I agree we probably have worse ritual abuse than any time in history, and what Trump's done hasn't lowered the numbers yet. This forum loves comparing them. Now, I've learned a bit about Judaism so I can say you're speaking e.g. of Frankism but not of Hasidism (among many isms), and there are indeed many Frankist Jews who are working that particular narrative. Of course, since I've got Paul, I have one of the clearest rejections of that narrative, namely, "Shall we do evil that good might result? Their condemnation is just." (Note, there are blamers here of all kinds, and since the biggest forums on Scored are nominally "no racism" forums I have a personal preference that we do not judge the innocent with the guilty, but I am all in favor of naming any guilty parties or groups, like JE/GM, in which membership constitutes willful contribution to collective guilt; so, if you want to blame, I trust you do so according to a just standard.)
If we agree that good and evil exist, then conscious beings have limited free will to choose between them (only the Monad has totally unfettered free will). The universe also has the property that if you choose evil your ability to choose gradually shrinks, and if you choose good your ability to choose gradually grows. It's a vast universe, and so we've had trillions of evil acts, many billions of heinous and destructive acts. The question from the standpoint of good is how much evil should be allowed, and what we find is that there's enough that we also have many people turning from evil out of their free will to learn to pursue good alone. We could imagine a world with less evil or with more evil, but, between the history in which evil gets itself restrained sooner or later and the prophecy in which we are assured the same will happen to any evil at the right time, it doesn't seem like our imagination would do much better in setting the right limits on evil than the created world already sets.
The remaining question is then whether the Monad participates in evil by allowing free will. No, because free will is a good gift, whether it's abused or not. God is not the author of evil, but you could say he's the Author of authors of evil. He gives us power to choose and if we consistently choose poorly we face natural consequences; that's good natural law. Natural law also ordains that the person who chooses evil cannot perfectly achieve the evil he chooses, because it is ultimately a contradiction: he can only achieve what is permitted by natural limits, he cannot kill and destroy all that he wills to. And we have an early statement, Gen. 50:20, that it's possible for God to will, with a good will, that people achieve certain things with their evil will. The illustration is given that God can use people's evil will to achieve further good for all people, both to feed the innocent hungry and to give mercy to the guilty that some of them might turn. So God does no evil even though he gives creatures free will to do evil.
When you see the problems you describe, speaking out against them (and refining your evidence to get much more specific) is part of the good you can achieve, and it contributes to repelling the evil even at its core. There are some things happening with this cycle of ritual abuse that will never happen again because humanity's collective memory will forbid it in the future. I mourn the evil but I look for what is happening to get us past certain levels of evil in history. Now, others can take other views, but that's how I navigate. Bringing it back one topic, the physical is not evil in itself but is being redeemed, and so I don't give Samael the credit of being able to corrupt things that badly. Rather there is good news that monadic natural law restrains evil sufficiently for each day.
I can say you're speaking e.g. of Frankism but not of Hasidism (among many isms)
No, I'm speaking of the Jews. But things are actually much more complicated than that. Actually I'm talking about EVIL, and the Jews are a construct and tool of the evil empire. In other words, they're really the middle managers, to the ones who helped and continue to help manage the empire. Evil needs middle managers. And for the past few years, the Jews have served this purpose well. You may call them Sabbateans, Frankists, Deep State, Cabal, international bankers, whatever... to me they're the shadows and they make all the money. And it's really the Jews that get all the blame.
The British Empire for example, it controlled the whole world. But, it went bankrupt because of evil, it used the Bank of England as a Ponzi scheme. It needed people to buy into into the empire for it to continue to be successful. The grand strategy of the British empire was to create as much chaos and conflict possible in Europe and elsewhere. You always want your enemies to fight each other. So, this is the evil the core strategy for the British empire, pretty simple to understand.
