SirGonzo's metaphysical/theo-philo-sophical/Bible study/mystery school thread

[sirgonzo420]

This post was posted in another thread, so to avoid further derailment, I started this thread. I'd post this elsewhere, but dammit, General Discussion is my home!

Here's an example from the first sentence of the bible. In english, usually rendered:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
but in hebrew is:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.
or
Bereshit bara Elohim et haShamayim ve'et ha'Eretz
.

Bereshit (בְּרֵאשִׁית), instead of meaning simply "In the Beginning", also means "With the Beginning", "In Wisdom", "With Wisdom", "In the head", "With the head", "In the reish (point)" "With the reish (point)". All these are valid, concurrent meanings that are simply left out in the KJV.

And that's just the first *word* of the bible......

And we haven't even gotten into how Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), "God" in english is really a plural word in the original.

[StreetsOfGold]

They may be "left out" of the KJV but you can find all that in the Bible in other places. :) For example:

Proverbs 3:19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

[Horn]

To pinpoint the exact origin & location with a contracted and released span of breath.

My first offering will be to post a picture of a rib cage,

so that your thread may not get plucked and moved to someplace like the women's sub-forum.


http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/30/3040/I5PBF00Z.jpg

[lapis]

And we haven't even gotten into how Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), "God" in english is really a plural word in the original.

Well I for one am very interested in this Elohim that's mentioned in the Bible but not translated correctly. So should it read, "In the beginning the Gods created the heaven and the earth"?

And how many other instances are the Gods mentioned? In the other thread MNeagle guessed that it meant the holy trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. What say ye?

Although I was raised a Baptist Christian, once I started understanding the Bible I began having an aversion to the Old Testament. It started with verses like this:

Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
I had/have trouble seeing the omniscient, all-powerful Almighty as an entity that is jealous like some rejected girl at the Prom. But perhaps there was a mistranslation and "jealous" was picked from several possibilities?

Other verses mentioning vengeance, eye for an eye, spilled seed on the ground (ugh, seriously, really?!) were equal turn-offs.

Even since I could remember I was always a Jesus freak, and still am a bit of a closet one in real life (I don't tell anyone, because I don't feel any kinship or identification with other Christians and don't want my friends to put me in that category either).

I joke that I didn't have imaginary friends, I had Jesus, because I felt like he would drop to earth at any moment (and I hoped it would be right then, whenever I was thinking of him). I made my parents buy me a simple gold crucifix necklace when I was about five, and wore it for years, never taking it off unless I was forced to (mainly for bathing).

I kept a picture of (cute white rather than a more realistic Osama bin Laden-looking) Jesus next to my bed, so I could see "him" when I went to bed and when I awoke, first thing in the morning.

But alas, going to church and seeing "good" Christians behaving like louts six and a half days of the week made me cynical and turned me off to Christianity and all established religions, and that's pretty much most of my official religious story.

However, I have found Ernest Holmes' Science of Mind breathing new life into the Bible by those in the New Thought movement. This spiritual offshoot of Transcendentalism resonates with me deeply.

[keehah]

I've recently noticed the literal translation of the bible has finially opened up its wisdom to me (and made a few posts on this).

Its been amazing, I've new on this explanation, but so far every verse I've checked (tossed out often to 'prove' people are wrong or automatically unsaved) is suddenly understandable from a not too occulted 'atheist' scientific perspective and has a whole another layer of wisdom it in. This extra layer of wisdom and/or common sense at times exposes those following the 'interpreted' translations are doing opposite of the original intent.

"Believe" replacing "Stead-fast" sums much of this up. Although its not so simple, there are stead-fast believers out there.
_______________
Are we living in a Yahweh hell? Makes me wonder what really happened to the end of Plato's Critias.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?46387-Plato-And-The-Kabbalah&p=494578&viewfull=1#post494578

Plato concludes his description by declaring that it was this great empire which attacked the Hellenic states. This did not occur, however, until their power and glory had lured the Atlantean kings from the pathway of wisdom and virtue. Filled with false ambition, the rulers of Atlantis determined to conquer the entire world. Zeus, perceiving the wickedness of the Atlanteans, gathered the gods into his holy habitation and addressed them. Here Plato's narrative comes to an abrupt end, for the Critias was never finished. In the Timæus is a further description of Atlantis, supposedly given to Solon by an Egyptian priest and which concludes as follows:

"But afterwards there occurred [Yahweh]

[keehah]

Yahweh teaching me a lesson?

[sirgonzo420]

Well I for one am very interested in this Elohim that's mentioned in the Bible but not translated correctly. So should it read, "In the beginning the Gods created the heaven and the earth"?

And how many other instances are the Gods mentioned? In the other thread MNeagle guessed that it meant the holy trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. What say ye?

"Gods" would be one way to put it, although perhaps not the best way, as there is only one true GOD. One interpretation could be MNeagle's. Often times the "elohim" are thought of as being "powers" of God. The kabbalists would say that the "Elohim" are the ten Sephirah
Sephirot or Sephiroth (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɛ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)f (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɒ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)θ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English); Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language): סְפִירוֹת‎, pronunciation (http://www.forvo.com/word/%D7%A1%D6%B0%D7%A4%D6%B4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D6%B9%D 7%AA/)), meaning "enumerations", are the 10 attributes/emanations in Kabbalah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah), through which God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism) (who is referred to as Ein Sof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof) - The Infinite) reveals itself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) realms (Seder hishtalshelus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_hishtalshelus)). The term is alternatively transliterated into English as Sefirot/Sefiroth, singular Sephirah/Sefirah etc..

The idea (in a nutshell) is that God in the pure form was too High and Divine to create Creation alone, so the attributes were created to get the work done. God is above all attributes.... words cannot be put upon Him. That's a general justification for the kabbalistic sephirot/tree of life, but I am not a kabbalist, so that minimalist statement will have to do for now.


Although I was raised a Baptist Christian, once I started understanding the Bible I began having an aversion to the Old Testament. It started with verses like this:
Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
I had/have trouble seeing the omniscient, all-powerful Almighty as an entity that is jealous like some rejected girl at the Prom. But perhaps there was a mistranslation and "jealous" was picked from several possibilities?

Other verses mentioning vengeance, eye for an eye, spilled seed on the ground (ugh, seriously, really?!) were equal turn-offs.I was raised baptist too... and was similarly turned off by the things you describe. One way I reconcile it; God as He (or It) really exists is very different from God as he is described. Does that make sense? In exodus 20:5, the hebrew word for "jealous" (qanna) [קַנָּא] is a form (if I recall correctly) that I think is only used when discussing God, so it's not "jealous" in the human sense necessarily. I don't know for sure, and I don't agree with every word of the bible in english or hebrew. LORD is (yhvh) [יהוה], "thy God" is "Elohim" (remember the -im ending in hebrew is plural), and the "God" after the word "jealous" is "El", which is a singular form of "Elohim". So not only does that sentence mark God as being "jealous" (perhaps in a 'Godly' sense, whatever that means), but it shows the plurality and unity of the nature of God.


Even since I could remember I was always a Jesus freak, and still am a bit of a closet one in real life (I don't tell anyone, because I don't feel any kinship or identification with other Christians and don't want my friends to put me in that category either).

I joke that I didn't have imaginary friends, I had Jesus, because I felt like he would drop to earth at any moment (and I hoped it would be right then, whenever I was thinking of him). I made my parents buy me a simple gold crucifix necklace when I was about five, and wore it for years, never taking it off unless I was forced to (mainly for bathing).

I kept a picture of (cute white rather than a more realistic Osama bin Laden-looking) Jesus next to my bed, so I could see "him" when I went to bed and when I awoke, first thing in the morning.

But alas, going to church and seeing "good" Christians behaving like louts six and a half days of the week made me cynical and turned me off to Christianity and all established religions, and that's pretty much most of my official religious story.
That's sweet! :)

I can somewhat relate... I wouldn't go as far as calling myself a Jesus freak (I'm just a regular freak, lol), but I do have a strange affinity for Jesus and the bible (even with it's flaws and/or my problems with it), probably due to my raising.


