Regarding 2)
What are you, retarded?
But, if there is no polarity and no right (4:20), there is no true and no great, and nothing is "the true light-bringer" compared via polarity to anything else like the distortion Love being the true light-bringer, nor any magic "greater" than any other distortion.
Your issue is incomprehensible. Do you live in a “primitive tribe”? No? Then what is said is not directly applicable to you, but is instead said to illuminate your ignorance via exposure to an unimagined (by you) perspective.
Regarding 1)
If All is Infinite Creator, that must include all time because otherwise Creator would not be Infinite. But an Infinite Creator including all time cannot "become", or have "become", because that which becomes, like that which has become, cannot include all time.
What are you, retarded? This is pure semantics. Obviously you view yahweh as equivalent to the One Infinite Creator, yet your book is CHOCK FULL of this supposedly timeless entity “becoming” Wroth, or Jealous, or overcome with Regret, or Grief. Im not even going to bother getting verses because such things occur literally hundreds of times across the OT.
So either your god isn’t timeless, or you’re blind to your own double standards.
That seems oddly specific to use that books depiction
Yeah, it seems ai generated like most of the slop he posts. Furthermore, why would he replace an image of angelic soldiers in heaven with a demon?
Probably, yeah
Edit)
Wow…so, the original was posted Feb 4th, and it was available this morning when I saw it in the reddit post, but in the last couple hours it’s been removed.
https://x.com/nickadamsinusa/status/2019100728078348415?s=46
https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1sk2s10/alright_wtf_is_this/
^This one has a screenshot of the feb 4th tweet
I often have felt a synchronicity with your replies, which is a rare feeling I get with others which I interpret as “pay attention!” lol. Have you ever read about that idea? Which is all to say, i too am grateful for your passion, and the perspectives you share, not to tear down in anyway but to reframe. Im really glad that it seems what im trying to say is coming across, which I can only tell by the clarity of your responses thereupon. Cheers on those notes
And regarding the fundament of existence as the triad, that’s seriously compelling and I struggle to push back, all I can come up with are things that support the interpretation. For example what comes to mind as I read
Further developing the triad monist thought... I think Evil, as a polarity, appears when communion is broken. In a triadic reality (God, Person, other) there is a correct relationship among the three and unity in distinction.
Is that the framing makes sense. Only for “satanists” is their “evil” aligned with “satan”… for the adulterer, their evil is aligned with “Lust”, for the userer, “Mammon”, and so on. So “other” is more appropriate, as each individual has a unique “tempter”/set of temptations that would lead them, in their unique life, astray from “the Way”. I suppose the richness of your proposed description could be dissolved into the narrative of “the hierarchy of Hell”, if I wanted to force it into a dualistic view, but I see no need for that heh
Further, I think of one verse which has stuck with me strongly, which I think supports your view, or atleast could be thought of in that way:
The Dao gives birth to unity, Unity gives birth to duality, Duality gives birth to trinity, Trinity gives birth to a myriad of things. The myriad things bear shadows and embrace radiance, Are infused with the breath of life to achieve the harmonized trinity of darkness, light and soul. (People hate to be uninvolved, irrelevant and undeserving, Yet true leaders associate themselves with these characters.) Therefore, things may be gained by losing, May be lost by gaining. What others profess, I will also proclaim: “Forced principles will not be viable”, Let this be the heart and soul of the message.
Chapter 42 btw… I wonder what Douglas Adams meant by that…
Just to kind of tie back into the OP, what would you say HH/LoO gets most wrong? Because honestly I see even this Triadic perspective fitting in to their story, forgive me lol but I do (at first glance anyway, im sure it will get a couple more atleast), but I find the overall story just makes so much sense that it’s easy to “fit things in” so-to-speak. Whether it’s a created dualism that eventually returns to its uncreated Monism, or a creation that evolves from one to two to three to many and back again. I dunno. It’s like you say in your first paragraph about conduits to truth.
:)
All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts
Or, in long form:
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
Y’know Ive spent a while trying to think of where to go with the conversation but keep coming up dry… i keep coming back to “we’re in agreement but looking at things from different angles”…mostly at least… here, let’s try this:
Does real Evil (aka an “evil” entity, satan, existing in the role of tempter) exist anywhere? Further, if “alignment with God’s Will” maps to the “Good” polarity, surely there exists an opposite polarity, beyond simply “out of alignment”, which I would say describes better the people in the lukewarm middle of the poles, would you agree? Even without an entity representing that polarity, people could still imagine it and “aim for it” (see Epstain et Al)
I would say that there does seem to exist an entity playing that role, the so called “god of this world”, but it sounds like (correct me if I’m wrong) you come down more on the “it’s a metaphor” interpretation, or is that overly simplified by me?
Do you agree with the principle of “as above, so below”? Further/relatedly, can you name anything in existence that is “mono polar”? Because the fact that everything in the universe seems to operate with(in) polarity says to me that the same principle applies not just across scales but also across domains (i.e. in the spiritual domain of existence as well). You seem to be suggesting the “mono-polarity” of the spiritual realm (again please correct me if I’m wrong). If that’s correct, I’d ask why you think that? Taking account of the fact that until all the stuff that happens at the end of time/Revelations (e.g. satan being vanquished) actually occurs, we are operating in a dualistic environment.. and I just say that because (imagining you say something like) “it becomes totally mono-polar eventually, it just seems dualistic in our temporally limited sphere”, I would just say “yeah that’s what HH/LoO says too”, y’know, back to the “different words for the same thing” notion.
