Congratulations! Please feel free to make an example of me for abusing the report function. Otherwise I'll wait for smoke to clear.

But they have no power over me, I'm sovereign.

Exactly! I don't see anything wrong with your account so it may just be one of the site oddities. You can go to c/Meta with the alt, and try creating a post with title and text as "Test", and if that works you can change the text to whatever question you have of admin; and if it doesn't you can message the mods of Meta, which include a copy to admin, though they've been a bit slow lately. Sometimes, not always, I can find someone who can help a technically stranded user if you want me to intervene.

I'm reading testimonies of people who had near death experiences, similar to the ones who took psychedelics. They all talk about a bright light they see. Most will keep walking toward the light, unaware of who built it or why.

Funny thing, all NDEs by definition involve people choosing not to continue with the light, because if they did we wouldn't hear back from them. This logically indicates that we can't judge the light as a trap (a negative), only as an experience that most people don't leave for whatever reason. The other primary aspect of NDEs, when it's not the light, is the pain, and those who have experienced that and succeeded in not continuing with it speak of it as to be avoided, whether or not they change their lives to avoid it in the future. While we can't judge that either, the testimony of the light as "good" and the pain as "evil" is exceptionally strong, myriads of reported cases that almost always fall in one of those two categories.

Skeptically, if NDEs don't reflect ultimate truth any more than our daily experience (technically they don't), that isn't overwhelming evidence for or against a particular conclusion about them. The line of evidence I go with is that logic dictates either there is a Greatest Thing (Monad) or nothing can be said to exist (nihilism), and that perfectly aligns with the NDE evidence. If we decided to be skeptical of the NDE light, we would still have the duty to rightly reflect the Monad in us regardless, and I think that practice in life will guide us aright when the trial of death comes. So it's fine to use skepticism to pare alternatives down, but if you pare everything then Nihilism is left, and if you uphold the Monad then attributes keep emanating from it that cannot be pared away and prove it as the source of all diversity. So if reincarnation was a trap, the best remedy would be right living today, and that's pretty much of what the Hindus say and they're the deepest thinkers on reincarnation.

If the Pharisees had the (knowledge) key to escape and hid it, its evidence would still be present in their system somewhere, wouldn't it? If we take Jesus's reported teaching in gospels and apocrypha at face value, he is pretty straightforward about epignosis (and the OT has many cognate teachings, starting with binah, da'ath, mada', sekhel), that he gives it freely by revelation (Matt. 11:27, Luke 24:31). What he tells us quietly we are free to proclaim loudly. So I think that knowing the Son, emulating the Christ, is that key to knowledge, and those Pharisees (not all) who rejected their traditions about Christ were the ones who hid it.

Origen syncretized the reward/punishment afterlife with the cyclical by theorizing (though not totally committing) that the righteous soul after a period of reward might lapse back and then would enter another cycle, which might also reincarnate. What happened afterward was that his corpus was widely respected but some took the cyclic teaching heavily and the church chose to issue a condemnation that moderated two extremes: they did not condemn Origen or his teaching in particular, but they did condemn an unspecified "corrupt apokatastasis" while holding that there was a valid and incorrupt apokatastasis. So it is left ambiguous what exactly they condemned. Personally I think it was the form of the teaching where individuation is erased as a phenomenon, because they were still holding onto echoes of gilgul where individuation is respected but the oversoul is still learning collectively. The immediate reason was that removal of individual responsibility was observed to encourage licentious living and so it was very practical, not theoretical. That again goes back to the best preparation being righteous living (pursuit of truth at all costs), and then whatever awaits one is as strong as possible in the grace God gives. Particularly, the early church was, I think, unanimous that martyrs had zero fear of death, that they were sustained by visions of Christ to endure great torments and that union with Christ is a form of remembering the preexistence as a concept in the Monadic consciousness.

