The Original Sin: who is to blame?

[Faithofchristian]

You are trying to give Satan a body..

Judaism, for example, does not have the same concept of a "devil". “Satan” is not a sentient being, but a metaphor for the evil inclination – the yetzer hara – that exists in every person and tempts us to do wrong. There is no hell that holds this entity; rather it resides in every person, regardless of their faith.

That's because Judaism is corrupted. With false hoods.

 

[sooda]

That's because Judaism is corrupted. With false hoods.

I knew you'd say that.

Satan Is Not a Sentient Being In Judaism But a Metaphor ...
https://www.thoughtco.com/jewish-view-of-satan-2076775
Satan as a Metaphor for the Yetzer Hara. The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. However, using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common. On the other hand, the "good inclination" is …

 

[Faithofchristian]

I knew you'd say that.

Satan Is Not a Sentient Being In Judaism But a Metaphor ...
https://www.thoughtco.com/jewish-view-of-satan-2076775
Satan as a Metaphor for the Yetzer Hara. The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. However, using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common. On the other hand, the "good inclination" is …

So you say

 

[dybmh]

There's still nothing there to prove God as being all knowing.

If God is all knowing, Then why didn't God know beforehand that Lucifer was going to Rebell against him.
Good question right.
In the book of Ezekiel 28:15--" Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee"

Notice the word ( till ) which means that God didn't know beforehand that Lucifer was going to Rebell against him.
Thereby God didn't know till it was found in Lucifer

If God is all knowing as people try to say God is.
Then why didn't God know that Lucifer was going to Rebell against him?

It's a good question. I honestly don't know. The things I know; I know pretty well. There's a lot that I don't know. And this is one of those things. I don't know anything about Lucifer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look....'theism' as a whole includes all forms of theism. Certainly atheists insist that even if one type of theism ignores/is against all other types, and even if a theistic government honors/enforces one type of theism over all others, it is still theist.

By the same token, any government that enforces anti-theism is atheist...even if it isn't a form of atheism you approve of.

Sure. But "not believing in god", is not the motivation of these people. Their motivations are other things.

Theism is not an ideology, nor is it a collection of positive claims...

Yes it is.

but it certainly INCLUDES all theistic ideologies and their positive claims, and so does 'atheism.'

No, atheism doesn't.
Atheism is a single stance on a single issue. It's not an ideology by itself, nore are any claims an inherent part of it.

You can't throw "strong atheism' or 'anti-theism' out of the 'atheist' club just because you might not agree with either one.

Both are atheism + additional stuff

And even then, I still don't agree that such things form a basis for a state model and a motivation of policy. If such things are part of some state's narrative, then it can only be only a part of it. The bigger picture will always be something else (like communism). The "raison d'être" of such states never is "anti-theism" or "strong atheism" or whatever.

Anti-theism is a form of atheism. You might not like it any more than I like pagan head shrinking human sacrificers...or Westboro Baptists, but they are theists and a form of theism, just as 'communist leaders' (not all communist leaders...just the antitheist ones) are atheists and their anti-theism is a form of atheism. You don't get to commit the 'no true atheist' fallacy any more than I can the 'no true Christian' (or 'no true theist') one.

I don't think I ever said otherwise.
My point isn't about what does and does not qualify as atheism.
My point is about their policy not being done "in the name of" or "motivated by" atheism.

There's always a bigger picture.
Nobody does things in the name of "i don't believe in X".
That just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm sorry, but if said leader claims that there is no God, and that his/her actions against theists are because, since there is no God, it is wrongheaded and governmentally fatal to believe in one, THAT IS ATHEISM. Not ALL atheism, but certainly a subset of it, no matter what ELSE that leader is.

Nobody is saying that such a leader isn't an atheist.
We are not talking about said leader's beliefs. We are talking about motivations of policy.

Sorry about that, but you cannot get around it.

I don't need to. It's beside the point I'm making.
I'm perfectly fine calling such people atheists.

An ideology which includes anti-theism, which is a subset of atheism.

Anti-theism is a subset of atheism, yes. But an ideology that perceives religion as a threat and therefor includes anti-theist policies, isn't a subset of atheism. The ideology itself is not a subset of atheism.

Therefor the motivation of the various policies (only 1 of which is anti-theism) is not atheism.
The point. You're missing it.

The ideology in this scenario is communism.
Not atheism. Not "i don't believe in god". Not "religion is poison".

Remember, however, that Marx really disliked religion; communism which refers to Marxism is anti-theist as a rather important part of that ideology.

Keyword: "part of".

However, the nations and leaders which were the nastiest and most murderous (Stalin, Mao and the like) were absolutely anti-theist.

I think you'll find that all nasty and murderous leaders, ALL were anti-plenty-of-things.
To single out anti-theism here is just dishonest. They imprisonned and killed plenty of people for all kinds of reasons, be it anti-theism or political opposition or what-have-you.

In short: they killed / imprisonned just about anybody that didn't fall completely in line to their liking.

So once again: to blame that all on atheism is just wrong and dishonest.

Do not commit a fallacy of composition here; you know the one....that if the whole doesn't have a specific quality, then none of the parts do?