However, I have found Ernest Holmes' Science of Mind breathing new life into the Bible by those in the New Thought movement. This spiritual offshoot of Transcendentalism resonates with me deeply.I'm not entirely familiar. I'll check him out. I often find that ideas that seem at first glance to be "new" are really something I've already come across under another name.

[Horn]

Yahweh teaching me a lesson?

Dirty underwear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNByRghR6sw

[Santa]

As they say in Americanized Yid, "Oy, dozza bereshit in ze voods?" ;D

[SLV^GLD]

Caught a mouse on a glue trap last night, carried him outside using some long needle nose pliers, set him on the deck and bashed his brains out with a quick strike from the edge of a tennis racket. I never said a word to him. My wife was grateful for she could not have done it and I suppose would have let him starve to death on the trap? I felt no remorse, disgust or guilt. If I could have gotten a worthwhile amount of meat from his body I would have.

[Santa]

Hey Gonzo, I apologize for my silly ass post. Carry on. I find your views very interesting.

[JDRock]

But alas, going to church and seeing "good" Christians behaving like louts six and a half days of the week made me cynical and turned me off to Christianity and all established religions, and that's pretty much most of my official religious story.

.
not to detract from this really good thread, but i would no more hold the God of the bible liable for the acts of professors of religion, any more than i would hold the founding fathers of the united states responsible for the disaster we call America today....

[iOWNme]

I think a valid question to ask is this:

Are we supposed to be literally translating the actual words, or are we supposed to read the Bible as an allegory for the way the world was/is/will be?

[sirgonzo420]

Hey Gonzo, I apologize for my silly ass post. Carry on. I find your views very interesting.

No apologies necessary!

There is no such thing as an offtopic post in this thread.


;D



I think a valid question to ask is this:

Are we supposed to be literally translating the actual words, or are we supposed to read the Bible as an allegory for the way the world was/is/will be?

Both!

[sirgonzo420]

not to detract from this really good thread, but i would no more hold the God of the bible liable for the acts of professors of religion, any more than i would hold the founding fathers of the united states responsible for the disaster we call America today....

That's good, except that God does not make mistakes.

Everything that occurs is an intentional act of God.

I'm not hatin'. I used to hate God from time to time, but now that I know Him better I am more forgiving.

[Ponce]

Bereshit bara Elohim?...............Jews are funny, they even use a bear to take a shit on God.

bere shit bara Elohim
bear shit on God

First silly post of the day on a silly thread............Good morning to one and all.

[Horn]

That's good, except that God does not make mistakes.

Everything that occurs is an intentional act of God.

I'm not hatin'. I used to hate God from time to time, but now that I know Him better I am more forgiving.

If you are grounded equally & or in the same image, would that be a mistake?

Or both a subject to err, whoever he is.

In Spanish (the language of the alma) there is no if, only many buts.

[sirgonzo420]

If you are grounded equally & or in the same image, would that be a mistake?

Or both a subject to err, whoever he is.

There are no mistakes, unless I'm wrong! ;D

No coincidences either.

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT-nS_ESpbM&feature=related

[Santa]

I think a valid question to ask is this:

Are we supposed to be literally translating the actual words, or are we supposed to read the Bible as an allegory for the way the world was/is/will be?

I would say that the Bible has to be read as allegory since letters and words are mere symbols, unless it was written in some sort of numerological code. In that case, if the code were made known, it might be possible to read literally like a mathematical formula.

I think that's what Grad was into before he left.

[sirgonzo420]

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

Now onto word 4 of the bible/torah/genesis/bereshit... which is: אֵת (et)

Usually (et) is translated as "the", but carries additional meaning. It is composed of the first and last hebrew letters, which symbolizes the alphabet and could be seen as analogous to "Alpha and Omega", as in, "the First and the Last".

Alphabet can be seen like building blocks, or DNA, or letters and numbers, etc.


KJV Bible - John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[SLV^GLD]

If one can accept that he has a creator and such creator is divine and omnipotent one might question the purpose of his being created.

If one can question the purpose of his creation one might realize one possesses free will.

One might then conclude that in his gift of free will lies the answer to the purpose of his creation.

After much study of the Bible from as many viewpoints as I could take it I determined that I am free to choose to attempt a plan of my own design. Unfortunately my designs are flawed by my ego and my incomprehensible lack of scope or vision. I am perfectly human in my imperfection. I am quite incomplete without my creator although I can will the belief otherwise. On the other hand I am also free to submit my will and therefore my life to the purpose of my creation which very well may remain a complete mystery to me for all of my days. To this end I seek communication with my creator striving for knowledge of his will and the power to carry that out. I examine my relationship to my creator searching for those aspects that maintain my ego's design and the related lack of humility that prevents me from seeing, hearing and conducting my creator's purpose for my creation. By identifying my own spiritual constructs that belie to my ego that I can comprehend a feasible purpose and that I can will it to fruition I learn to exercise those atrophied spiritual muscles that effect a higher purpose. Thus I become a conduit, a vessel and an instrument.

[sirgonzo420]

Also, something I should have mentioned earlier.... The fact the "Genesis" begins with the 2nd letter of the alphabet instead of the first.

Look at the shape:

http://www.trussel.com/scrabble/beth.gif

Read properly, right-to-left, it is "closed"; open only to 'what comes after it', nothing above, below, or behind. See how it can symbolize "beginning"? There is nothing before it. See the "reish" (point)?

I could say more about it, but that's a good enough starting point (<-pun, lol) for the first letter.

[osoab]

Are scholarships available? ;D

[Santa]

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

Now onto word 4 of the bible/torah/genesis/bereshit... which is: אֵת (et)

Usually (et) is translated as "the", but carries additional meaning. It is composed of the first and last hebrew letters, which symbolizes the alphabet and could be seen as analogous to "Alpha and Omega", as in, "the First and the Last".

Alphabet can be seen like building blocks, or DNA, or letters and numbers, etc.

This is why I think it's a big mistake to demonize and fear pre-Christian Pagan belief systems and philosophical constructs.
It is exactly what the foundation of our modern system of communications is based on. Pagan symbols.

[sirgonzo420]

This is why I think it's a big mistake to demonize and fear pre-Christian Pagan belief systems and philosophical constructs.
It is exactly what the foundation of our modern system of communications is based on. Pagan symbols.

More or less!

Hope everyone is having a good Thorsday!

[Santa]

Also, something I should have mentioned earlier.... The fact the "Genesis" begins with the 2nd letter of the alphabet instead of the first.

Look at the shape:

http://www.trussel.com/scrabble/beth.gif

Read properly, right-to-left, it is "closed"; open only to 'what comes after it', nothing above, below, or behind. See how it can symbolize "beginning"? There is nothing before it. See the "reish" (point)?

I could say more about it, but that's a good enough starting point (<-pun, lol) for the first letter.

Fascinating that you're looking at the letters themselves as glyphs.

[Dogman]

Fascinating that you're looking at the letters themselves as glyphs. Santa, All writing today is made up of glyphs! Symbols that hold meaning.

[Santa]

Santa, All writing today is made up of glyphs! Symbols that hold meaning.

I AM... a symbol that gives meaning. ;D

[sirgonzo420]

I AM... a symbol that gives meaning. ;D



Tat Tvam Asi!

That Thou Art!

तत् त्वम् असि

[JohnQPublic]

I think a valid question to ask is this:

Are we supposed to be literally translating the actual words, or are we supposed to read the Bible as an allegory for the way the world was/is/will be?

The traditional methodology is always to read the Scriptures literally first. One can also look for symbolic, typologic, etc. interpretations, but never ignore the literal for the symbolic, etc., unless you have very powerful reasons to do so. Also in Catholic thought additional weight is placed on the early fathers of the Church (especially when an overwhelming number of them agree on a point), since they are considered to have been closer to the original apostles, and thus to the true meaning of what was taught to the apostles by Christ.