Now, you're proposing a narrative where a later legalist church has learned tools of control from the Roman empire, and where they play up the fear of death for this purpose, which shifts the focus of righteous living toward legalism (human-verified righteousness) rather than Christian liberty (divine-verified righteousness). That phenomenon is present but I don't see it in the Origen story. The story of all the gnostics who did teach a trap in the afterlife is, I think, separate because it was almost complete by the 3rd century and the Origen kerfuffle was quite later (you might argue that Clement of Alexandria first syncretized gnosticism into a system that later became Origenism, but it had lost all of the character you're seeing in it and only retained echoes in their sophisticated collations).

But that still leaves the core unsettled. If one doesn't know a goal, one's category would be "seeker", one who hasn't found. If one thinks advancing toward the light is a trap, and one can be confident advancing toward the pain is certainly a trap, one is seeking what other alternative there is on either NDE or Scripture or Apocrypha evidence. This leads to ternary systems but they seem to come much later and I'm not sure what analogues they have in the gnostic and proto-Christian period.

Now something fresh comes to mind, and since I'm already typing at length I'll include it. It might be possible that the "good ending" includes the choice of the best eternal existences, which would be the Pauline category "whether in the body or out of the body I can't tell". Perhaps the individual can choose to restore the matrix, in its perfected form, building from the DNA stored by the earth, or can choose the opposite, to release the DNA and to retain a pure spiritual form. That would certainly remove the chief scandal between the gnostics and the traditionals! I'd want to run that idea through a few filters, but that might be the character of what you appear to want to describe. It's not literal anywhere that "approaching light" automatically equals "flesh trap"; I've generally presumed that flesh as we know it isn't flesh as it will be revealed (here another Pauline concept intervenes, the "spiritual body"; but let's take it from Peter instead, who prophesied that even pigs can have pure, kosher bodies, Acts 10). So while the gnostics and the trads agree that the present flesh is to be deprecated, the resolution might be that we need not argue over the question of whether anyone is or isn't forced to take flesh up again (even if it's transfigured). Perhaps it's a liberty issue.

So I probably have several questions, so I'll try to focus them. So far you're narrating and really so am I. What's most unanswered to me is where the core teaching is to be found. What is the path to be taken to achieve one's heart's desire? And what is the nature of that desire? I haven't gleaned those, and at risk of being wrong I'll say it appears the path you recommend is to Know certain rules in the hope of remembering them in a postdeath confrontation, which would imply that one's duty in this life is to constantly study postdeath rules and would make it hard to live in the present. I've proposed instead that the entire life is about learning right living now and that all postdeath issues will be addressed by the preparations we make now and the patterns and disciplines that lead to the postdeath decisions. (In the same way, what I practice causes what I perceive myself doing in dreams: I have better dreams when I am practicing right living, because in the dream my unconscious habitually selects the right option without conscious will.) As to the second question, perhaps my untested suggestion that the best state is where the soul can choose its physical form or lack thereof might appeal to you. I don't know if I'd formally accept the suggestion myself, but since it has come to mind it can be tested like everything.

Last side point, just as a matter of politely requesting that you could do me a favor for my own sensibilities' sake. When you're speaking of the character you call demiurge, could you please stick to names I agree apply to that character (such as Samael or satan or Saklas), since it doesn't matter to you what you call him but it does matter to me? I only ask as an unimportant but helpful conversational bridge; if not I can accommodate but it might go slower.

Ah, you got me then. Unusual to get more attention with the alt and then return under the older account. Touche! Well, we can proceed in any way you like.

Here is the earlier discussion. I'm pinging u/jamesbillison (use "u/" to ping) so you two can meet each other, if you choose. Christian mystics have experiences like prior knowledge all the time so there are existing ways to talk about them safely.

And by living in the memories of others, we become immortal like Jesus. And by constructing our lives in a way that allows for Jesus to return, we can resurrect Jesus in ourselves.

That does happen .... and we carry on those who have gone before, including Jesus, in our individual consciousnesses. And yet the individual's consciousness itself has some continuation; it takes on individuation at conception, before which it could only be called a temporal plan in the Pleroma, not an extant consciousness. After death the individuation persists according to rules hard for mortals to describe; it is not spirit-body consciousness nor Pleroma consciousness but has commonalities with both.