Do not commit the opposite fallacy either: pretending that one part is equal to the whole. That's what I'm arguing against here: the idea that atheism WAS the motivation. It's not. It's part of a bigger picture. Atheism wasn't the motivation. Religion is perceived as a threat to their power and rule for other reasons then them not being believers.

If one subset of atheism is anti-theist, it doesn't mean that all atheist (or atheism) is anti-theist.
Just because ALL of atheism is not anti-theist, it doesn't mean that anti-theists are not atheist.

And just because a certain ideology is anti-whatever that doesn't fall in line with that ideology and anti-theism being one of those anti's, doesn't mean that the motivation and root of their evil is atheism. Or anti-theism. Or strong atheism. The root of the motivation is the ideology, which happens to not be compatible with subjects holding theistic beliefs - just like it is not compatible with plenty of other things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So...you are saying that because they had OTHER goals...as well as getting rid of religion and the religious...that they WEREN'T out to get rid of religion and the religious.

No. What he's saying is pretty much the same as what I am saying.

The motivation here was not atheism.
The motivation was his authoritarian ideology, which happens to be incompatible with subjects being theists. Just like it wasn't compatible with free press, political opposition, etc.

So to say that he did what he did because of atheism is just as wrong as can be.
He did what he did because of his hunger for power and communist ideology. And to achieve that power and install that communism, he felt like he needed to get rid of all things that might form a threat or obstacle to accomplish that. Religion was just one of those things.

At best, anti-theism was a side effect of the bigger picture. Not the root cause of it all.

If it is part and parcel of what he's doing? Yes.

Then you completely miss the point and utterly fail at identifying the actual problem with such nations.
Being anti-press, anti-theism, anti-political-opposition,... those are symptoms of the actual problem.
They aren't the problem by themselves.

 

[9-18-1]

No, the state sanctioned persecution is under the Roman Emperors.

Jews were part of the Roman empire.

Classic antisemitism. Actually in this case to a certain extent there are no angels here.

You're trying to read that - I indicated [reflect the sentiments at the time] as an independent observer from it.

You are now trying to label me an antisemite because... that's all people who can't stand criticism do. Read into it: you're just ANTI-(whatever I am).

This pathetic projection is a thousands year old illness from the Canaanites - Judaism inherited it and gave it to the Muhammadans. No, not "semitic" - Canaanite. That is exactly what projectors do.

With respect, of course - perhaps you could tell me what the requirements are for the messiah? Obviously the Jews rejected Muhammad, which I agree with.

That is why, in fact, I find Judaism to be "closer" to the truth than Islam, which is 100% backwards and f*cked.

But I find so many Jews that don't understand their own scriptures, and instead of listening, they start getting offended and shunning because a non-Jew is speaking. It's pathetic, as I said. The cowardice is as unrelenting as the frustrations one has suffering it.

technically a sin is something which opposes the will of G-d. That is why G-d cannot sin.

It's a small loop hole in your statement. But the spirit of your statement is true. If G-d exists, the buck stops with G-d.

If G-d exists, G-d is responsible for all of this: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Case in point - closed dogmatic mind.

He doesn't even realize why Abram was sent out of the land of Ur - governed by the moon goddess Sin - in order to see a new land. Sin is the emotions - when one is "dwelling" in their own emotions, G-d can not do anything with that person at all, because their own emotions become yetzer ha ra - binds (which I will get to below).

Instead of trying to have a neutral conversation with such people, despite being referred to as a Jew (which should not be taken as offense neither read into how one may have "meant" it) their own emotions become the barrier, and enmity arises, whence Canaan(ites) try to project that enmity outward in the form of sacrifice own sins of tribe/person. This behavior defines the "dark ages" of man.

Humanity is still in the "dark ages" - and will never get out until it abandons the idol-based institutions (ie. placing a man as insurpassable) which includes Christianity and Islam.

The "believer" vs. "unbeliever" division defines the principle catalyst of god-based wars.

Is "belief" a virtue? Piscean age fish: "I BELIEVE" and "I KNOW"
Which is superior?

God created Lucifer which was a covering cherub that stood before the throne of God's.
Lucifer taken upon himself to do evil. And then God changed Lucifer name to Satan the devil.

This is a myth story, but what does it mean? What practical application does it have to a being today?

As I said...

Did God change his name from Lucifer to Satan in order to try to cover up that they were one and the same evil entity that He created?

It is mythology.

Lucifer is the sexual energy of a being - it can be used for good or evil depending on how it is utilized / acted upon (via CHOICE). This is the Edenic state prior to the fall: Adam and Eve had not yet touched or eaten from the tree of KNOWLEDGE of [GOOD AND EVIL].

Eve is the desire for sex: when it feeds the brain (Adam), the lower organ begins to take control of the higher which reflects that person's own yetzer ha ra: satan.

In Judaism "satan" is not a sentient being but a metaphor for the evil inclination – the yetzer hara – that exists in every person and tempts us to do wrong.

And this is why I find Judaism "more correct" than Christianity/Islam: the scapegoating religions that try to export this "evil" onto other people like... messiahs.

However, I do contest the entire "meshaich" notion in Judaism, because that is the genesis of the scapegoating itself: someone will come to save us!

