The law of God clearly states that it is absolutely forbidden for humans to consume blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-14; Acts 21:25). That is what the law of God says. And yet we see people consuming blood today. But they don't just consume it with their mouths. They also consume it through their veins. By taking someone else's blood and injecting it into their veins. And then what does society call people who do that, who give their blood to someone else so that they can inject it into their veins? They call them heroes. That's how satanic society has become, so profoundly disgusting. But who is to blame for this disgustingness? Of course, America! Because through Hollywood, America has heavily advertised blood transfusions. So that society has been manipulated to think that blood transfusions are not bad at all, but rather heroic. And who created America, who created Hollywood? It was the Jew, of course. The Jew has triumphed, he has triumphed! He has managed to influence billions of people with his entertainment industry. Then I looked into the history of blood transfusions and I discovered this: https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/pdf/b30634015. It starts with: "As a matter of course we want to know the very beginning of its development, in other words, when exactly the first transfusion from man to man took place. The blood transfusion given to Pope Innocent VIII is often referred to, be it only incidentally, as in a recent paper of Maluf. The Pope died on 25 July 1492. Some days previously, as the story goes, a Jewish physician had infused the blood of three ten-year-old boys, who all died soon afterwards as a result of this."
What more can one say? The Jew has triumphed! Even if the Jew dies today, the Jew can still say: "Even if I die today, I know that I will take billions of people with me to death." For, as the great Apostle Paul himself explained in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 why the Jew does all this: "So that the Gentiles might not be saved."
parabiosis works. The blood is full of nasty toxins that build up and cause all kinds of aging illnesses. I've seen the old papers of studies in mice. It's amazingly effective at extending life. You gotta get your blood boy and pay a millions per year, but you will feel younger and be healthier longer.
What are the side effects? The blood boy is ok, and has more money. The person getting clean young blood feels great.
TPTB are behind cellphones and the internet too, they also created god and the bible to control Christians, Jews and Muslim. Take what you like, don't be dogmatic.
That's the dogma of relativism and subjectivism. Can't escape that.
If the basis of your moral law is "do as thou wilt" you're just like tptb, so wtf are you here for even? What are you fighting?
OP, blood transfusion is not the same as blood consumption. You got creative with interpretation.
It's dogmatic to say don't be dogmatic? I guess...but I did suggest to think for yourself and take what you like, so I thought I was being anti dogmatic.
The shitheads, or TPTB, do not provide or teach "do as thou wilt". So your point is based on wrong think. Can't go anywhere with that. The shitheads are unknown, motives and power unknown, etc. it's a big bunch of shitheads ruining life for us without clear rhyme or reason.
Following rules from a man made book for gullible folk. There is nothing wrong with not adhering to dogma from a religion and you can still be a great person with a great life and still your soul will go the same place as any Christian, Muslim or atheist. Ie, no one knows. Closest we can get is learning from NDEs.
As for blood consumption or transfusion, the modern science calls it parabiosis. The process isn't harmful for either party and it works. I don't get why people let the bible tell them not to use parabiosis
They are an illuminist luciferian "man as god" cult. Alister Crowley was one of their prophets and this is the main pillar of his Thelema. This creed applies to the initiated into their cabal. They may sell it to the masses through pop culture to corrupt them, but obviously the masses can't be allowed such liberty because it would lead to pure chaos and they are all about controlling chaos.
Just because you don't comprehend the reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Of course they're motivated by something. The easiest answer would be that they want power for power's sake (as stated in 1984). If one digs deeper it becomes apparent it's more than that and that the true reasons are spiritual in nature - they are moved by demonic principalities who hate everything good and true and humanity itself and want it destroyed.
What makes "a great person" differs depending on your worldview. Bill Gates may believe he's a great person and ultimately doing good for humanity. That's the whole point. If you don't adhere to a traditional dogma, you make your own piecemeal relativistic dogma in a individualistic and consumerist manner ("my truth is mine, but you can have yours - just don't be dogmatic about it"). Such "custom-tailored worldviews" are always riddled with contradictions because they borrow from incompatible worldviews. In the end it doesn't make one unique, but makes them another special snowflakes with "unique take" (much like how consumerism sells fake identities to people tied to preferences of fashion, pop music, movies, style, politics, etc - as if what you consoom is what makes you "you").
But that idea is also born out of a certain worldview which happens to be very prevalent in western society. It's by no means something natural or self-evident but a recent invention promoted by jews and masons like Crowley of course. There's even a 1970's Tavistock/SRI paper on the promotion of "challenging tradition and dogma" and suggesting secular or new-age substitutes for traditional religion among the young called Changing images of man.
Making your own dogma isn't that, and I understand and already know the dogma about trusting myself to find my own way. I reject it. I don't agree that I am incapable and need traditional dogma in order to avoid being sucked into the temptations, distractions, addictions, deadly sins, etc.
You are at a point where you have bought onto the idea that we cannot explore spirituality so you haven't. You don't know the good that is out there within yourself. You give your mind and soul away to man made traditions that are just controlled opposition by the same powers that you despise.
