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.
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.
PMFJI: Since 367, Christians have agreed that there are 66 protocanonical books with full inspiration and that there are many supplemental books that are also useful. Ever since oral tradition was first transmitted millennia before, there was always a recognition of the difference between inspired tradition and contextual commentary; this difference was manifested in the difference between the Law of Moses and the ongoing "living-oracles" application of it by covenant communities; it became clearly manifest when the Greek books ("OT Apocrypha") began circulating alongside the Hebrew books, at which time the Jewish tradition was that those books that hadn't (yet) been received by the community as having full authority were of a secondary level; and the Christian practice followed the same procedure, allowing the secondary books (including "NT Apocrypha") to remain but without recognizing them as having the full inspiration of the protocanon. It was only at the Council of Trent (1540s-1560s) that the deuterocanon was defined for the West (not the full 80), and I don't know when the larger Orthodox canon was defined for the East, or the slightly larger Ethiopian canon was defined; but all of these continued the millennia-old recognition that only books that survived the testing of centuries by the covenant community were the fully inspired ones.
Protestants agreed with keeping the deuterocanon until the Revised Version controversy of the 19th century, at which point many texts from the protocanon were attacked and over time the entire deuterocanon was stripped away. Protestants recognized they could still survive without any Apocrypha, and Catholic and Orthodox continued their previous policy unchanged.
Your article uses the year 1684 as part of a theory that something was done for removal in that year but there is no evidence of anything significant happening in that year. I trust you're interested in facts here rather than fact-free imaginative narratives, right?
"Biblical Christianity" means any denomination of Christianity that lives up to its goal of using the Bible alone (transcribed and translated) as God's revealed written message. We practice unity in essentials, liberty in nonessentials, and charity in all.
I'll be happy to talk emanation with you in more detail if someone puts specifics forward. Generically, "emanation" is not a true or false concept in itself, it's how the concept is used to define realities that matters. "Emanat" appears in the Vulgate of James 3:11, translating "bryo" meaning "send forth" or "gush", which is related to "embryo".
I'm a Christian, I've given my life to Jesus, so I don't manage it anymore, he does. He leads me through the whole Bible and in particular I've learned a lot about the Hebrew roots (even though there is much misunderstood there too). There are quite a few here though who take gnostic approaches and I interact with all of them who are willing.
what if the world we live in today is not the actual creation of a supreme God, but it is a counterfeit creation instead. By a lesser God.
Been proposed variously by gnostics. In other posts here I've pointed out they only do that because they don't see the current creation as good because they don't understand it's good for creatures to have limited free will to good or evil. I can explain this at any length desired (and I get accused of doing so).
What if the world was not created through command? What if it emanates reality the way fire radiates heat naturally, continuously without effort or decision?
Looks the same to me, honestly. In the spiritual level, to command is to emanate. When I write a book, it would be equivalent to say I emanate the universe or I command the universe.
If you'd like to remove consciousness from the creator so as to "get him off the hook" for allowing evil, the problems are that most gnostic systems admit the central Monad is Consciousness, and that human consciousness had to come from somewhere. We are not the highest consciousness and we have a duty to find out what that is, because it is also the source of right and wrong.
If you'd like to remove "separation" from Christianity, I'd agree with you that more Christians should accept Paul's quotation of Epimenides that in him we live and move and are. That's a panentheism that is personal rather than the impersonal version usually proposed. There is no separation but Creator and creature are connected on every level.
You are right that providence is ongoing creation, that creation should not be regarded as ended. I don't see a need for successive levels of reality as they are undocumented and unexperienced, and tend to separate humanity from the Monad. The reality I live in is one, it can be conceived of as both reality and simulation at once. My experience of it is imperfect, but in itself it is perfect and needs no layering (though it does have differentiation among realms). I grow in experiencing all its realms and aspects, refining my experience as I go, and I am always happy for what is being revealed and poured into experience, while always patiently awaiting what more is to come. It sounds like your concern is for people who fail to see that more is coming or who fail habitually to interact with the moment. Those are valid concerns but might be more directly stated. I trust this is helpful.
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.
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.
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.
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.