Now we know the Torah has multiple (human) authors, and Islam inherited the idea of claiming to be in possession of the perfect word of god from Judaism: the Torah being created at the foundation of the universe.

Look what that has lead to... sustained by the great Satan itself: "BELIEF".

What is the role of Satan in the mythology? To make as many people "BELIEVE" he is god, when he is not.

This is how I realized "belief" is not a virtue - it is a satanic vice.

Any "believers" out there?

That's because Judaism is corrupted. With false hoods.

This is true - there was no Jewish Moses (Egyptian name).

It was Akhunatun - he lead his Atun cult out of Egypt which mixed with the Canaanite El and became YHVH Elohim: one big giant MESS of MONOTHEISMS.

Until the Jews understand their wrongdoing and falsification of history, I don't even think a Potent God would have mercy on them... I certainly wouldn't. A 3300-year-old-lie that has caused the lives of... wow.

This is where real supremacism comes from: tribal mentalities adopting their tribe is superior to all tribes. This entire global war-terrain is one giant tribal war being sucked into the Judeo-Islam conflict in the M/E (along with the stupidity of Christianity). All over what?

"BELIEF"

It's a good question. I honestly don't know. The things I know; I know pretty well. There's a lot that I don't know. And this is one of those things. I don't know anything about Lucifer.

See above for Lucifer, and one question.

Is it remotely possible to give/bear an accurate and necessarily true testimony of a dead man; having been dead even before the giver of the testimony is born?

Think in terms of basic principles: testimony of something not directly witnessed.

Now just think:
What is the Christian testimony of faith? Testimony of Jesus' Resurrection?
What is the Islamic testimony of faith? Testimony of Muhammad's Allah?

Exodus 20:16
לא תענה ברעך עד שקר
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

This is in the rock/stone, is it not, if you "believe"? Even if one "believes" this is God's Law, this commandment is called into question every single time a Christian/Muslim joins their respective faiths.

For either testimonies of faith, Christian or Islamic, true, or false? A Potent and/or All-Knowing God would know. It is possible, however, for human beings to also know, which brings them closer to such a Potent God. Hence, the Ten Commandments are given after the bondage is lifted. Remember how I suggested the Torah can be read backwards? Suppose the Ten Commandments themselves liberate, and the Ten Plagues are the consequences of breaking them? Hmmm... how to test? Suppose, then, each person receives their own abundance of "plagues" proportional to their following/breaking them?

This is why a Potent God would know: even It can/will hold those to account for what they themselves "claim" and/or "believe" is the authority, even if not true (ie. not the Potent God). Also, trying to apply a standard of scrutiny to another without applying that same standard to ones own - even Christians don't hold to the teaching of Jesus "judge not lest ye be judged" as this leads to the same scapegoating illness from the Canaanites. See why Jesus opposed the Jews? What he taught was true, but calling out the hypocrite Jews for having lies as fathers. Nothing has changed - same world.

If Muslims claim Allah is the same as the God of Abraham, and
if Christians claim Jesus is one with/as the God of Abraham, and
they are both wrong given a false testimony was required to "BELIEVE" these things,
a Potent God would "know" this, too.

This is why 'I AM' is what Moses needed to "know" before going to Egypt to deal with the Pharoah to release his people: all of the children of traumas suffered in the past and now. They have to be discarded and simply 'I AM' - only then does one see asher ehyeh on the other side: not polluted by emotions - remember Abram, and even before Abram 'I AM': the same Jesus taught.

Suppose, however, there is a Potent God behind 'I AM' that is ehyeh asher ehyeh?

There is only one: the other side/reflection of each their own 'I AM'. Therefor, the kingdom of heaven is indeed within: not without. Graven images in the heavens? Paradise on a cloud? 72 virgin women? These are not godly people - they are animals.

Jews don't "hide" behind rocks: they don't have to. When they "know" the rocks, the rocks protect them for keeping to it: the ten commandments are designed to liberate if even in bondage. Everyone has their own Egypt to liberate once 'I AM' is known and understood.

It is all in 'I AM': the rest is identity that can be shed by ones own will. This is the sovereignty that Moses needed to learn through his own willpower: how to be in control of ones own, if ever to fall only to come back stronger with more understanding, wisdom, and ever-searching for the crown of life: to 'know' the truth of the way of life, which is in 'I AM'.

No, not me, personally - the 'I AM' that is in each their own. That's where Christians get all f*cked up and start worshiping a Greek idol. If only they understood what he was actually saying... but, no, m'Jesus! Don't touch my Jesus!

He was a failure on the cross, indeed. 2-000-year-old scapegoat for everyone else's sins. The value of one man's life worth the shedding of blood of hundreds of millions (esp. when you factor in Islam is a Christian heresy!) all over...what?

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

Do you see "I believe that I believe" in the name of god?
Or... God "believed" there to be light, and light was to be "believed" in?

This epoch is separating "believers" vs. "unbelievers".
Hint: only one side "wins".

 

[sooda]

So you say

The shame of it is that some Christian denominations are so anti-intellect that they have to teach that Satan is real.. as in the Debil made me do it.

Its like teaching Serpent Seed doctrine or the Rapture or that a global flood is history.

 

[sooda]

You're trying to read that - I indicated [reflect the sentiments at the time] as an independent observer from it.