[JohnQPublic]

And we haven't even gotten into how Elohim (אֱלֹהִים), "God" in english is really a plural word in the original.

According to Robert Sungenis, the plural can refer to the trinity or to the multiple powers of God. He does note that elohim is used to refer to multiple (i.e., pagan) gods in other places in scripture.

The Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-11, Catholic Apologetics Study Bible Volume IV, Robert Sungenis, 2009
(http://catholicintl.com/index.php/store#ecwid:category=1487375&mode=category&offset=0&sort=nameAsc)

The PDF version is very reasonable ($18.00) I also strongly recommend his book on the Apocalypse.

[Horn]

If I am, IT (U) will never be accomplished.

Tag.

[7th trump]

Why not go watch a few 1 hour shows over at http://shepherdschapel.com/?
Arnold Murray hits all the translation problems like "Elohim" and the rest and provides proof with other books of the Bible to back it up.

If I remember correctly Arnold goes into good detail about "Elohim" and says its translated back to mean God created everybody in the beginning and when satan revolted caused God to destroy the first earth age. In this first earth age we were all there in angelic bodies (form). "Elohim" means basically "God and us", in the angelic form, witnessed the coming of the second earth age after he destroyed the first earth age.
I have in my notes chapter and verse where God speaks of all three ages but I'll be dipped in $#%^ if I cant find my notes to give you chapter and verse. I provided this once before but cant find the thread where I posted this.
I'll look for my notes and repost chapter and verse........but its there in the Bible for all to read and understand.

The second earth age is where God put all his creation (us) in the flesh (born of flesh to eventually die and go back to our natural form, angelic) to test us individually to see who will follow Him or follow satan.
This earth ages only purpose is to test us without God ever intervening except for intervening with the 144,000 elect who fought against lucifer in the first earth age when he revolted..........................its called Faith!

[gunDriller]

i would say that studying the linguistics & history of the Bible is key to understanding how the Jews have twisted Christianity into being a defender of Zionism - and other sick Jewish projects.

[nunaem]

i would say that studying the linguistics & history of the Bible is key to understanding how the Jews have twisted Christianity into being a defender of Zionism - and other sick Jewish projects.

It didn't take much twisting. It's easy when they believe a Jewish rabbi was God.

[sirgonzo420]

It didn't take much twisting. It's easy when they believe a Jewish rabbi was God.

And don't forget the sub group that worships a mason called Jesus!

[Horn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIUlEo9XxuI&feature=related

To enter the way of Sufism, the seeker begins by finding a teacher, as the connection to the teacher is considered necessary for the growth of the pupil. The teacher, to be genuine, must have received the authorization to teach from another Master of the Way, in an unbroken succession leading back to Sufism's origin with Muhammad. It is the transmission of the divine light from the teacher's heart to the heart of the student, rather than of worldly knowledge transmitted from mouth to ear, that allows the adept to progress. In addition, the genuine teacher will be utterly strict in his adherence to the Divine Law.[/URL]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ8nze2VPdU&feature=related

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism#cite_note-22"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism#cite_note-22)
Scholars and adherents of Sufism are unanimous in agreeing that Sufism cannot be learned through books.

[Hatha Sunahara]

In the Beginning-Genesis. Where did we come from? God. This is the first step in a system of myths--a mythology. A bunch of stories that 'explain' the meaning of our experience. This one claims there is only one god.

The first sentence is a pretty good start. The rest of it explains the nature of that god. If you buy that first idea--just one god, you'll accept all the rest of it.

The Greeks had many gods--compartmentalized, decentralized, each with power over a certain area of your life. One god allowed the priests to be dictators with power over all aspects of your life. It was a great invention. It caught on.

But in the end, it's just mythology. It could be replaced with something else.

And the mythology is designed to provide answers to questions that have no answers, thereby freeing people up to pay attention to their material needs because we all have bodies that live in the material world. Religion binds people together spiritually and materially, and even socially. It's not a bad thing. It frees up your mind so you can pay attention to your job. Unless, of course, if you are obsessed with your religion.


Hatha

[dys]

It is often a mistake to conflate belief and religion. For example, I believe in Jesus Christ of Nazareth as my Lord and saviour. When I share my belief with people, a lot of the time people will substitute 'religion' for 'belief' when discussing the issue with me. They are not the same thing. Food for thought.

dys

[lapis]

not to detract from this really good thread, but i would no more hold the God of the bible liable for the acts of professors of religion, any more than i would hold the founding fathers of the united states responsible for the disaster we call America today....

I don't hold God liable for the non-Christian acts of Christians, I just don't want to be considered a Christian, because the ones that I know IRL can do the "easy" things like believe the 12 basic tenets of the Christian, but when it comes to following what Christ actually said or did, they seem to do the opposite or conveniently ignore verses like:


Matthew 7:2-5
For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:28-32
"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

[Horn]

Interesting point/topic Lapis, love/caring for an "enemy/foe" is a very sensitive thing.

I'm not sure if it the instructions could be written down for it.

A tempering or distribution of Love is definitely something that is even harder to instruct through the written,
And even the concept of misinterpreted.

Most often it would be received as manipulation.

[Santa]

Lapis, I don't understand why you have so few thanks. You're really a terrific poster.

[iOWNme]

I don't hold God liable for the non-Christian acts of Christians, I just don't want to be considered a Christian, because the ones that I know IRL can do the "easy" things like believe the 12 basic tenets of the Christian, but when it comes to following what Christ actually said or did, they seem to do the opposite or conveniently ignore verses like:


Matthew 7:2-5
For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:28-32
"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

God post Lapis....

Although i agree with Christ in the simplest of terms: If a guy treats you wrong, no biggie. Be the better man and show him compassion. I get it.

But it is verses like these that are used for Christians to lay down and submit to the will of the STATE.

This is a very thin line to travel, IMO. I mean, how many good Christians have been SLAUGHTERED all around the world because they chose to lay down because 'it is in Gods hands', or because 'I cannot defend myself, for it is against Christ's words'.

I wonder what the Talmud says about 'lending with no repayment'?

[Book]

I wonder what the Talmud says about...



http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/Jesusisms_vs_Bushisms/images/Turn%20Other%20Cheek.jpg

Talmud jews exploit naive Christians who "love thy enemy" and "turn thy other cheek".

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/organization/religion/judaism/rabbi.gif lie cheat and steal from the stupid goyim

[sirgonzo420]

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/Jesusisms_vs_Bushisms/images/Turn%20Other%20Cheek.jpg

Talmud jews exploit naive Christians who "love thy enemy" and "turn thy other cheek".

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/organization/religion/judaism/rabbi.gif lie cheat and steal from the stupid goyim


Pretty much. The Talmud is a compendium of sketchy shit.

[Santa]

Most people don't even bother or simply give up the attempt to understand spiritual matters.
So they allow action figures, or "actors" to explain it to them.

Thus begins the construction of hierarchy.

[Horn]

Most people don't even bother or simply give up the attempt to understand spiritual matters.
So they allow action figures, or "actors" to explain it to them.

Thus begins the construction of hierarchy.

Followed by labeling and grouping.

As far as spiritual relations go, the written word interpreted cannot be substituted for one on one living relations.

"Love" of another gets grouped into a single meaning within written terms.

There are no ifs that a BOOK can not define it, this much is evident.

[lapis]

Talmud jews exploit naive Christians who "love thy enemy" and "turn thy other cheek".

And who are these naive Christians? WHERE are they?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zrbJ2yL0T_g/TcAL0gzkRfI/AAAAAAAAACk/STaXNxBgE60/s200/23_Binoculars_lookingAround_lge_32optANI.gif


http://www.myemoticons.com/images/organization/religion/judaism/rabbi.gif lie cheat and steal from the stupid goyim

I don't know of a one that loves his enemies or turns the other cheek in any way shape or form. So why shouldn't they exploit "Christians," if they are too stoopid to follow the basic tenets of their spiritual leader?