The remaining question is then whether the Monad participates in evil by allowing free will
Now you speak as if the Monad is Yahweh which is God. Is not, Monad is the supreme/absolute consciousness, complete fullness (Pleroma) and total absence of evil. And this is not an insignificant theological detail. Once we understand the difference, it completely transforms our understanding of Christianity, the very nature of prayer, and our own connection to the divine. Jesus never prayed to God. He prayed to the Monad, the primordial source that exists beyond the creator, the absolute consciousness that precedes and transcends the divinity that shaped our material universe. None of the the manuscripts say that he prayed to God. They specifically mention that he prayed to the Father. For Gnostics, who represented the original Christian understanding before its appropriation and distortion by the Evil Empire (Rome), the father is not the creator God. The creator god is the Demiurge, or Yawheh, the architect of the material world, an entity believed to be the one and only God, but which in reality is merely a distant emanation of the true source. When Jesus uttered the words, "I and the father are one," he was not claiming to be Yahweh. He was describing his consciousness in complete fusion with the Monad with the ultimate source beyond all creation. This distinction changes everything we thought we knew about Christian spirituality. Observe carefully how Jesus prayed. He did not plead. He did not beg. He did not ask for
permission. He spoke as one who already possessed access to the infinite power: "Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me.". Always. Not sometimes. This is because he was not communicating with a deity subject to moods and preferences, but with the immutable source, the Monad. Who does not judge, who does not decide who deserves to be heard. The Monad is pure consciousness.
Bringing it back one topic, the physical is not evil in itself but is being redeemed
With this I agree. Remember Frankists believe that they were and are saving the world. But, they believed they had to destroy the world in order to save it. The Talmud says that Moshiach will come when the world is in a state of chaos and the foundations of society are crumbling. And all these made perfect revolutionaries. On the other hand Christians believe that they must use Jews as a pawn in order to force the return of Jesus.
Frankists were/are also very materialistic, they believed that the body was more important than the spirit. So, both the Frankists (Frankist Jews) and the British (also Americans) they wanted to obtain power through chaos, instability and regime change and both were very focused on the pursuit of wealth and power. So these were natural allies. Another example of an evil alliance is of course the Rothschild banking dynasty. This is the Rothschilds who own/control the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, with the British Monarchy. And this alliance goes back hundreds of years.
British (American) philosophy at this time is (and was) controlled by the Freemasons. But that's another deep rabbit hole, and we'll discuss in more detail another time. For now I just want to say the British/American philosophy at this time was/is controlled by Freemasons. And the main purpose is to really deny God and truth.
Well, when people do that here I generally ask why they use a nebulous term "the Jews" that would mean every man, woman, and child, and I get little response. If people just said "it's Jews" instead of "it's the Jews", then they wouldn't be referring to the collective but to whichever individuals are guilty, but for some reason people wish to collectivize their enemy, which actually removes guilt from the guilty and places it upon an imaginary construct. But we don't have to go that route. Suffice that there is a cabal, they are satanists, and satan will use whomever he can (good of you to allude to City of London and Masonry); I'm trying to finish writing a post on the subject.
Monad is the supreme/absolute consciousness, complete fullness (Pleroma) and total absence of evil. And this is not an insignificant theological detail .... not ... a deity subject to moods and preferences, but ... the immutable source, the Monad. Who does not judge, who does not decide who deserves to be heard. The Monad is pure consciousness.
Great. Now, I use "God" capitalized to mean the supreme fullness and total good, and I use "Yahweh" to mean the self-existent (absolute), and I use "Creator" capitalized to mean that from which all emanates. ("Demiurge" similarly but it's less important.) It sounds like you want to use those words for lesser being(s), as if the emanator of a creator or god is not the Creator of creators or God of gods.
I also appealed to history of religion to demonstrate that the gnostic demiurge came from the Egyptian ogdoad and was not the god conceived by any of the Jews of Jesus's day (two of that ogdoad were literally Heh (Yahweh-coded) and Hauhet (Eve-coded)). Now you say things like:
Jesus never prayed to God. He prayed to the Monad
.... Luke 6:11-12 KJV: "Jesus ... went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God" (cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25).
When Jesus uttered the words, "I and the father are one," he was not claiming to be Yahweh
I believe Jesus constantly says "I am" in Aramaic, which is "Yahweh" applied to himself.
So my question comes up again: How would we decide among these options? If we both pursue truth, then I come with this historiographic evidence about the Greek roots of your belief, and you come with some historical observations where you indicate the belief was original to Jesus and his Jewish-then-Gentile followers, so how would we select and refine our two evidences? I would presume that we'd have agreeable standards that history is judged by preponderance of evidence and inference to the best explanation, but so far we're just laying out two lines of inquiry without a meeting of the minds about how to resolve those lines. See why I think that's important to judging how to direct people's understanding of Christianity?