You are now trying to label me an antisemite because... that's all people who can't stand criticism do. Read into it: you're just ANTI-(whatever I am).

This pathetic projection is a thousands year old illness from the Canaanites - Judaism inherited it and gave it to the Muhammadans. No, not "semitic" - Canaanite. That is exactly what projectors do.

With respect, of course - perhaps you could tell me what the requirements are for the messiah? Obviously the Jews rejected Muhammad, which I agree with.

That is why, in fact, I find Judaism to be "closer" to the truth than Islam, which is 100% backwards and f*cked.

But I find so many Jews that don't understand their own scriptures, and instead of listening, they start getting offended and shunning because a non-Jew is speaking. It's pathetic, as I said. The cowardice is as unrelenting as the frustrations one has suffering it.



Case in point - closed dogmatic mind.

He doesn't even realize why Abram was sent out of the land of Ur - governed by the moon goddess Sin - in order to see a new land. Sin is the emotions - when one is "dwelling" in their own emotions, G-d can not do anything with that person at all, because their own emotions become yetzer ha ra - binds (which I will get to below).

Instead of trying to have a neutral conversation with such people, despite being referred to as a Jew (which should not be taken as offense neither read into how one may have "meant" it) their own emotions become the barrier, and enmity arises, whence Canaan(ites) try to project that enmity outward in the form of sacrifice own sins of tribe/person. This behavior defines the "dark ages" of man.

View attachment 28391

Humanity is still in the "dark ages" - and will never get out until it abandons the idol-based institutions (ie. placing a man as insurpassable) which includes Christianity and Islam.

The "believer" vs. "unbeliever" division defines the principle catalyst of god-based wars.

Is "belief" a virtue? Piscean age fish: "I BELIEVE" and "I KNOW"
Which is superior?



This is a myth story, but what does it mean? What practical application does it have to a being today?



It is mythology.

Lucifer is the sexual energy of a being - it can be used for good or evil depending on how it is utilized / acted upon (via CHOICE). This is the Edenic state prior to the fall: Adam and Eve had not yet touched or eaten from the tree of KNOWLEDGE of [GOOD AND EVIL].

Eve is the desire for sex: when it feeds the brain (Adam), the lower organ begins to take control of the higher which reflects that person's own yetzer ha ra: satan.

View attachment 28392



And this is why I find Judaism "more correct" than Christianity/Islam: the scapegoating religions that try to export this "evil" onto other people like... messiahs.

However, I do contest the entire "meshaich" notion in Judaism, because that is the genesis of the scapegoating itself: someone will come to save us!

Now we know the Torah has multiple (human) authors, and Islam inherited the idea of claiming to be in possession of the perfect word of god from Judaism: the Torah being created at the foundation of the universe.

Look what that has lead to... sustained by the great Satan itself: "BELIEF".

What is the role of Satan in the mythology? To make as many people "BELIEVE" he is god, when he is not.

This is how I realized "belief" is not a virtue - it is a satanic vice.

Any "believers" out there?



This is true - there was no Jewish Moses (Egyptian name).

It was Akhunatun - he lead his Atun cult out of Egypt which mixed with the Canaanite El and became YHVH Elohim: one big giant MESS of MONOTHEISMS.

Until the Jews understand their wrongdoing and falsification of history, I don't even think a Potent God would have mercy on them... I certainly wouldn't. A 3300-year-old-lie that has caused the lives of... wow.

This is where real supremacism comes from: tribal mentalities adopting their tribe is superior to all tribes. This entire global war-terrain is one giant tribal war being sucked into the Judeo-Islam conflict in the M/E (along with the stupidity of Christianity). All over what?

"BELIEF"



See above for Lucifer, and one question.

Is it remotely possible to give/bear an accurate and necessarily true testimony of a dead man; having been dead even before the giver of the testimony is born?

Think in terms of basic principles: testimony of something not directly witnessed.

Now just think:
What is the Christian testimony of faith? Testimony of Jesus' Resurrection?
What is the Islamic testimony of faith? Testimony of Muhammad's Allah?

Exodus 20:16
לא תענה ברעך עד שקר
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

This is in the rock/stone, is it not, if you "believe"? Even if one "believes" this is God's Law, this commandment is called into question every single time a Christian/Muslim joins their respective faiths.

For either testimonies of faith, Christian or Islamic, true, or false? A Potent and/or All-Knowing God would know. It is possible, however, for human beings to also know, which brings them closer to such a Potent God. Hence, the Ten Commandments are given after the bondage is lifted. Remember how I suggested the Torah can be read backwards? Suppose the Ten Commandments themselves liberate, and the Ten Plagues are the consequences of breaking them? Hmmm... how to test? Suppose, then, each person receives their own abundance of "plagues" proportional to their following/breaking them?

This is why a Potent God would know: even It can/will hold those to account for what they themselves "claim" and/or "believe" is the authority, even if not true (ie. not the Potent God). Also, trying to apply a standard of scrutiny to another without applying that same standard to ones own - even Christians don't hold to the teaching of Jesus "judge not lest ye be judged" as this leads to the same scapegoating illness from the Canaanites. See why Jesus opposed the Jews? What he taught was true, but calling out the hypocrite Jews for having lies as fathers. Nothing has changed - same world.