Last time I checked, usury is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. Do Christians say anything about this? Heard anything from their religious "leaders" about this? Nah, they squat down at the temple of Mammon so fast that I'm surprised their kneecaps don't shatter from the impact.

And regular Christians aren't in any rush to throw the money changers from the Temple either; if anything, they're begging the money changers to please please please let them service them in any way they can. Throw the den of thieves out? Hardly; if anything, trying to make their own cozy dens as large as possible and as nice as the money changers' as they can afford.

So it's the Jews' fault that they feel contempt for Christians? Ha ha, that's funny!

[lapis]

I myself was ignorant about usury and the Bible until I read stuff like this:

LETTER TO MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS CLERGY ABOUT "USURY" (http://usuryfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/letter-to-mainstream-religious-clergy.html)

Note: Please pass this letter on to any "religious clergy" of any denomination. I have been sending letters to "religious clergy" ever since I learned about the design flaw of "usury" and how it is the killer machine that keeps debtors in bondage and servitude for generation after generation. Religious clergy either ignore my letters OR they respond with a "form letter" that avoids the issue of "usury."

LETTER TO MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS CLERGY

In the times of the early Church, any usury on debt was considered a violation of God’s Law. Does the doctrine preached or the dogma followed by your Ministry on this particular issue harmonize with Scripture? If necessary, will you revise your doctrine/dogma to be true to the Word of God and begin teaching the “truth” about the design flaw of usury that causes "positive feedback" on our orthodox system of usury-based, debt money?

I draw your attention to the following sound doctrine which proves beyond a doubt that usury on debt is a violation of God’s Law.

1. “If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, and that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour’s wife, hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase. Shall he then live? He shall not live. He hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.” (Ezekiel 18:10-13) King James Bible

2. “Take no usury of him, or increase … thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury.” (Leviticus 25: 36-37)

3. “…unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee.” (Deuteronomy 23:20)

Since the Bible has scores of passages of sound doctrine which condemns the charging of usury on debt, I have long been intrigued that neither the mainline religious organizations nor the T.V. Evangelical ministries are preaching that ‘usury’ on debt is a violation of God’s Law. I believe that sound teaching on the issue of usury-based, debt money which is plundering the common people in every continent of this world must become the priority mission for all ministries as we progress into this 21st Century.

It has become increasingly clear in recent years that there is an intricate, international network of money-plunders more politely known as money-lenders. Unless the mainstream religious organizations warn and re-educate their congregations about the design flaw of usury and how they can release themselves from this wicked group of money-thieves, one can only conclude that mainstream religion will continue its steady state of decline.

http://www.msn101.com/content/emoticons/Nodding_XYWCVN.gif

That decline may very well be attributed to the fact that the majority of traditional clergy are neither exposing nor opposing the evils of our orthodox economic system which functions with usury-based, debt money.

One can further speculate that selected leaders within the heirarchy of the various mainstream religious organizations (Catholic, Protestant and/or otherwise) are in cahoots with these wicked and greedy money-plunders. I grant that indeed, some respected clergy members are preaching truth – as far as they know it – nevertheless, we must find more teaching clergy who are ‘led of the Lord’ and are therefore, ready and willing to learn what the hallowed halls of formal religious training neglects to teach.

[snip]

[JDRock]

regardless of how professors of religion act, our beliefs and deeds WILL follow us to the judgement seat......we cant say, THEY were hypocrits!, hey, if WE know whats right, and how they should be acting that proves WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE>

[sirgonzo420]

regardless of how professors of religion act, our beliefs and deeds WILL follow us to the judgement seat......we cant say, THEY were hypocrits!, hey, if WE know whats right, and how they should be acting that proves WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE>

Yep. That notion is known to alchemists and hermeticists as "the Law of Cause and Effect", and to others as "Karma".

[lapis]

God post Lapis....

Although i agree with Christ in the simplest of terms: If a guy treats you wrong, no biggie. Be the better man and show him compassion. I get it.

But it is verses like these that are used for Christians to lay down and submit to the will of the STATE.

This is a very thin line to travel, IMO. I mean, how many good Christians have been SLAUGHTERED all around the world because they chose to lay down because 'it is in Gods hands', or because 'I cannot defend myself, for it is against Christ's words'.

I'm sorry I didn't see your post before I answered Book's.

You're right, these verses are hard to follow, especially in extreme situations. However, I try (and often fail!) to follow them in just the mundane daily situations. When some idiot cuts me off in traffic, then adds insult to injury by slamming on the brakes. When my daughter steps on my bare foot wearing boots. When my in-laws make an ignorant, critical remark.

My first reaction sure isn't to turn the cheek! Oh no. My reaction is more like


http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1956&cid=1&stc=1

[keehah]

http://www.zoence.com/useruploads/image/Paintings/200_Phanes_world%20egg_2in.jpg
http://www.zoence.com/article/the-creation-myth

The Creation Myth

Orphic-Greek Creation Myth

In the beginning there was Chronos (‘Eternity’) and Ananke (‘Necessity’). They combined to become primordial Aether (‘Spirit’), Chaos (‘Matter’) and Erebos (‘Darkness’). Chaos was a fathomless, formless void, known biblically as “the Deep” (i.e. Infinity). Erebos was the Darkness that “lay upon the face of the Deep”. Aether, the Holy Spirit, also known as Nyx (Latin: Nox, ‘Night’), was the divine Potential—the still, silent potential of all movement, sound, law and creativity.

Then, in the first great act of creation, the Spirit moved in an expression of love, the nature of the hidden, unmanifest All-Good. In this movement Nyx was also known as Eurynome (‘Wide-ruling’). Her movement, described as a dance, was to the south. As she danced faster and faster, she whirled Erebos, the Darkness, into a wind that followed her. This wind was the North Wind, Boreas, also referred to as Ophion, the primordial Snake or Serpent.

Ophion watched as Eurynome danced and was filled with a divine lust for her. He coiled his body seven times around Eurynome and made love to her as she danced. Impregnated by Ophion, Eurynome laid the Cosmic Egg, the first living form. Then, at Eurynome's bidding, Ophion wrapped his body seven times around the Cosmic Egg, helping it to hatch. As it burst open, out sprang Eros, the Protogonus (‘First-born’), the first complete manifestation of Divinity.

[keehah]

Space-resonance is a five dimensional represntation involving three dimensions of length and two dimensions of frequency, as opposed to the four dimensional represntation of space-time common to Euclidian geometry.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid

"Euclid" is the anglicized version of the Greek name Εὐκλείδης , meaning "Good Glory"....

The few historical references to Euclid were written centuries after he lived, by Proclus and Pappus of Alexandria. Proclus introduces Euclid only briefly in his fifth-century Commentary on the Elements, as the author of Elements, that he was mentioned by Archimedes, and that when King Ptolemy asked if there was a shorter path to learning geometry than Euclid's Elements, "Euclid replied there is no royal road to geometry." Although the purported citation of Euclid by Archimedes has been judged to be an interpolation by later editors of his works, it is still believed that Euclid wrote his works before those of Archimedes. In addition, the "royal road" anecdote is questionable since it is similar to a story told about Menaechmus and Alexander the Great. In the only other key reference to Euclid, Pappus briefly mentioned in the fourth century that Apollonius "spent a very long time with the pupils of Euclid at Alexandria, and it was thus that he acquired such a scientific habit of thought."

http://www.asphodel-long.com/html/goddess_in_judaism.html

The Hebrew Bible is composed of material from different dates and sources. Some were ancient when they were written down and preserved through an oral tradition, or through more ancient documents; these are usually narratives, hymns, poems and oracles. They may owe a good deal to the background cultures. On the other hand, laws, commandments, strictures and a system of reward and punishment and above all the covenant between God and His people appear to be written by the later authors and editors, whose main concern was to impose male supremacy through their version of monotheism. These editors are often called the Deuteronomists. It is their struggle against the influence of the Goddess in the popular religion that forms much of their Biblical material.