Ill concede that my path usually leads to special snowflakes, confused and lost, easily swayed by all the optional debauchery available to us in this wierd deceptive place. But, dogmatically, you believe that if I say that I am different, you instantly rely on your special snowflake dogma, that I must just be fooling myself and I could not have found real truth without some religious deity. Not sure how you incorporate various forms of Buddhism into your view, but trust me, the people in Thailand don't need your God.
But most people need traditional dogma to keep them living a happy life. I took that path and held the same belief you showed me already, but I have since gone further and trusted my connection to the myself, my soul and I don't follow new age or any religion or other person's ideals. It's actually safer for people like me, but I agree, it's a unproven and unprotected path, but that's where I find the truest truth.
This is what I mean - you can't rid yourself of religious dogma. For example, what is the meaning of sin outside Christianity? The concept of virtue or sin assumes objective moral law and knowledge of the good. One can't get such knowledge purely from observation or experience.
You can naval-gaze all you want, but that won't give you an objective standard for morality. Why do "spiritual non religious" people act as any spiritual endevour (aside from organized religion because it's considered unauthentic, because it's not entirely individualistic and subjective), is always positive for the individual? Isn't it possible that what you encounter in your spiritual pursuits are evil entities or at least entities that can be harmful for you? But no, new age people always consider their spiritual experience to be beneficial and leading them to growth (whatever they decide that means). It's self-worship and it appeals to one's pride and vanity. No wonder it's so prevalent in our narcissistic degenerate society.
About the "man made traditions" argument - it comes out of protestant criticism of the Catholic Church, making it part of a man made tradition itself. And what does that even mean? What is not man made in your worldview? Aren't you a man and aren't the traditions you make (even just for yourself) man made traditions too? The problem you have with traditional religion is that it's other men and not you making them up and that it's a tradition, meaning that it predates you and is not born out of your mind (but of course every idea you hold about the world also predates you and you just adopted it, or rather it won you over; what matters then is that you are the one who gets to pick and choose which ideas you prefer, i.e. consumerism).
Besides, no Christian would agree that Christianity is a man-made tradition because that would assume Christ is not God. So I don't follow a man-made tradition to begin with. I think people can get some truth outside the Christian tradition but it's not the whole package and it's intermixed with lies and deceptions. In the end the only thing that matters is what is true and I believe Buddhism or any other religion or ideology doesn't have a strong case for that (and I've come to Christianity late in life while being a pretty convinced atheist before that). Man is weak and susceptible to manipulation (Christianity explains this by our fallen nature) and should know better than to put all our faith in himself or his kind.
You have a completely installed 'belief' system. It is evidently so deeply rooted that to break free would destroy your false identity of self and you would go mad. You have convinced yourself to NEVER examine your inner being because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's evil.
It's sad really. So many people like this.
Dude, I wasn't Christian for the better part of my life. I've red tons of philosophy books and did much introspection and soul-searching before I came to my current belief. It is not blind faith and I can comfortably argue for it and why it is the only truly reasonable and logically consistent position that can explain and provide justification for our reality. You don't know me and don't know what you're talking about so stop playing shrink.
But do tell, what is your worldview? What is your standard for what's good? I take it it's totally genuine and you're not subject to the things you accuse me of. But I'd be surprised if your position is not regurgitated old gnostic heresies that have been resurrected by the freemasons (jews) and popularized by the new age movement - as all antichristian ideas virtually are.
So how can anyone know all of this does NOT apply to you? How would anyone know this isn't all a bunch of projection and hypocrisy and accusation?
"Ohhh, i am so ELITE, ohhh he is a PEASANT,, ohhh i am ABOVE HIM!!!!!"
Dogma implies "to take"... -isms are suggested to tempt ones consent to take part in it, which includes escapism.
Nature gives being by separating each one from one another...one needs to resist wanting to take what nature gives to each for free (will of choice).
Notice ION aka tranfus-ION and consumpt-ION...that's the same origin within which differences can be shaped for interpretation. Suggested creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore origin (everything separating into each thing).
Dogma/dokein/dek - "to take; accept"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/dogma
THEY (pluralism) ALSO (alike one another) CREATED (creationism)...each suggested for ones consent to take. It's taking which shapes given.
a) Aka for biding/bidda - "to ask", hence ask and ye shall receive...
b) If God implies all answering, then why question one another?
c) Answer aka and (against) swerian (to swear) aka a sworn statement (suggested) rebutting a charge (perceivable).
In short...all gives forwards; making a bid/bet by taking a bit from one another implies thrusting back (rebut) what all gives.
Aka con (together) sumere (to take)...nature gives being apart from one another; taking together consumes being.
ION (action) implies all; TRANS (transfer) implies the transference of all into each one by internal separation...FUSE (melting together) implies uniting what all divides.
Donor/donare - "to give as gift", from German Gift (poison)...it's taking what others give which ignores all given to each one for free.