If Muslims claim Allah is the same as the God of Abraham, and
if Christians claim Jesus is one with/as the God of Abraham, and
they are both wrong given a false testimony was required to "BELIEVE" these things,
a Potent God would "know" this, too.

This is why 'I AM' is what Moses needed to "know" before going to Egypt to deal with the Pharoah to release his people: all of the children of traumas suffered in the past and now. They have to be discarded and simply 'I AM' - only then does one see asher ehyeh on the other side: not polluted by emotions - remember Abram, and even before Abram 'I AM': the same Jesus taught.

Suppose, however, there is a Potent God behind 'I AM' that is ehyeh asher ehyeh?

There is only one: the other side/reflection of each their own 'I AM'. Therefor, the kingdom of heaven is indeed within: not without. Graven images in the heavens? Paradise on a cloud? 72 virgin women? These are not godly people - they are animals.

Jews don't "hide" behind rocks: they don't have to. When they "know" the rocks, the rocks protect them for keeping to it: the ten commandments are designed to liberate if even in bondage. Everyone has their own Egypt to liberate once 'I AM' is known and understood.

It is all in 'I AM': the rest is identity that can be shed by ones own will. This is the sovereignty that Moses needed to learn through his own willpower: how to be in control of ones own, if ever to fall only to come back stronger with more understanding, wisdom, and ever-searching for the crown of life: to 'know' the truth of the way of life, which is in 'I AM'.

No, not me, personally - the 'I AM' that is in each their own. That's where Christians get all f*cked up and start worshiping a Greek idol. If only they understood what he was actually saying... but, no, m'Jesus! Don't touch my Jesus!

He was a failure on the cross, indeed. 2-000-year-old scapegoat for everyone else's sins. The value of one man's life worth the shedding of blood of hundreds of millions (esp. when you factor in Islam is a Christian heresy) all over...what?

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

Do you see "I believe that I believe" in the name of god?
Or... God "believed" there to be light, and light was to be "believed" in?

This epoch is separating "believers" vs. "unbelievers".
Hint: only one side "wins".

72 virgin women is not Islamic.

 

[sooda]

What ! I wonder where you got the ^ above ^ idea about the relationship of the brain to the sex organ___________
The original sin, or first sin, was a lie ( Nothing to do with sex )
Adam and Eve were already told to multiply ( have children ) at Genesis 1:28.
The serpent told the first or original sin at Genesis 3:4 that Eve would Not die if she broke God's Law.
That is the first or original sin, No sex involved.
Rather, it was more of a reference that Eve could be like God ( be a goddess ) in choosing for herself.

You have Christians who are teaching Serpent Seed as doctrine.. which does involve sex.

The serpent seed doctrine is also closely related to other erroneous beliefs such as the Christian Identity Movement and the Kenite doctrine.

Like many false beliefs, it has a built-in defense mechanism; that is, anyone who disagrees with it is accused of being a son of the serpent.

See how that works.. Its just another version of claiming if you question fundamentalists, they claim you are not reading with the Holy Spirit.


The Serpent seed - Let Us Reason
www.letusreason.org/current126.htm

William Branham may not have been the first to preach the serpent seed doctrine, but he has become known as one of the major proponents of this doctrine in our modern times. Now that he is gone Arnold Murray holds onto this dishonor.

 

[Jedster]

...

Re: “And the fruit of the tree which in the middle of the garden”. - Genesis 3:3

ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך ־ הגן
​

Hi Bethsheba, quick question.



What does the hyphen denote?..and if it does have any significance, why
isn't it there in the English translation

 

[9-18-1]

72 virgin women is not Islamic.

Yes it is.

If the Qur'an hadn't been forged from Christian strophic hymns whence such imagery is originally found (pre-dating Islam), we would not have had Arabic scribes rendering the Syriac word for "grapes" and/or "pure ones" as "virgins" / dark ovals. This imagery was further borrowed from Jewish mysticism wherein the 72 "pure ones" were the 72 names of god (hence: pure) which is the tetragrammaton YHVH writen numerically:

Y - 10 = 10
H - 5 + 10 = 15
V - 6 + 5 + 10 = 21
H - 5 + 6 + 5 + 10 = 26

= 72 "pure ones" in Hebrew
= 72 "grapes" / in Syriac - grapes were considered of highest delicacy
= 72 "virgins" in Arabic which lead to the interpretation to women after you add the sexual degeneracy of Muhammad's "example".

The worldview of a people is determined by the language: how they used words. Because the Semitic languages have a shared/common root system (which is actually just a single object: First Hand as rediscovered by Stan Tenen

This form is the basis of the entire... language system itself. There is no other form whence to construct a language, because this form is also the "language" of creation itself:

The 22 Hebrew characters are derived here which birth all of the plethora of languages we have (biblie, the confounding of the languages).

These findings (and a lot more) is available at www.meru.org to which all credit goes to for the above images.

So, yes... the 72 virgins *is* a product of Islam, because *that* is how the Arabic language "treats" the word, despite the word itself being derived from the same arrangement of forms.