But however hard they tried to banish Her, they were not successful. The concept of a goddess or goddesses in Israel runs through the whole of the Hebrew Bible. We will try and trace it, starting with the background female deities of the ancient Near Eastern people, through the concept of a Goddess as wife or consort to God (Jahweh), then the ambivalence of the wisdom figure (Hochma/Sophia), to the Hellenistic Gnostic world and the birth of Christianity.

There, first subsumed into Jesus Christ, she emerges sometimes as the Holy Spirit within the Trinity and then as the Church, which is totally male-directed.

Finally in much popular understanding she may become identified with the Virgin Mary. It is this long journey of the Goddess that we are beginning to travel now.

[dys]

God post Lapis....

Although i agree with Christ in the simplest of terms: If a guy treats you wrong, no biggie. Be the better man and show him compassion. I get it.

But it is verses like these that are used for Christians to lay down and submit to the will of the STATE.

This is a very thin line to travel, IMO. I mean, how many good Christians have been SLAUGHTERED all around the world because they chose to lay down because 'it is in Gods hands', or because 'I cannot defend myself, for it is against Christ's words'.

I wonder what the Talmud says about 'lending with no repayment'?

I don't believe in submitting to the will of the state, or government. Government or state is not a person. But I will say this, those who live by the sword die by the sword.

dys

[Dogman]

All of this is trying to find the answer we all look for , Who am I, Why am I here? What is life? Why is life unjust? What is death? Is death the end? And such questions.
There is a creator that got this total dog and pony show going. and I will leave it at that for now....Other than I refuse to believe that all other people on the world are wrong in what they believe. and The chosen few the one third of the world are right. (so called christian)

[Horn]

http://www.zoence.com/article/the-creation-myth

Pretty interesting page there on pilgrimages.

I've often wondered, somehow knowing there is much more that can be read into them.

As being done in a group/colonist hierarchy structure, or as an independent soul. vis-à-vis good/evil, release/contraction.

Snipet



One doesn't have to pilgrimage, of course, to find God; but the earth needs it. We are born to move. Movement is akin to emotion, which is motion or movement, and movement is energy. Perfect emotion is love, and perfect energy is the life force. Such movement is a movement of love, bearing love like a holy breath to all parts of the body visited in this way.

It is said (and can be observed clairvoyantly) that a true pilgrim who pilgrimages in such love leaves footprints of light. Many pilgrims leave many such footprints, and a well-walked pilgrims' way can become a path of light. There are multitudes of pilgrimage routes crossing the earth, with thousands of people pilgrimaging them every year. The earth is, in this way, being made into a network of light: its darkness is being turned to light. It is a healing, uplifting and inspirational process, both for the pilgrim and for the planet. It is an act of love that affects everyone and everything living on the planet.

There is a science to pilgrimage. One doesn't have to know this to be a pilgrim; but a conscious, knowledgeable and loving pilgrim has a far greater beneficial effect on the planet, and thus on humanity and all creatures, than an unconscious one. This science concerns the earth and its landscape, which in its own way is akin to the human body, with its etheric energy structure of meridians, acupuncture points, chakras and 'kundalini' energy flows. This in turn is structured according to the Three Great Archetypes which produce such things as landscape temples with their own chakra systems, 'trees of life' and zodiacs.

The science also involves the angelic realm, and there are such things as landscape angels. One could call these the spirits of the places. Each is an aspect of the whole—a facet of the One Being. Each of them is a teacher, a representative of the One Teacher. In such ways nature teaches us the wisdom and takes us into a story that is a mystery.
http://www.zoence.com/article/pilgrimages

[keehah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry

For over two thousand years, the adjective "Euclidean" was unnecessary because no other sort of geometry had been conceived. Euclid's axioms seemed so intuitively obvious that any theorem proved from them was deemed true in an absolute, often metaphysical, sense. Today, however, many other self-consistent non-Euclidean geometries are known, the first ones having been discovered in the early 19th century. An implication of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that Euclidean space is a good approximation to the properties of physical space only where the gravitational field is not too strong...

The [Euclidean] Elements also include the following five "common notions":

Things that are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.
If equals are subtracted from equals, then the remainders are equal.
Things that coincide with one another equal one another.
The whole is greater than the part.

...Einstein's theory of general relativity shows that the true geometry of spacetime is not Euclidean geometry. For example, if a triangle is constructed out of three rays of light, then in general the interior angles do not add up to 180 degrees due to gravity. A relatively weak gravitational field, such as the Earth's or the sun's, is represented by a metric that is approximately, but not exactly, Euclidean. Until the 20th century, there was no technology capable of detecting the deviations from Euclidean geometry, but Einstein predicted that such deviations would exist. They were later verified by observations such as the slight bending of starlight by the Sun during a solar eclipse in 1919, and such considerations are now an integral part of the software that runs the GPS system. It is possible to object to this interpretation of general relativity on the grounds that light rays might be improper physical models of Euclid's lines, or that relativity could be rephrased so as to avoid the geometrical interpretations. However, one of the consequences of Einstein's theory is that there is no possible physical test that can distinguish between a beam of light as a model of a geometrical line and any other physical model. The entire notion of physical tests of the axioms of geometry should be rejected, and geometry should be considered to be a formal system without any intrinsic real-world meaning.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Noneuclid.svg/400px-Noneuclid.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Another way to describe the differences between these geometries is to consider two straight lines indefinitely extended in a two-dimensional plane that are both perpendicular to a third line:

In Euclidean geometry the lines remain at a constant distance from each other even if extended to infinity, and are known as parallels. [plane]
In hyperbolic geometry they "curve away" from each other, increasing in distance as one moves further from the points of intersection with the common perpendicular; these lines are often called ultraparallels. [pseudo-sphere]
In elliptic geometry the lines "curve toward" each other and eventually intersect. [sphere]...

Klein is responsible for the terms "hyperbolic" and "elliptic" (in his system he called Euclidean geometry "parabolic", a term which has not survived the test of time). His influence has led to the current usage of the term "non-euclidean geometry" to mean either "hyperbolic" or "elliptic" geometry....

Non-Euclidean geometry is an example of a paradigm shift in the history of science. Before the models of a non-Euclidean plane were presented by Beltrami, Klein, and Poincaré, Euclidean geometry stood unchallenged as the mathematical model of space. Furthermore, since the substance of the subject in synthetic geometry was a chief exhibit of rationality, the Euclidean point of view represented absolute authority. Non-Euclidean geometry, though assimilated by learned investigators, continues to be suspect for those not having exposure to hyperbolic and elliptical concepts.

The discovery of the non-Euclidean geometries had a ripple effect which went far beyond the boundaries of mathematics and science. The philosopher Immanuel Kant's treatment of human knowledge had a special role for geometry. It was his prime example of synthetic a priori knowledge; not derived from the senses nor deduced through logic — our knowledge of space was a truth that we were born with. Unfortunately for Kant, his concept of this unalterably true geometry was Euclidean. Theology was also affected by the change from absolute truth to relative truth in mathematics that was a result of this paradigm shift.

The existence of non-Euclidean geometries impacted the "intellectual life" of Victorian England in many ways and in particular was one of the leading factors that caused a re-examination of the teaching of geometry based on Euclid's Elements. This curriculum issue was hotly debated at the time and was even the subject of a play, Euclid and his Modern Rivals, written by the author of Alice in Wonderland.

Euclid and his Modern Rivals
Act I Scene II
[MINOs sleeping: to him enter the Phantasm of ELUCID. MINOS opens his eyes and regards him with a blank and stony gaze, without betraying the slightest surprise or even interest.]...

[keehah]

The science also involves the angelic realm, and there are such things as landscape angels. One could call these the spirits of the places. Each is an aspect of the whole—a facet of the One Being. Each of them is a teacher, a representative of the One Teacher. In such ways nature teaches us the wisdom and takes us into a story that is a mystery.