It got autofiltered, maybe try it again without the links.
The log preserved "I think we can agree the Sabbatean-Frankists founded the state of Israel and they are in prominent positions in Israel." That's tenuous agreement, but there are also many factions involved as I've hinted. Looking forward to more.
I agree we probably have worse ritual abuse than any time in history, and what Trump's done hasn't lowered the numbers yet. This forum loves comparing them. Now, I've learned a bit about Judaism so I can say you're speaking e.g. of Frankism but not of Hasidism (among many isms), and there are indeed many Frankist Jews who are working that particular narrative. Of course, since I've got Paul, I have one of the clearest rejections of that narrative, namely, "Shall we do evil that good might result? Their condemnation is just." (Note, there are blamers here of all kinds, and since the biggest forums on Scored are nominally "no racism" forums I have a personal preference that we do not judge the innocent with the guilty, but I am all in favor of naming any guilty parties or groups, like JE/GM, in which membership constitutes willful contribution to collective guilt; so, if you want to blame, I trust you do so according to a just standard.)
If we agree that good and evil exist, then conscious beings have limited free will to choose between them (only the Monad has totally unfettered free will). The universe also has the property that if you choose evil your ability to choose gradually shrinks, and if you choose good your ability to choose gradually grows. It's a vast universe, and so we've had trillions of evil acts, many billions of heinous and destructive acts. The question from the standpoint of good is how much evil should be allowed, and what we find is that there's enough that we also have many people turning from evil out of their free will to learn to pursue good alone. We could imagine a world with less evil or with more evil, but, between the history in which evil gets itself restrained sooner or later and the prophecy in which we are assured the same will happen to any evil at the right time, it doesn't seem like our imagination would do much better in setting the right limits on evil than the created world already sets.
The remaining question is then whether the Monad participates in evil by allowing free will. No, because free will is a good gift, whether it's abused or not. God is not the author of evil, but you could say he's the Author of authors of evil. He gives us power to choose and if we consistently choose poorly we face natural consequences; that's good natural law. Natural law also ordains that the person who chooses evil cannot perfectly achieve the evil he chooses, because it is ultimately a contradiction: he can only achieve what is permitted by natural limits, he cannot kill and destroy all that he wills to. And we have an early statement, Gen. 50:20, that it's possible for God to will, with a good will, that people achieve certain things with their evil will. The illustration is given that God can use people's evil will to achieve further good for all people, both to feed the innocent hungry and to give mercy to the guilty that some of them might turn. So God does no evil even though he gives creatures free will to do evil.
When you see the problems you describe, speaking out against them (and refining your evidence to get much more specific) is part of the good you can achieve, and it contributes to repelling the evil even at its core. There are some things happening with this cycle of ritual abuse that will never happen again because humanity's collective memory will forbid it in the future. I mourn the evil but I look for what is happening to get us past certain levels of evil in history. Now, others can take other views, but that's how I navigate. Bringing it back one topic, the physical is not evil in itself but is being redeemed, and so I don't give Samael the credit of being able to corrupt things that badly. Rather there is good news that monadic natural law restrains evil sufficiently for each day.
No, I'm speaking of the Jews. But things are actually much more complicated than that. Actually I'm talking about EVIL, and the Jews are a construct and tool of the evil empire. In other words, they're really the middle managers, to the ones who helped and continue to help manage the empire. Evil needs middle managers. And for the past few years, the Jews have served this purpose well. You may call them Sabbateans, Frankists, Deep State, Cabal, international bankers, whatever... to me they're the shadows and they make all the money. And it's really the Jews that get all the blame.
The British Empire for example, it controlled the whole world. But, it went bankrupt because of evil, it used the Bank of England as a Ponzi scheme. It needed people to buy into into the empire for it to continue to be successful. The grand strategy of the British empire was to create as much chaos and conflict possible in Europe and elsewhere. You always want your enemies to fight each other. So, this is the evil the core strategy for the British empire, pretty simple to understand.