Most people, not only Christians, believe when they die they are walking into freedom, when in reality, they may be stepping into the oldest trap in the universe.

Death certainly isn't an absolute freedom because Christians believe in a final reconciliation of all the physical and one's expression in body is not inferior to one's expression in spirit, but lateral to it. (You might like my recent inspiration on dimensions, in which the bodily and spiritual dimensions describe the same reality.) To teach that death "liberates" from the body isn't exactly Christian because of this continuing concern for the apokatastasis of the body (the "resurrection"). Now a lot of American Christianity, and all of Hollywood churchianity, teaches that death makes you an angel and that's the eternal destiny, but those who read the Bible realize that it's an "intermediate state" and there is an even more glorious new creation than the immediate spiritual state after death. The fact that one might be free from bodily corruptions doesn't free people from (1) connection to those who remain and (2) future conscious activity among them.

If you are to believe what I just said, if the afterlife is a trap, then what happens to you when you die? And more importantly, how do you escape it? this is the question many are asking. And this is not something you find out in the Sunday church, and it's not the love and light story of the New Age movement. This is the knowledge that was suppressed, buried, and branded as heresy for a very long time.

In a sense nobody escapes the trap of death, because "life is a 100% fatal STD". But the afterlife reflects the earthly life, so everything we do every day contributes to what happens after death. The Christian answer is apokatastasis (that's Paul's word, but if we asked Peter and John we'd get the same meaning). Namely, a day will come when God will reconcile everything and reveal the meaning of the experience we call physical, and the new experience will be transcendently both physical and spiritual (I'm still working on the definition of that). This is foreshadowed by credible testimonies of that transcendence manifesting in the present, such as in NDEs or in glory displays. These evidences show aspects of what will be available to all. The "rapture" concept is that some will repeat the experience attributed to Enoch and Elijah and enter the final state without any intermediate state, or any dying, and anyone can respond to this gracious offer any day by growing towards it.

So the action plan I recommend is (1) recognize Jesus Christ (the man and the divinity) as guide, (2) practice the experience of the presence of Christ every day (humorously called "rapture practice", but also consistent with glass wall experience without loss of earthly faculties), (3) actuate in God's timing the promise of greater experiences that are glorification and transfiguration, and (4) prepare for theosis regardless of whether it comes by "death" or "rapture".

You might have something very similar, or very different, but Conspiracies is a fine forum for both. We also have some discussion about experience at c/Christianity (the original Scored forum for trads) and sometimes c/ChristianAnarchism (no moderator so all professions of Christianity appear and all nonprofessions too). The new forum c/HolySeekersOfTheWay is geared for this kind of discussion but there isn't much history there, but at least it's insulated from a large chunk of the Conspiracies crowd who just isn't interested.

Interpretation of rules is a community endeavor. I proposed interpretations of existing rules that allow objective determination. If you think rules like "be respectful" are less prone to abuse than specifications like "no namecalling", you're free to participate in interpretation.

The shadow of ideation is form. Ideation not form, is the original word/meaning.

Correct, thanks!

Man, Adam, Jesus are God's image; man is also man's image. As we have borne Adam's image we can bear Jesus's image.

This is an interesting take. To'ar H8389 has a meaning of "shape" or "shapeliness" but, in the traditional understanding, is closely related to material form. Meanwhile the word for "image" in Gen. 1:26 is zhelem H6754 with a meaning of "likeness" or "imagination" and transcends material form. The root of to'ar is drawing (lining), but the root of zhelem is shading (shadowing). So it sounds to me like you're talking about zhelem. Is there some reason you brought in to'ar that isn't obvious on the surface level of the text?

I don't think the above commenter knows the meaning of "in cold blood" either.

DIVINE geometry precedes physical geometry. Only the deepest dive finds the pearl.

Yes, or "a" pearl.