That video reminded me of our "The Problem With the 'People Are Idiots' Meme (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?57158-The-Problem-With-the-People-Are-Idiots-Meme&p=498978#post498978)" thread.
"You could find the right Lorentz Transformation for your purpose."

[sirgonzo420]

...As Above,

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Kee8Z6fVW3A/TMZ13as3xJI/AAAAAAAAAlM/RyGmMKX2-n4/s400/ist2_5442166-tree-and-roots-silhouette.jpg

So Below...


...As Within,

http://teachingtools.nridge.net/Research/AdFreeWelchMade/laser1_files/laser1.jpg http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/ks3bitesize/science/images/planets_orbits.jpg

So Without...


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZQVzK7iOc00/Tpl_YwikdFI/AAAAAAAAEWg/2rbHLYZvfiw/s1600/aa.jpg



Matthew 6:10 (KJV):

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Genesis 1:26 (KJV):

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

[Horn]

Do what thou wilt, just make sure you know which what who, you are.

[Horn]

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/f8d/547/f8d547b5-2e5f-4564-b2d1-4bf225233d28

The Buddhabrot rendering technique was discovered and later described in a 1993 Usenet post to sci.fractals by Melinda Green.

Previous researchers had come very close to finding the precise Buddhabrot technique. In 1988 Linas Vepstas relayed similar images to Cliff Pickover for inclusion in Pickover's forthcoming book Computers, Pattern, Chaos, and Beauty. This led directly to the discovery of pickover stalks. These researchers did not filter out non-escaping trajectories required to produce the ghostly forms typically reminiscent of Hindu art. Green first named it Ganesh, since an Indian co-worker "instantly recognized it as the god 'Ganesha' which is the one with the head of an elephant." The name Buddhabrot was coined later by Lori Gardi.

Mathematically, the Mandelbrot set consists of the set of points c in the complex plane for which the iteratively defined sequence
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/9/4/0/940cb0bd16b9dfa3e760a79fcfbd96ef.png where z0 = 0 does not tend to infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhabrot


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ej3dj4x64k&feature=player_embedded#!

1971

From the vid comments


4D is really 4 euclidian dimensions. It's hard to imagine, but it can be computed. Some say you can imagine it by starting with 3 orthogonal axes and then you add a fourth orthogonal direction. Others say 4D is to 3D what 3D is to 2D. There is even a site where you can *learn* to visualize 4D : dimensions-math. org (please note I'm not related to them in any way, it's free and I'm not spamming thanks you)
http://www.fractalforums.com/images-showcase-%28rate-my-fractal%29/buddhabrot!/ (http://www.fractalforums.com/images-showcase-%28rate-my-fractal%29/buddhabrot%21/)

[sirgonzo420]

I always found the buddhabrot to be pretty damn cool, but then again what fractal isn't?

I always enjoyed this little clip also:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0

[keehah]

GuardianUK There is no hiding with LSD
Beyond the flowers that turn into cats, an acid trip forces users to face whatever comes up, and self-knowledge often follows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/22/lsd-acid-trip-self-knowledge)

[Tuesday 22 March 2011] ...Finally, our question asked "did anyone learn anything about reality from LSD?", "… was it a glimpse – however inadequate – of something real and standing beyond our everyday lives?". I would say that in one sense selves are not "reality", but are invented stories about non-existent inner beings; that what we learn through LSD is precisely about our everyday lives, not something beyond them. But then I would say the same of spirituality. It is not something to be found beyond our everyday lives at all. It is right here and now, and that is precisely what LSD reveals.

[sirgonzo420]

GuardianUK There is no hiding with LSD
Beyond the flowers that turn into cats, an acid trip forces users to face whatever comes up, and self-knowledge often follows (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/22/lsd-acid-trip-self-knowledge)


"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is : infinite" - William Blake

[keehah]

Elucidation (and perhaps also glycerine):

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/newt-gingrich-rips-mayor-mike-bloomberg-cries-late-mother-article-1.999132#ixzz1i8VR7zO3

Gingrich, whose double-digit lead in Iowa is now a double-digit deficit, choked up when asked about special moments with his mother, drawing “awws” from a largely female audience at a Des Moines town hall.

“You’ll get me all teary-eyed,” said Gingrich, whose words became a self-fulfilling prophecy as he repeatedly dabbed at his eyes.

“I identify my mother with being happy, as loving life,” he said, before crying when talking about his mother’s struggles at the end of her life.

“She had bipolar disease and depression,” the former House Speaker said.

[sirgonzo420]

bump because I noticed that this thread (which I had kinda forgotten about) was mentioned in Magne's thread http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?43731-My-Avatar-Egyptian-Minuteman-Eye-!&p=586768#post586768

By the way, Mag, I'm still ready to talk about Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια if'n ya ain't skeered.


For among the many excellent and indeed divine institutions which your Athens has brought forth and contributed to human life, none, in my opinion, is better than those mysteries. For by their means we have been brought out of our barbarous and savage mode of life and educated and refined to a state of civilization; and as the rites are called "initiations," so in very truth we have learned from them the beginnings of life, and have gained the power not only to live happily, but also to die with a better hope.

—Cicero, Laws II, xiv, 36

[Horn]

bump because I noticed that this thread (which I had kinda forgotten about) was mentioned in Magne's thread http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?43731-My-Avatar-Egyptian-Minuteman-Eye-!&p=586768#post586768

By the way, Mag, I'm still ready to talk about Ἐλευσίνια Μυστήρια if'n ya ain't skeered.

I'm sorry, your topics are only supposed to center around Gold-Silver, or jewish masons here.

Everything else is diluted disinfo. [sarc off]

[sirgonzo420]

Bumped because of relevant posts in another thread:


@Spectricism.. previously in these threads you mocked & scoffed me when I referenced the 10 recorded Utterances that God employed to create the universe... here they are: Gen 1:1 And God said "In the beginning," then #2 Gen 1:3, #3 Gen 1:6, #4 Gen 1:9, #5 Gen 1:11, #6 Gen 1:14, #7 Gen 1:20, #8 Gen 1:24, #9 Gen 1:26, #10 Gen 1:29.


By the way, where is Brother Magnes?

[messianicdruid]

I would say that the Bible has to be read as allegory since letters and words are mere symbols, unless it was written in some sort of numerological code. In that case, if the code were made known, it might be possible to read literally like a mathematical formula.

Abstract. On the basis of the self-evident facts presented here the first verse of the Hebrew Scriptures - already featuring the most widely read words of all time - must be regarded as the most remarkable combination of words ever written, and a standing miracle.

Introduction. Few people today realise that what is generally known as 'The Bible' represents, potentially, about 50% of the information contained between its covers. Let me explain: the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek documents from which all Bible translations ultimately derive may also be fairly read as sets of numbers. This intriguing situation comes about because, long ago, these ancient peoples adopted the practice of using the letters of their alphabets as numerals. Accordingly, each letter was associated with a fixed value, and a sequence of letters with the sum of their respective values. Consequently, equipped with the relevant scheme of numeration, every Hebrew or Aramaic word of the Old Testament and every Greek word of the New Testament may be readily translated into a whole number [0]. But it is appropriate that we ask whether numbers obtained in this way can, in any sense, be regarded as meaningful. I suggest that, under normal circumstances, we would tend to conclude that these derivatives are meaningless adhesions to the text. But here is a Book that claims to be divinely-inspired! Might not things be different in this case? Might not the numbers represent information that complements the biblical text? Might not this particular text be self-authenticating? How could we know for sure? Clearly, a simple test is required to settle the matter.

much more at links:

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Wonders/P.htm

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm

[Horn]

By the way, where is Brother Magnes?

Monk carrying human skulls detained, later released in Assam
A Bhutanese monk bound for France via New Delhi was detained by Indian custom officials on 16 august, at Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International airport in Borjhar, Guwahati for possessing human skulls and bones of limbs. He was, however, released after the Bhutanese consulate officials in Kolkota wrote to Assam government requesting his release.