Now you speak as if the Monad is Yahweh which is God. Is not, Monad is the supreme/absolute consciousness, complete fullness (Pleroma) and total absence of evil. And this is not an insignificant theological detail. Once we understand the difference, it completely transforms our understanding of Christianity, the very nature of prayer, and our own connection to the divine. Jesus never prayed to God. He prayed to the Monad, the primordial source that exists beyond the creator, the absolute consciousness that precedes and transcends the divinity that shaped our material universe. None of the the manuscripts say that he prayed to God. They specifically mention that he prayed to the Father. For Gnostics, who represented the original Christian understanding before its appropriation and distortion by the Evil Empire (Rome), the father is not the creator God. The creator god is the Demiurge, or Yawheh, the architect of the material world, an entity believed to be the one and only God, but which in reality is merely a distant emanation of the true source. When Jesus uttered the words, "I and the father are one," he was not claiming to be Yahweh. He was describing his consciousness in complete fusion with the Monad with the ultimate source beyond all creation. This distinction changes everything we thought we knew about Christian spirituality. Observe carefully how Jesus prayed. He did not plead. He did not beg. He did not ask for permission. He spoke as one who already possessed access to the infinite power: "Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me.". Always. Not sometimes. This is because he was not communicating with a deity subject to moods and preferences, but with the immutable source, the Monad. Who does not judge, who does not decide who deserves to be heard. The Monad is pure consciousness.
With this I agree. Remember Frankists believe that they were and are saving the world. But, they believed they had to destroy the world in order to save it. The Talmud says that Moshiach will come when the world is in a state of chaos and the foundations of society are crumbling. And all these made perfect revolutionaries. On the other hand Christians believe that they must use Jews as a pawn in order to force the return of Jesus.
Frankists were/are also very materialistic, they believed that the body was more important than the spirit. So, both the Frankists (Frankist Jews) and the British (also Americans) they wanted to obtain power through chaos, instability and regime change and both were very focused on the pursuit of wealth and power. So these were natural allies. Another example of an evil alliance is of course the Rothschild banking dynasty. This is the Rothschilds who own/control the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, with the British Monarchy. And this alliance goes back hundreds of years.
British (American) philosophy at this time is (and was) controlled by the Freemasons. But that's another deep rabbit hole, and we'll discuss in more detail another time. For now I just want to say the British/American philosophy at this time was/is controlled by Freemasons. And the main purpose is to really deny God and truth.
Well, when people do that here I generally ask why they use a nebulous term "the Jews" that would mean every man, woman, and child, and I get little response. If people just said "it's Jews" instead of "it's the Jews", then they wouldn't be referring to the collective but to whichever individuals are guilty, but for some reason people wish to collectivize their enemy, which actually removes guilt from the guilty and places it upon an imaginary construct. But we don't have to go that route. Suffice that there is a cabal, they are satanists, and satan will use whomever he can (good of you to allude to City of London and Masonry); I'm trying to finish writing a post on the subject.
Great. Now, I use "God" capitalized to mean the supreme fullness and total good, and I use "Yahweh" to mean the self-existent (absolute), and I use "Creator" capitalized to mean that from which all emanates. ("Demiurge" similarly but it's less important.) It sounds like you want to use those words for lesser being(s), as if the emanator of a creator or god is not the Creator of creators or God of gods.
I also appealed to history of religion to demonstrate that the gnostic demiurge came from the Egyptian ogdoad and was not the god conceived by any of the Jews of Jesus's day (two of that ogdoad were literally Heh (Yahweh-coded) and Hauhet (Eve-coded)). Now you say things like:
.... Luke 6:11-12 KJV: "Jesus ... went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God" (cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25).
I believe Jesus constantly says "I am" in Aramaic, which is "Yahweh" applied to himself.
So my question comes up again: How would we decide among these options? If we both pursue truth, then I come with this historiographic evidence about the Greek roots of your belief, and you come with some historical observations where you indicate the belief was original to Jesus and his Jewish-then-Gentile followers, so how would we select and refine our two evidences? I would presume that we'd have agreeable standards that history is judged by preponderance of evidence and inference to the best explanation, but so far we're just laying out two lines of inquiry without a meeting of the minds about how to resolve those lines. See why I think that's important to judging how to direct people's understanding of Christianity?
It got autofiltered, maybe try it again without the links.
The log preserved "I think we can agree the Sabbatean-Frankists founded the state of Israel and they are in prominent positions in Israel." That's tenuous agreement, but there are also many factions involved as I've hinted. Looking forward to more.