Gimel is the third dimension. The third naturally connects to the seventh via powers of two.

Fideler is not the best source, general and special revelation is.

Ooh, fast, and before I read the whole thread. What I should have said is, I don't know all the laws, but I don't think an accompanied child entering illegally is a crime upon the child, and even if it were then the existence of a green card implies that crime has already been adjudicated, making the status no longer "illegal" (one who entered illegally and is still present illegally). But then I'm just particular about people freely using words about legality. So I understand what you were saying but it probably would fail journalistic accuracy.

Where's the evidence Nicki Minaj was illegal?

Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.

Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.

So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.

Thank you so much, Dot! That's very positive. I was just recently exposed to the same list of markers, glass wall, matrix lag, gnosis, but I've talked to enough people that I forget who said it. I don't have a direct problem with that as it aligns with Christian mystics, for example Jeanne Guyon.

So you want to raise frequency level in the short term. I'm a bit confused because I understood that you wanted this human life to be the "last" as if this life continues forever as a human life (or else is annihilated). That would imply you have some plans about death, which is what I was implicitly asking about. Since I plan my life to continue forever as a human life despite human death, by God's grace, I don't have a problem with certainty about it being the "last time". But I'm not sure what better plan you can propose than trusting Jesus alone, both the uniqueness of who he is and the example of what he did.

NewFun, the idea that Yahweh could get fired by Saturn is just another lying narrative that is created to induce doubt and defame the name of self-existence. The core Creator is the truly self-existent one (the one worthy of the name Yahweh) and he is in charge of all firings. The fact that you're listening to one spinner of narrative uncritically and not comparing it to others is giving you this bad data. I understand you want to take time and proceed methodically but don't forget to take my words into account. Thank you.

control the narrative

How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?

Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?

What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?

Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.

Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.

there are many contradictions

Why start there? Why not evangelize your message of how you hope to defeat the matrix and the rules of reincarnation?

Attacking a story because it sounds contradictory (though there may be a number of omitted factors, like the 14 years Paul was silent as per Gal. 2:1) is usually not a firm place to begin. It sounds confrontational.

I don't sound Gnostic to me

Jesus taught that everyone has the divine spark within them and through right action through cultivating that spark you achieve enlightenment, salvation, liberation.

What words did Jesus use that you think should be defined as "divine spark"? How about "right action"? How about "enlightenment" and "liberation"? How can we determine what Jesus taught if we paraphrase all his words? He said "Thy faith hath saved thee." He said to the thief on the cross "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Thanks for your understanding.

Here's the link again to where I asked you previously (and still would love to know), "Do you want to live forever this time, or cease to exist? Why or why not?":

https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARdD7M2eP/the-us-is-a-corporation-/c/4eXvadgBPWi

Why do you lay stress on Paul "converting" when people who are Jewish by ancestry didn't need to convert? (Becoming a Pharisee wasn't a conversion, it was essentially a handshake and a promise.)

Are you familiar with the many Pharisees who accepted Jesus as Messiah? Not just Paul, but probably Hillel, then Nicodemus, Joseph, the scribe not far from the kingdom, and Gamaliel are known, and there are indications of many others in the movement. The siege of Jerusalem (from which the Christians escaped) was the point from which Pharisaism consolidated without Jesus, before which it had remained an open question. And when it was open, some Pharisees supported and some rejected, just as you note. The exact circumstance is in Acts 8:1-3, where Saul has just officiated at Stephen's "execution" and zealously persecuted other Christians in Jerusalem with the support of those who had Stephen persecuted (this was about 36, with the stronger leadership of James coming quite later, more like 45). The other narratives of Acts 8 indicate results of the dispersion before focusing back on Saul's reaction to his Jerusalem work being so well-supported, namely his zeal to go to Damascus; that literary decision is justified because that trip led to a lot of consequence for the whole and needed to be dealt with fully and separately from the Acts 8 narratives. So I don't see anything problematic, and I do see a little bit of potential anachronism between Saul and James.