The monk is said to have confessed the possession of those human remains. According to him the remains are actually the “gifts” to various generous donors of France , who helped the construction of lhakhangs (Buddhist temple) in Gelephu. He was found to be carrying 25 skulls and 20 pairs of femurs in his luggage.
The penal code of Bhutan clearly lacks the stipulations/clauses about the degree of penalty for such cannibalistic act of transporting human bones across the international border.


It is also very ironic to let the monk free by the Indian custom officials without trying him to the court as per the Indian law.


http://www.bhutannewsservice.com/main-news/monk-with-human-skulls-in-guwahati-assam/

[messianicdruid]

http://www.museumofconceptualart.com/Jesusisms_vs_Bushisms/images/Turn%20Other%20Cheek.jpg


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1216-30.htm

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:38-41, Revised Standard Version)

Many who have committed their lives to working for change and justice in the world simply dismiss Jesus' teachings about nonviolence as impractical idealism. And with good reason. "Turn the other cheek" suggests the passive, Christian doormat quality that has made so many Christians cowardly and complicit in the face of injustice. "Resist not evil" seems to break the back of all opposition to evil and counsel submission. "Going the second mile" has become a platitude meaning nothing more than "extend yourself." Rather than fostering structural change, such attitudes encourage collaboration with the oppressor.

Jesus never behaved in such ways. Whatever the source of the misunderstanding, it is neither Jesus nor his teaching, which, when given a fair hearing in its original social context,


>>> is arguably one of the most revolutionary political statements ever uttered. <<<
{ MY EMPHASIS - md }

When the court translators working in the hire of King James chose to translate antistenai as "Resist not evil," they were doing something more than rendering Greek into English. They were translating nonviolent resistance into docility. The Greek word means more than simply to "stand against" or "resist." It means to resist violently, to revolt or rebel, to engage in an insurrection. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.

A proper translation of Jesus' teaching would then be, "Do not retaliate against violence with violence." Jesus was no less committed to opposing evil than the anti-Roman resistance fighters like Barabbas. The only difference was over the means to be used.

There are three general responses to evil: (1) violent opposition, (2) passivity, and (3) the third way of militant nonviolence articulated by Jesus. Human evolution has conditioned us for only the first two of these responses: fight or flight.

Fight had been the cry of Galileans who had abortively rebelled against Rome only two decades before Jesus spoke. Jesus and many of his hearers would have seen some of the two thousand of their countrymen crucified by the Romans along the roadsides. They would have known some of the inhabitants of Sepphoris (a mere three miles north of Nazareth) who had been sold into slavery for aiding the insurrectionists' assault on the arsenal there. Some also would live to experience the horrors of the war against Rome in 66-70 C.E., one of the ghastliest in history. If the option of fighting had no appeal to them, their only alternative was flight: passivity, submission, or, at best, a passive-aggressive recalcitrance in obeying commands. For them no third way existed.

Now we are in a better position to see why King James' servants translated antistenai as "resist not." The king would not want people concluding they had any recourse against his or any other sovereign's unjust policies. Jesus commands us, according to these king's men, to resist not. Jesus appears to say say that submission to monarchial absolutism is the will of God. Most modern translations have meekly followed the King James path.

Neither of the invidious alternatives of flight or fight is what Jesus is proposing. Jesus abhors both passivity and violence as responses to evil. His is a third alternative not even touched by these options. The Scholars Version translates Antistenai brilliantly: "Don't react violently against someone who is evil."

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus' audience is. In every case, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality.

The second example Jesus gives is set in a court of law. Someone is being sued for his outer garment. Who would do that and under what circumstances? Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that was all the poor had in which to sleep. The situation to which Jesus alludes is one with which his hearers would have been too familiar: the poor debtor has sunk ever deeper into poverty, the debt cannot be repaid, and his creditor has hauled him into court to wring out repayment.

Indebtedness was the most serious social problem in first-century Palestine. Jesus' parables are full of debtors struggling to salvage their lives. It is in this context that Jesus speaks. His hearers are the poor ("if anyone would sue you"). They share a rankling hatred for a system that subjects them to humiliation by stripping them of their lands, their goods, finally even their outer garments.

Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor's place; imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him. You had no hope of winning the trial; the law was entirely in his favor. But you have refused to be humiliated. At the same time you have registered a stunning protest against a system that spawns such debt. You have said, in effect, "You want my robe? Here, take everything! Now you've got all I have except my body. Is that what you'll take next?"

Nakedness was taboo in Judaism. Shame fell not on the naked party but the person viewing or causing one's nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27). By stripping you have brought the creditor under the same prohibition that led to the curse of Canaan. As you parade into the street, your friends and neighbors, startled, aghast, inquire what happened. You explain. They join your growing procession, which now resembles a victory parade. The entire system by which debtors are oppressed has been publicly unmasked. The creditor is revealed to be not a "respectable" moneylender but a party in the reduction of an entire social class to landlessness and destitution. This unmasking is not simply punitive, however; it offers the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in his life, what his practices cause-and to repent.

Jesus in effect is sponsoring clowning. In so doing he shows himself to be thoroughly Jewish. A later saying of the Talmud runs, "If your neighbor calls you an ass, put a saddle on your back."

The Powers That Be literally stand on their dignity. Nothing takes away their potency faster than deft lampooning. By refusing to be awed by their power, the powerless are emboldened to seize the initiative, even where structural change is not possible. This message, far from being a counsel of perfection unattainable in this life, is a practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed. It provides a hint of how to take on the entire system in a way that unmasks its essential cruelty and to burlesque its pretensions to justice, law, and order.

Jesus' third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples. A soldier could impress a civilian to carry his pack one mile only; to force the civilian to go further carried with it severe penalties under military law. In this way Rome tried to limit the anger of the occupied people and still keep its armies on the move. Nevertheless, this levy was a bitter reminder to the Jews that they were a subject people even in the Promised Land.

To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt. One does not "befriend" the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial might. He minced no words about it, though it must have cost him support from the revolutionary factions.

But why walk the second mile? Is this not to rebound to the opposite extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative, how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar's but not how one responds to the rules. The response is God's, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine then the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack (sixty-five to eighty-five pounds in full gear). You say, "Oh no, let me carry it another mile." Normally he has to coerce your kinsmen to carry his pack; now you do it cheerfully and will not stop! Is this a provocation? Are you insulting his strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther then you should? Are you planning to file a complaint? To create trouble?

From a situation of servile impressment, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice. The soldier is thrown off-balance by being deprived of the predictability of your response. Imagine the hilarious situation of a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew, "Aw, come on, please give me back my pack!" The humor of this scene may escape those who picture it through sanctimonious eyes. It could scarcely, however, have been lost on Jesus' hearers, who must have delighted in the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.

Some readers may object to the idea of discomfiting the soldier or embarrassing the creditor. But can people engaged in oppressive acts repent unless made uncomfortable with their actions? There is, admittedly, the danger of using nonviolence as a tactic of revenge and humiliation. There is also, at the opposite extreme, an equal danger of sentimentality and softness that confuses the uncompromising love of Jesus with being nice. Loving confrontation can free both the oppressed from docility and the oppressor from sin.

Even if nonviolent action does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor, it does affect those committed to it. As Martin Luther King, Jr. attested, it gives them new self-respect and calls on strength and courage they did not know they had. To those with power, Jesus' advice to the powerless may seem paltry. But to those whose lifelong pattern has been to cringe, bow, and scrape before their masters, to those who have internalized their role as inferiors, this small step is momentous.

Jesus' Third Way

* Seize the moral initiative.

* Find a creative alternative to violence.

* Assert your own humanity and dignity as a person.

* Meet force with ridicule or humor.

* Break the cycle of humiliation.

* Refuse to submit or to accept the inferior position.

* Expose the injustice of the system.

* Take control of the power dynamic.

