...before the suggested word comes the perceivable sound. The parasitic few suggest "insane person" to tempt the many to ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by; out of and therefore in response to the perceivable source of sound. I can meticulously describe all this stuff; but comprehension of perceivable has to be grown by each one; it cannot be shared through suggested information; hence the issue with communication.
As for semantics...the highest value within all existence represents evaluation; hence being evaluation (choice) at the center of value (balance). One cannot define meaning by suggestion; all perceivable represents predefined enacted meaning for the reacting evaluation within.