Anyway, I'm glad we're all crossing online tonight, I respect your opinion, which is why my other comment asks how you like to work together when we have divergent opinions.

Hey Dot, we've had quite a few here who are leery of Paul and who prefer the gnostic corpus. There are also a few of us who follow Christ as he's revealed (including through the Bible) who have very similar and predictable takes, you might call us trads but every one of us is unique and none strike me as straitlaced here. The best way for these two groups to get to talk IMHO is to continue working out areas of agreement.

u/Thisisnotanexit isn't making accusations, she just really likes Paul and is seeking out what you do believe after your strong statements of not believing Paul. I repeated a question to you in a separate ping, that's a fine place to pick things up again. Or if you want to continue on this track, I can tell you TINAE and I are happy to learn about your positive experience of Jesus but somehow things started off on your negative experience of Paul instead. So it's good to know that you do have a system other than just "modern Christianity is distorted". I'm all for primitive, original Christianity, and can sound very gnostic, but there doesn't seem to be much there that isn't compatible with the stuff added on later. If you can indicate how we can know historical facts about folks like Paul and Jesus, so that we use the same objective methods and come to the same facts, then that helps us determine what to do with those facts.

In my last deep dive with u/InevitableDot I left the question hanging, "Do you want to live forever this time, or cease to exist? Why or why not?" Dot obviously has some strong experiences, like all of us, wants to escape the matrix, and rejects the making up of stories, but also doesn't indicate having the clearest method for evaluating what is nonstory.

Shapes are aspects of dimension and in particular they communicate just like letters and numbers do. While writing about dimensions I saw much about the core pattern of shapes, letters, and numbers in general.

Each shape has a core concept cluster that is typically neutral but that can easily be "spun" for good or ill. To the pure all things are pure, so if you use a shape for a good purpose that cannot be tainted. When another communicates a bad purpose for a shape, it is only received to the degree you are out of practice with good purposes such that you have nothing to counterweigh the communication with. So to those who have no grounding it's easy to think of a shape as corrupt, and to them it is more corrupting than not. To those with grounding the bad purpose is just something to laugh at.

God made the hexagon so that bees could give us honey. God told Solomon to build a cube room overlaid entirely with gold so that he could meet with us. Man comes along and (1) forms a word "hex" with two meanings, (2) names a hexagonally marked planet "Saturn" with satanic overtones, (3) builds cubical prisons, (4) wears small black cubes religiously, (5) venerates and circumambulates a large black cube religiously, (6) uses the hexagon within a hexagram for a wide variety of purposes (some of which are more questionable, like Hinduism and Zionism), (7) etc. Now all these things have capacity to distract from God's general and special revelation. But they need not. The "hex" doesn't land if you have asked for protection from evils from one who is able.

So the fact that a few people invented a code (an association of meaning with some shape, word, gesture, or signal) doesn't mean we need to understand the code. If it's for the public to understand, the public will be considerately included in the ability to learn the code; if it's meant to be private, it's not necessary for the public generally to know. If someone speaks in a language I don't know, it's usually unimportant. If someone intends evil, natural law will cause that person to be found out and punished sooner or later, and I need not concern myself with being the punisher unless I am appointed.

There's a little energy transfer present in incantations and symbols, but it's mostly just to scoop up unguarded energy. When someone is just scrolling thoughtlessly, their defenses against shocking memes are low (as in low-hanging fruit). A spell has no effect on the person who has learned how not to be hypnotized. So shapes participate in attractive force like words, but they are a limited and inexact language and thus are more like trawling nets than directed energy. Architecture has more power because more energy is input, and that does cast broader spells and includes regions of high specialization, but even that cannot defeat ordinary preparations against spellcraft.

That's a paraphrase of the theory of James Hartle, who is so smart that he got first billing for the Hartle-Hawking function.

This universe is so wonky that it needed a secondary universe that appeared and disappeared in an instant in the Big Bang that would allow quantum tunneling to create this persistent universe.