* Shame the oppressor into repentance.

* Stand your ground.

* Force the Powers into decisions for which they are not prepared.

* Recognize your own power.

* Be willing to suffer rather than retaliate.

* Force the oppressor to see you in a new light.

* Deprive the oppressor of a situation where force is effective.

* Be willing to undergo the penalty of breaking unjust laws.

It is too bad Jesus did not provide fifteen or twenty more examples since we do not tend toward this new response naturally. Some examples from political history might help engrave it more deeply in our minds:

In Alagamar, Brazil, a group of peasants organized a long-term struggle to preserve their lands against attempts at illegal expropriation by national and international firms (with the connivance of local politicians and the military). Some of the peasants were arrested and jailed in town. Their companions decided they were all equally responsible. Hundreds marched to town. They filled the house of the judge, demanding to be jailed with those who had been arrested. The judge was finally obliged to send them all home, including the prisoners.

During the Vietnam War, one woman claimed seventy-nine dependents on her United States income tax, all Vietnamese orphans, so she owed no tax. They were not legal dependents, of course, so were disallowed. No, she insisted, these children have been orphaned by indiscriminate United States bombing; we are responsible for their lives. She forced the Internal Revenue Service to take her to court. That gave her a larger forum for making her case. She used the system against itself to unmask the moral indefensibility of what the system was doing. Of course she "lost" the case, but she made her point.

During World War II, when Nazi authorities in occupied Denmark promulgated an order that all Jews had to wear yellow armbands with the Star of David, the king made it a point to attend a celebration in the Copenhagen synagogue. He and most of the population of Copenhagen donned yellow armbands as well. His stand was affirmed by the Bishop of Sjaelland and other Lutheran clergy. The Nazis eventually had to rescind the order.

It is important to repeat such stories to extend our imaginations for creative nonviolence. Since it is not a natural response, we need to be schooled in it. We need models, and we need to rehearse nonviolence in our daily lives if we ever hope to resort to it in crises.

Maybe it would help to juxtapose Jesus' teachings with legendary community organizer Saul Alinsky's principles for nonviolent community action (in his Rules for Radicals) to gain a clearer sense of their practicality and pertinence to the struggles of our time. Among rules Alinsky developed in his attempts to organize American workers and minority communities are these:

(1) Power is not only what you have but what your enemy thinks you have.

(2) Never go outside the experience of your people.

(3) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.

Jesus, like Alinsky, recommended using your experience of being belittled, insulted, or dispossessed in such a way as to seize the initiative from the oppressor, who finds reactions like going the second mile, stripping naked, or turning the other cheek totally outside his experience. This forces him her to take your power seriously and perhaps even to recognize your humanity.

Alinsky offers other suggestions. Again we see the parallels:

(4) Make your enemies live up to their own book of rules.

(5) Ridicule is your most potent weapon.

(6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

(7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

The debtor in Jesus' example turned the law against his creditor by obeying it, following the letter of the law, but throwing in his underwear as well. The creditor's greed is exposed by his own ruthlessness, and this happens quickly and in a way that could only regale the debtor's sympathizers, just as Alinsky suggests. This puts all other such creditors on notice and arms all other debtors with a new sense of possibilities. Alinsky's list continues:

(8) Keep the pressure on.

(9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

(10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure on the opposition.

Jesus, in his three brief examples, does not lay out the basis of a sustained movement, but his ministry as a whole is a model of long-term social struggle that maintains a constant pressure. Mark depicts Jesus' movements as a blitzkrieg. His teaching poses immediate and continuing threats to the authorities. The good he brings is misperceived as evil, his following is overestimated, his militancy is misread as sedition, and his proclamation of the coming Reign of God is mistaken as a manifesto for military revolution.

Disavowing violence, Jesus wades into the hostility of Jerusalem openhanded, setting simple truth against force. Terrified by the threat of this man and his following, the authorities resort to their ultimate deterrent, death, only to discover it impotent and themselves unmasked. The cross, hideous and macabre, becomes the symbol of liberation. The movement that should have died becomes a world religion.

Alinsky offers three last suggestions:

(11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through to its counterside.

(12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

(13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Alinsky delighted in using the most vicious behavior of his opponents-burglaries of movement headquarters, attempted blackmail, and failed assassinations-to destroy their public credibility. Here were elected officials, respected corporations, and trusted police, engaging in patent illegalities to maintain privilege.

In the same way, Jesus suggests amplifying an injustice (turning the other cheek, removing your undergarment, going the second mile) to expose the fundamental wrongness of legalized oppression. The law is "compassionate" in requiring that the debtor's cloak be returned at sunset, yes; but Judaism in its most lucid moments knew that the whole system of usury and indebtedness was itself the root of injustice and should never have been condoned (Exodus 22:25). The restriction of enforced labor to carrying the soldier's pack a single mile was a great advance over unlimited impressment, but occupation troops had no right to be on Jewish soil in the first place.

Jesus was not content merely to empower the powerless, however. Here his teachings fundamentally transcend Alinsky's. Jesus did not advocate non-violence merely as a technique for outwitting the enemy but as a just means of opposing the enemy in such a way as to hold open the possibility of the enemy's becoming just as well.

To Alinsky's list I would like to add another "rule" of my own: never adopt a strategy you would not want your opponents to use against you. I would not object to my opponents using nonviolent direct actions against me, since such a move would require them to be committed to suffer and even die rather than resort to violence against me. It would mean they would have to honor my humanity, believe God can transform me, and treat me with dignity and respect.

Today we can draw on the cumulative historical experience of nonviolent social struggle. But the spirit, the thrust, the surge for creative transformation that is the ultimate principle of the universe-this is the same one we see incarnated in Jesus. Freed from literalistic legalism, his teaching reads like a practical manual for empowering the powerless to seize the initiative even in situations impervious to change.

To risk confronting the Powers with such clown-like vulnerability, to affirm at the same time our own humanity and that of those we oppose, to dare to draw the sting of evil by absorbing it-such behavior is unlikely to attract the faint of heart. But to people dispirited by the enormity of the injustices that crush us and the intractability of those in positions of power, Jesus' words beam hope across the centuries. We need not be afraid. We can assert our human dignity. We can lay claim to the creative possibilities that are still ours, burlesque the injustice of unfair laws, and force evil out of hiding from behind the facade of legitimacy.

This piece is reprinted from The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, edited by Paul Loeb (Basic Books $15.95, www.theimpossible.org)

[sirgonzo420]

Bump... because brother Magnes is back and he seems to be in the mood to discuss philosophy and such.

Here I am to humor him.

[Glass]

I thought parts of this post (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?57163-SirGonzo-s-metaphysical-theo-philo-sophical-Bible-study-mystery-school-thread&p=592503&viewfull=1#post592503) were an interesting read. Especially the bit about how if you take your clothes off in the court and then parade in the street naked and your neighbours will take their clothes off too.

But the tome is more about solidarity than anything else. Some of it was not interesting to read but never mind. It did cause me to think about the Anonymous/V masks and how lots of people took to wearing those. Probably more practical than taking your clothes off. But acts of solidarity none the less.

[singular_me]

that where I think monetarism springs from an evil design. With money, people too often expect to be repaid in some way, this for that. Even when spouses divorce, they reassess and retrade their past perks.

So we have a pervasive perk-based system that is corrupting at the deep core and which the death cult harvests from and feasts on.

Excellent thread, too bad so many good posters are gone.





Luke 6:28-32
"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.[/INDENT]

[Horn]

I disagree completely with that, evil springs from not expecting to be repaid by lending to enemies or loved ones then expecting more from them and God due to your "selfless actions"

No human can release their coil completely in such a manner, the expectation should be that they will not be able to and Not enter into expecting More or Less by lending.

Expecting to be compensated fairly is most proper, learning what is fair compensation is life.

In the case of a government lending to its people that is obvious that the interest should be 0. Not negative or positive just 0. This cuts out the middlemen and priests.