But I've noticed a universal and basic misunderstanding of the word "mystery". That is, everyone seems to treat it as if it means "unknown", or even "unknowable". The real meaning is more like "secret", or "that which few know".
Which I suppose explains why no one seems to even try to understand what's so important about Babylon in the first place.
But I've noticed a universal and basic misunderstanding of the word "mystery". That is, everyone seems to treat it as if it means "unknown", or even "unknowable". The real meaning is more like "secret", or "that which few know".
You're absolutely right, secret societies and ritual devil worship spawned over there, it all goes back to Enlil and Enki aka Good vs Evil.
But there's only one true creator God that's watching over us, he destroyed Babylon once and he will destroy lucifer again.
Well, I can tell you that you've thought about it more than 99.9% of the people that I've ever come across.
There's a fundamental problem in orientation, though, that nearly all historical research suffers from, and I hope you can understand my description of it. That is, researchers almost invariable take the evidence easily available to them in it's current context, put it all together in one way or another, shove it backwards in time and call it history. That's not the way reality works and not a proper way to understand history.
If you read back over what you wrote, try to detect that sense that Babylon was a hazy place, an undefined source of myth and legend, with influence spreading by undescribed means and mechanisms. That's the product of working backwards.
Babylon was, of course, as real as Cleveland is to us, just as concrete and mundane, with real people doing real things for real reasons. And so it was to the people of the time, including, for example, the various people in the Bible who talked about it. Is Cleveland a mystical place to anyone today? Generally speaking, no it is not.
So the correct approach is to try to figure out what went on there--and why--from the tiny pieces of evidence that made it down to us. If we're not ready to cite this evidence specifically and give an account of where it fits in to the picture, why should anyone believe the tale we gin up more than anyone else's?
We can confirm our hypotheses by then examining our present world. That is, we should ask, "Is what we've said about the past consistent with and explanatory of what we see now in our past's future?" With that question, do you see now how the arrow of causality is finally pointed the right way?
All this takes a lot of research, organization, and discipline. That's probably the reason no one does it, it being easier--again--to just shove ideas backwards towards a past that can't argue with you. But then again, I did it and I'm no one special, so it's possible.
misunderstanding of...everyone seems to treat it as if it means "unknown", or even "unknowable"
a) understanding implies ones consent to "stand under" the suggestions by others, which in return tempts one to ignore growing comprehension within perceivable knowledge.
b) as choice...perceivable balance implies the "known ledge".
c) if one consents to suggested "unknowable", then one gives others the power of ones consent to define if one is "able" to know (perceive). This tempts one to ignore that perceivable (whole) enables each ones perception (partial). Ones comprehension thereof has to be grown by self...it cannot be enabled by others.
The real meaning is more like "secret", or "that which few know".
a) SEC'RET, from Latin seco - "to divide". Few implies among many, hence an internal division.
b) "the real..." tempts one to ignore ones consent to suggested THE-ism (authority of others over self), which distracts one from perceivable reality.
c) if each one of a many consents to the suggestions of a chosen few, then perceivable represents "that which few know".
d) perceivable knowledge can only be hidden by oneself choosing to ignore it for suggested understanding...those one consents to stand-under can then further suggest narratives to keep that which one ignores hidden.
e) "meaning" represents suggested definitions...a phonetic play on DEAF PHONETICIANS aka those willingly deaf to PHONICS (perceivable sound) when consenting to use suggested words as definitions.
Even more obvious...definite (fixed) tempts one to ignore sound (fluid).
babylon
a) BABEL (confusion; disorder) aka BABBLE (incoherent uttering) aka BABBLE-ON (frequency of incoherent uttering).
b) ignoring perceivable order tempts one into suggested disorder, hence ignoring perceivable sound (reality) tempting one to incoherently utter suggested words (fiction)...no matter how high disorder is being built; it will always being toppled within the foundation of order.
Babylon is indeed a Mystery.
But I've noticed a universal and basic misunderstanding of the word "mystery". That is, everyone seems to treat it as if it means "unknown", or even "unknowable". The real meaning is more like "secret", or "that which few know".
Which I suppose explains why no one seems to even try to understand what's so important about Babylon in the first place.
You're absolutely right, secret societies and ritual devil worship spawned over there, it all goes back to Enlil and Enki aka Good vs Evil.
But there's only one true creator God that's watching over us, he destroyed Babylon once and he will destroy lucifer again.
Well, I can tell you that you've thought about it more than 99.9% of the people that I've ever come across.
There's a fundamental problem in orientation, though, that nearly all historical research suffers from, and I hope you can understand my description of it. That is, researchers almost invariable take the evidence easily available to them in it's current context, put it all together in one way or another, shove it backwards in time and call it history. That's not the way reality works and not a proper way to understand history.
If you read back over what you wrote, try to detect that sense that Babylon was a hazy place, an undefined source of myth and legend, with influence spreading by undescribed means and mechanisms. That's the product of working backwards.
Babylon was, of course, as real as Cleveland is to us, just as concrete and mundane, with real people doing real things for real reasons. And so it was to the people of the time, including, for example, the various people in the Bible who talked about it. Is Cleveland a mystical place to anyone today? Generally speaking, no it is not.
So the correct approach is to try to figure out what went on there--and why--from the tiny pieces of evidence that made it down to us. If we're not ready to cite this evidence specifically and give an account of where it fits in to the picture, why should anyone believe the tale we gin up more than anyone else's?
We can confirm our hypotheses by then examining our present world. That is, we should ask, "Is what we've said about the past consistent with and explanatory of what we see now in our past's future?" With that question, do you see now how the arrow of causality is finally pointed the right way?
All this takes a lot of research, organization, and discipline. That's probably the reason no one does it, it being easier--again--to just shove ideas backwards towards a past that can't argue with you. But then again, I did it and I'm no one special, so it's possible.
a) understanding implies ones consent to "stand under" the suggestions by others, which in return tempts one to ignore growing comprehension within perceivable knowledge.
b) as choice...perceivable balance implies the "known ledge".
c) if one consents to suggested "unknowable", then one gives others the power of ones consent to define if one is "able" to know (perceive). This tempts one to ignore that perceivable (whole) enables each ones perception (partial). Ones comprehension thereof has to be grown by self...it cannot be enabled by others.
a) SEC'RET, from Latin seco - "to divide". Few implies among many, hence an internal division.
b) "the real..." tempts one to ignore ones consent to suggested THE-ism (authority of others over self), which distracts one from perceivable reality.
c) if each one of a many consents to the suggestions of a chosen few, then perceivable represents "that which few know".
d) perceivable knowledge can only be hidden by oneself choosing to ignore it for suggested understanding...those one consents to stand-under can then further suggest narratives to keep that which one ignores hidden.
e) "meaning" represents suggested definitions...a phonetic play on DEAF PHONETICIANS aka those willingly deaf to PHONICS (perceivable sound) when consenting to use suggested words as definitions.
Even more obvious...definite (fixed) tempts one to ignore sound (fluid).
a) BABEL (confusion; disorder) aka BABBLE (incoherent uttering) aka BABBLE-ON (frequency of incoherent uttering).
b) ignoring perceivable order tempts one into suggested disorder, hence ignoring perceivable sound (reality) tempting one to incoherently utter suggested words (fiction)...no matter how high disorder is being built; it will always being toppled within the foundation of order.