This is how *I know* the Qur'an is a complete forgery: I read the early Torah with this form in mind and the meanings of each form position: it is one string, not spaced. The spaces and markings were added/imposed, by man, which limited/confined the reading into a narrative that lays atop the main thing - like a garment. You have to penetrate the garment in order to see what is actually there. Using this form and *not* learning the Hebrew language from a "teacher" is what allows me to read it without limitations.

Please note this same f*ckery happened with the Qur'an: the original was without markings, and were added later which *did* modify the meanings to absurd extents. This, along with the fact that it is indeed a forgery (Christian strophic hymns) renders Islam nothing short of... well, just watch. If you want an idea, read the 10 commandments, then read the *real* life of Muhammad (of whatever you can find). His "biography" was only available over a hundred years after he had died, but was destroyed. Pieces of it were used to construct the only existing full "biography" over 200 years after he had died.

This is the man that Muslims must (Truthfully? Falsely?) bear testimony of in the shahada: that he is the final messenger of what they call "Allah". Do they "believe" the shahada to be true? Do they "know" the shahada to be true?

If the Qur'an is a forgery (which it is) the shahada is a false testimony.

That is why if there *IS* a potent Abrahamic God... not good for Muslims.

This is the testimony they force on you to convert to Islam. It is equivalent to the "mark of the beast" in Revelation.

It's coming: to a (world?) stage near you.

Islam is a Christian heresy trying to take over the world by blaming all their actions on Jews.

Judaism is making false claims (leading to false "beliefs")
Christianity/Islam are making false testimonies mandatory to join
100's of millions dead

"BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER"

...and humanity started with ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in a garden allowed to eat ANY FRUIT... except one. Which?

GOOD (and/vs.) EVIL

...and humanity is making the same f*cking mistakes over and over again.

"Believing" themselves to know who/what/where/why/when/how is "good" and who/what/where/why/when/how is "evil".

[A vs. B] and C
A "believes" A is good, B is evil.
B "believes" B is good A is evil.
C knows.

Who has power here?

Is "knowledge is equal to power" a true statement in relation to "belief"-based dilemmas above?

Who might stand to benefit from two "belief"-based ideologies to war each other if one "knows" them to be rooted in falsity?

Getting closer...

 

[sooda]

Yes it is.

If the Qur'an hadn't been forged from Christian strophic hymns whence such imagery is originally found (pre-dating Islam), we would not have had Arabic scribes rendering the Syriac word for "grapes" and/or "pure ones" as "virgins" / dark ovals. This imagery was further borrow from Jewish mysticism wherein the 72 "pure ones" were the 72 names of god (hence: pure) which is the tetragrammaton YHVH writen numerically:

Y - 10 = 10
H - 5 + 10 = 15
V - 6 + 5 + 10 = 21
H - 5 + 6 + 5 + 10 = 26

= 72 "pure ones" in Hebrew
= 72 "grapes" / in Syriac - grapes were considered of highest delicacy
= 72 "virgins" in Arabic which lead to the interpretation to women after you add the sexual degeneracy of Muhammad's "example".

The worldview of a people is determined by the language: how the used words. Because the Semitic languages have a shared/common root system (which is actually just a single object: First Hand as rediscovered by Stan Tenen

View attachment 28395
This form is the basis of the entire... language system itself. There is no other form whence to construct a language, because this form is also the "language" of creation itself:

View attachment 28396

The 22 Hebrew characters are derived here which birth all of the plethora of languages we have (biblie, the confounding of the languages).

These findings (and a lot more) is available at www.meru.org to which all credit goes to for the above images.

So, yes... the 72 virgins *is* a product of Islam, because *that* is how the Arabic language "treats" the word, despite the word itself being derived from the same arrangement of forms.

This is how *I know* the Qur'an is a complete forgery: I read the early Torah with this form in mind and the meanings of each form position: it is one string, not spaced. The spaces and markings were added/imposed, by man, which limited/confined the reading into a narrative the lays atop the main thing - like a garment. You have to penetrate the garment in order to see what is actually there. Using this form and *not* learning the Hebrew language from a "teacher" is what allows me to read it without limitations.

Please note this same f*ckery happened with the Qur'an: the original was without markings, and were added later which *did* modify the meanings to absurd extents. This, along with the fact that it is indeed a forgery (Christian strophic hymns) renders Islam nothing short of... well, just watch. If you want an idea, read the 10 commandments, then read the *real* life of Muhammad (of whatever you can find). His "biography" was only available over a hundred years after he had died, but was destroyed. Pieces of it were used to construct the only existing full "biography" over 200 years after he had died.

This is the man that Muslims must (Truthfully? Falsely?) bear testimony of in the shahada: that he is the final messenger of what they call "Allah". Do they "believe" the shahada to be true? Do they "know" the shahada to be true?

If the Qur'an is a forgery (which it is) the shahada is a false testimony.

That is why if there *IS* a potent Abrahamic God... may that very God help me from becoming a Muslim, for fear of bearing an ABSOLUTELY FALSE testimony.

This is the testimony they force on you to convert to Islam. It is equivalent to the "mark of the beast" in Revelation.

It's coming: to a (world?) stage near you.

Islam is a Christian heresy trying to take over the world by blaming all their actions on Jews.