Honestly I just didn’t see a clearly productive direction to take things, despite knowing there must be atleast one if not multiple. If you’ve got any ideas beyond mine of polarity I’d love to hear em
No one cares what you think
All good, I appreciate the attempt to facilitate
Actually that was the second time, here’s the first time, 3 weeks ago, which he happily replied to:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASGEEvCuW/round-table-discussion-the-world/c/4eaV8BFbVaM
Ctrl+F “three” ITT and you’ll find it. Or rather, them, as I’ve asked you now 3 times ITT lol
Sounds like a buncha preconceived notions ya got there. Lamech wasn’t Godly despite his offspring being praised by God for the purity of his generations? That’s news to me lmao.
P.S. Hurry up and pick your three so I can shred them for you
What part of the Bible did hamurabi write? How was Lamech a Godly man if he exacted 7x or 77x his vengeance on people? Why does Jesus preach universal love while Yahweh’s priests preach his love for genocide?
Maybe answering my questions will help, it's worked before.
Have you noticed that "hate your enemy" is not the law?
FOH lmao, have you not noticed that “love your enemy” is a supercession of “love your neighbor”?
"Eye for eye" is a law of permission, not of demand
FOH lmao, just like “kill all the women and children” doesn’t actually mean that. Fuck off with that pilpulous bullshit
"Do not break your oath" is strengthened by "do not swear at all".
Again, FOH lmao
If I can get you to realize that Jesus never rejected one bit of the Old Testament but took it all literally, that'll be an advance and I'll be thankful.
And if I can get you to realize that Jesus never once said the word “yahweh” in the entire New Testament, that’ll be an advance and I’ll be thankful
Well well well, looks like the namecalling has started to work.
So listen up!
Based and Thomasine
But uhh, did you want to pick three? Most of your objections are semantic
Also, if you missed it, I said your attempts to paint Jesus’ words as “affirmation” were cope and pilpul. Don’t know if you were expecting me to copy and paste that out for each one or what.
"Do not break your oath" is strengthened by "do not swear at all".
FOH lmao x (every instance of pilpul)
>You seem to interpret the text as "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, but I don't affirm the law".
Uhh, yeah chief, considering his words immediately after, e.g. :
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all
Tell me, does he go on to affirm the law after he says he fulfilled it?
InB4MassiveCope
>You were only joking, I know.
Upvote for divine spark of self-awareness
Fulfill != “affirm”
Im not inclined to spend the time pointing out and dealing with every other inaccuracy or unjustified assumption in your comment when I’ve found such a blatant error in the first 0.00005% of its contents.
It sounds like you’re agreeing with what I said without explicitly indicating so.
Confirm/Deny:
Jesus will never command his faithful to kill a baby.
Not involving commands for his faithful to murder babies. You?
Have you considered that your namecalling and baiting is keeping me from doing other things like reading your material?
First of all: lmfao
Second of all: im not your toddler retard, lol
Third of all: what even?
So if you want me to look in the Scriptures for an answer to the question as I best interpret it, "ingenuously", you'll need to wait for such an answer.
Nah nigga, Jesus would never call for genocide, you’re fucked if you need to check your notes on that one.
Your ideas about what the earliest Christians believed are easily rejected by evidence and highly imaginative, but at least you're humoring me by trying to come down on a belief.
Again, lmao. You still don’t seem to understand that Gnostic means simply seeker of truth, someone open to changing their mind when they find something closer to the truth as they walk the Way. It’s funny how totally alien this is to you, though I suppose it makes sense, as your entire identity is based on tying yourself to a dead ideology. A dying soul in a dying body chained to a dead organization via dead oaths. Say hi to Scott for me! (And again, that’s just sarcasm, im being entirely ingenuous).
Edit) and obviously a bit hyperbolic for rhetorical effect - you strike me as a good guy in general, im sure you strive for beyond 51% service to others and achieve much of what you set out to do. Don’t take the above as me saying “grrrrr! You’re bound for Hell if you don’t repeat after me!!!!!”, that’s far more your guys’s thing than mine anyway. It’s just a pretty big deal imo if “your” Jesus tells you genocide is ever right/good/to be carried out by individuals. Like if I went to your church, I’d stop coming when I found that out about you.
Lmfao
You invented an ambiguity that isn’t even there. You’re such a disingenuous fag.
The verse is explicitly “God” calling for genocide.
That’s why you have such trouble accepting that Jesus would never call for genocide. Because his Father isn’t yahweh sabaoth, yaldabaoth, demiurge and petty god of war for a tribe of miscreants. Just as the earliest Christians believed before they were wiped out by the Catholic pedocracy.
Simple question:
Do you think there is any point in time or geography, across all of human history, where Jesus would tell you “you may” kill a baby in war?
Yes or No. Binary proposition.
Edit) also, you got anything to back up that horseshit argument about “kill every last one of them” doesn’t actually mean kill every last one of them, it means Heaven forbid, they may, only in super extreme circumstances like a Hamas terrorist wearing babies as bodyarmor while genociding innocent Chosen Ones - because frankly that sounds like an utter fucking bullshit cope
Regarding 3)
Again, you seem to have trouble understanding that you, a temporally limited being, are reading a description of a temporally unlimited process. No fucking shit it’s tough to describe with words. But tell us more cope about how your story has no “contradictions” like this what-so-ever. No omnipotent omniscient being getting blindsided by events so hard that he wipes the slate clean and starts over, no being overcome with emotions, no logical mismatches between eternities and ages and New Heavens and New Earths and New Testaments and supposedly timeless beings.
You’re gunna need to walk me through what it is you think you’re saying here lmao, because I assure you, it’s incorrect as fuck.