But even Hartle couldn't explain dark matter. It doesn't exist. It's a math mistake that comes from the assumption of lightspeed invariance, which is rejected by the growing alternative called stochastic electrodynamics (SED). The error arises from believing in an old universe, and then wondering why galaxies still stick together so nicely instead of being random as the old-earth theory predicts: it yields the wrong total mass calculation and so new dark entities are invoked to explain the error away. If you reject the assumptions of new quantum physics conspiratorially circulated by Bohr, SED allows all phenomena to be explained without quantum uncertainty and without epicycles. Then the unexplained unexpected attraction is explained easily by the accretion theory of coalition of plasma strands that also accounts for why all spiral galaxies haven't self-randomized.

Genesis Creation is the only big bang that works. As pointed out in this thread, all other theories have an age crisis in which the stars are older than the universe containing them. "13.7 billion" is a compromise number that assumes that one or more calculations leading to the compromise are mistaken and the error will appear in time and refine the number. Well, maybe the number is .000006 billion as consistent with Joao Magueijo's CDK proposal.

u/MO-Carpenter

11 ignores that strength implies ones growth within the way...not an addition to the way

A grow Upward within a way Forward equals two ways.

12 inverts reality (singularity) with fiction (dualism)

Any way is singular. Any two-way dual is within a new one-way singular. Every way is Towards. Life towards Death (Wisdom, 7) can be endless: Inception and Death are singularity points, and the way to a singularity is endless.

One: "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit."

If you were following the thread, this is partly an exploration of ground sought by u/newfunturistic who was looking at a 13-density system. In that convo I explained that Jesus never abused substances but took his joy from the Father, so I do too. We're actually seeking to advance discussion, rather than to alternate beating a single dead horse and insulting others as some seem to do here.

Well, I use "no evidence" when (a) it cuts against the history I learned (b) the source gives no backup and (c) reasonably diligent search for comparable evidence turns up nothing; for instance there were a couple new Bibles that year but they were all Protestant. I know people abuse counterarguments here, but good arguments do stand on their own.

Yes, you have it right that the Ethiopian church (as I indicated) has the broadest definition of Scripture, and you're looking at an ad that includes a ton of Apocrypha. I use the Charlesworth edition for critical commentary, which includes the 100 most cited apocrypha and pseudepigrapha beyond the deuterocanon, and when necessary I use online Apocrypha. Nothing was deliberately "hidden" about these for the most part; a couple were stupid enough that local governments censored them, but those incidents are minor. It's just that they never obtained the credibility in the first place that the Scriptures obtained over time.

The covenant community is the believers in the Christ of any era (originally known as the Seed of the Woman and finally revealed to be Jesus). The work of the covenant community in recognizing Scripture was essentially complete before its imperial rapprochement of the 320s. All this work can be tested by ordinary methods of truth. u/guywholikesDjtof2024 identifies as a Biblical Christian, as I do, and it's relatively obvious who those are here because we don't hide our identification unlike others; we announce it and allow others to test it. Christians are a "team" I suppose by definition of having all submitted to the person and teaching of Jesus, but that means we can operate independently still knowing the same core. Your familiarity with Christian doctrine indicates you should know this too: I presume that, as you advance gnostic concepts, you're not unfamiliar with the fact that multiple people can be promoting the same message with one heart.

If you wish to continue adopting the role of asking pertinent questions and accepting our patient answers, that's fine too. When you start criticizing, it's appropriate to propose alternatives. Since you reject imperialism as a source of truth (and I'd agree), how could one determine what is true other than by whether it agrees with reality as objectively determinable by the average person? If we are committed to pursue truth at all costs (and who would refuse that), then various proposals for sources of truth can be compared, whether they are individual experience of Logos, an external Golden Rule or set of Commands, or a revelatory message or book. Presumably you don't wish to complain just for complaining's sake, but instead you have a positive suggestion for humanity that you prefer and would propose?

He's reading one, and treating AI as writing his own. Eventually fanfic universes get hammered out into reality.