Judaism is making false claims (leading to false "beliefs")
Christianity/Islam are making false testimonies mandatory to join
100's of millions dead

"BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER"

...and humanity started with ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in a garden allowed to eat ANY FRUIT... except one. Which?

GOOD (and/vs.) EVIL

...and humanity is making the same f*cking mistakes over and over again.

"Believing" themselves to know who/what/where/why/when/how is "good" and who/what/where/why/when/how is "evil".

[A vs. B] and C
A "believes" A is good, B is evil.
B "believes" B is good A is evil.
C knows.

Who has power here?

Is "knowledge is equal to power" a true statement in relation to "belief"-based dilemmas above?

Who might stand to benefit from two "belief"-based ideologies to war each other if one "knows" them to be rooted in falsity?

Getting closer...

You are torturing scripture again. The virgins are transparent companions .. aka angels.

There are some 30 allegories for heaven (paradise) in the Koran... They tend to be green and lush with a river of wine that never makes you drunk, milk, ripe fruit. Its very poetic..

You really are fixed on making everyone else wrong. Not a good trait.

 

[dybmh]

Abram was sent out of the land of Ur - governed by the moon goddess Sin

Source?

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

The problem I'm having is that the case you are making is full of beliefs. The quote about the moon goddess above is a perfect example. The claim that Sin is the Moon goddess is a belief.

It's necessary in this debate with the claim you're making to be extremely regimented about presenting only facts and no beliefs.

Everytime a false claim based on belief is exposed it refutes the central point of your claim.

Like I said before. I have been refuting your central claim all along, but you hadn't seen it yet.

 

[sooda]

Yes it is.

If the Qur'an hadn't been forged from Christian strophic hymns whence such imagery is originally found (pre-dating Islam), we would not have had Arabic scribes rendering the Syriac word for "grapes" and/or "pure ones" as "virgins" / dark ovals. This imagery was further borrowed from Jewish mysticism wherein the 72 "pure ones" were the 72 names of god (hence: pure) which is the tetragrammaton YHVH writen numerically:

Y - 10 = 10
H - 5 + 10 = 15
V - 6 + 5 + 10 = 21
H - 5 + 6 + 5 + 10 = 26

= 72 "pure ones" in Hebrew
= 72 "grapes" / in Syriac - grapes were considered of highest delicacy
= 72 "virgins" in Arabic which lead to the interpretation to women after you add the sexual degeneracy of Muhammad's "example".

The worldview of a people is determined by the language: how they used words. Because the Semitic languages have a shared/common root system (which is actually just a single object: First Hand as rediscovered by Stan Tenen

View attachment 28395
This form is the basis of the entire... language system itself. There is no other form whence to construct a language, because this form is also the "language" of creation itself:

View attachment 28396

The 22 Hebrew characters are derived here which birth all of the plethora of languages we have (biblie, the confounding of the languages).

These findings (and a lot more) is available at www.meru.org to which all credit goes to for the above images.

So, yes... the 72 virgins *is* a product of Islam, because *that* is how the Arabic language "treats" the word, despite the word itself being derived from the same arrangement of forms.

This is how *I know* the Qur'an is a complete forgery: I read the early Torah with this form in mind and the meanings of each form position: it is one string, not spaced. The spaces and markings were added/imposed, by man, which limited/confined the reading into a narrative that lays atop the main thing - like a garment. You have to penetrate the garment in order to see what is actually there. Using this form and *not* learning the Hebrew language from a "teacher" is what allows me to read it without limitations.

Please note this same f*ckery happened with the Qur'an: the original was without markings, and were added later which *did* modify the meanings to absurd extents. This, along with the fact that it is indeed a forgery (Christian strophic hymns) renders Islam nothing short of... well, just watch. If you want an idea, read the 10 commandments, then read the *real* life of Muhammad (of whatever you can find). His "biography" was only available over a hundred years after he had died, but was destroyed. Pieces of it were used to construct the only existing full "biography" over 200 years after he had died.

This is the man that Muslims must (Truthfully? Falsely?) bear testimony of in the shahada: that he is the final messenger of what they call "Allah". Do they "believe" the shahada to be true? Do they "know" the shahada to be true?

If the Qur'an is a forgery (which it is) the shahada is a false testimony.

That is why if there *IS* a potent Abrahamic God... not good for Muslims.

This is the testimony they force on you to convert to Islam. It is equivalent to the "mark of the beast" in Revelation.

It's coming: to a (world?) stage near you.

Islam is a Christian heresy trying to take over the world by blaming all their actions on Jews.

Judaism is making false claims (leading to false "beliefs")
Christianity/Islam are making false testimonies mandatory to join
100's of millions dead

"BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER"

...and humanity started with ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN in a garden allowed to eat ANY FRUIT... except one. Which?

GOOD (and/vs.) EVIL

...and humanity is making the same f*cking mistakes over and over again.

"Believing" themselves to know who/what/where/why/when/how is "good" and who/what/where/why/when/how is "evil".

[A vs. B] and C
A "believes" A is good, B is evil.
B "believes" B is good A is evil.
C knows.

Who has power here?

Is "knowledge is equal to power" a true statement in relation to "belief"-based dilemmas above?

Who might stand to benefit from two "belief"-based ideologies to war each other if one "knows" them to be rooted in falsity?

Getting closer...

We want to dissuade self-appointed geniuses from co-opting Meru's work by imposing their own ideas on it, and by inappropriately quoting from and incorporating our findings in their proposals. This is a significant problem, because later, third parties criticize what Meru is actually proposing based on misrepresentations by people who have imposed themselves on us. This is not just a matter of our having to deal with the copyright infringement and disparagement of the individual referred to in the boxed notice at the bottom of our home page at www.meru.org.

While this individual is clearly "over the top", many others, certainly less crazy and bizarre but often no less insistent, seem to have taken an undue interest in the Meru proposals.

Great ideas are not uncommon. What makes the difference is what is done with them, and this depends on integrity, caring, humility -- and competent management and adequate resources. In order to mature and be healthy and productive, a great idea requires the same nurturing and nourishment as a child.

Meru Foundation Research: Secrets of the Hebrew Letters by Cynthia Gage for Atlantis Rising magazine

 

[9-18-1]

You are torturing scripture again. The virgins are transparent companions .. aka angels.

There are some 30 allegories for heaven (paradise) in the Koran... They tend to be green and lush with a river of wine that never makes you drunk, milk, ripe fruit. Its very poetic..

You really are fixed on making everyone else wrong. Not a good trait.

You're accusing me of exactly what you are doing. Therefor I sense enmity - agreeable with the rhetoric of your initial comment.

They were grapes in Syriac, consistent with the other imagery you mentioned: green and lush, rivers of wine and vines of grapes etc.

But when Islam entered the picture and rendered this into Arabic, these new "transparent companions" (which they never were in the first place) and/or association to "divine beings" is what lead to the further degradation of the reading "virgin women" so horribly abused by jihadists for recruiting militia men. The original meaning was simply "pure ones" in the original language until it degraded over time - ending up in what it is used/abused for today, and it reflects the predominantly sex-based worldview of Muhammadan men. This all relates to the balance of man/woman in the Edenic state: disrupted by Islam making 1:4 permissible, 1:11 for Muhammad himself. This is infidelity and Allah is made in the image and likeness of such a degeneracy, only attracted by the similarly degenerated.

“When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.” – Mark Twain

That is the purpose of the fascist "Islamophobia" campaign: Islamophobia is generated within Muslims themselves and they label/smear everyone else as being "Islamophobic" only because they are stirring up the "Islamophobia" within their own selves. This is the extend reason why china declared Islam a mental illness: truthophobia regarding the illegitimacy of Muhammad, the Qur'an and Islam.

It is (at) the root of (along with Judaism) the roots of toxic marxism, racial profiling, fascism, socialism, "believer" vs. "unbeliever" etc.

It's not about "making everyone else wrong" it is about: I don't care about being right, I only care about what is right. I don't come up with what I want to be true, I start from scratch and follow successive questions. That is what a 'conscience' does: it asks questions and seeks to answer them.

I know the Qur'an is forged and Islam is a humanitarian crisis. Any many others "know" this, but are suppressed by being called "Islamophobic" because people like me speak things to be "true" (ie. the Qur'an is forged) but because an attached Muhammadan who worships the Qur'an and their idol Muhammad can't "accept" that worldview, they begin slandering and attacking. Remove the problem. Same as Muhammad did - even killed the news/poets of his day for criticizing his hypocrisy. 1400 years - same male dictator warlord archetype derived from a male dictator religious figure which can not be ridiculed lest one be an "Islamophobe".

"Belief" is not a conscious process - there are not questions to be asked, only projections of what one "wants" to be true, such as what they themselves "believe"to be true. People take this "belief"-based worldview as their identity (wherein the "belief" is not true) and this is why people suffer: their own ignorance.

WAR=IGNORANCE
IGNORANCE=WAR

When faced with this (as identified with their own "beliefs") they endeavor to protect their small identities which arises in the form of "taking offense": small identity syndrome. From here, the deathly and fatal "us" vs. "them" attitude is adopted, and death manifests shortly thereafter.

 

[dybmh]

@9-18-1,

Consider this:

Do you believe you are correct about your central claim?

Do you know you are right?

Can you prove it?

If you can't prove it, It's belief.

If belief is not a virtue, then why did you post this thread?

Belief has to be a virtue, or the entire concept this thread is based on is a farce.

 

[sooda]

Source?

The problem I'm having is that the case you are making is full of beliefs. The quote about the moon goddess above is a perfect example. The claim that Sin is the Moon goddess is a belief.

It's necessary in this debate with the claim you're making to be extremely regimented about presenting only facts and no beliefs.

Everytime a false claim based on belief is exposed it refutes the central point of your claim.

Like I said before. I have been refuting your central claim all along, but you hadn't seen it yet.

The Middle East was crawling with 100s of gods and goddesses.. always changing.. very fluid.


Sin | Mesopotamian god | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sin-Mesopotamian-god
Sin was the father of the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad of deities. Nanna, the Sumerian name for the moon god, may have originally meant only the full moon, whereas Su-en, later contracted to Sin, designated the crescent moon.

 

[dybmh]

Therefore I sense enmity

That's a belief. Belief used as a virtue.

 

[dybmh]

which they never were in the first place

Is this a fact or belief?