Daniel

It's impossible to know for sure where it came from. Agnosticism is rational. Gnosticism is a farce. You don't know what you don't know. It's absolutely true.

That's what the ignore feature is for. You want to bury your head in the sand? Go ahead. You want to make work for the moderators? Do as you will.

Detachment in isolation is self-defeating. It's the same with freedom. Freedom in isolation is self-defeating. Freedom cannot exist in isolation; freedom needs to be enforced. If not, then individuals will use their freedom to enslave and oppress. Satan is being created because God wants to grant freedom. Satan, ultimately, at the highest most expansive level, is the Spirit of Freedom. It is the root and source for freedom in all its forms. How this freedom is formed and expressed by human hands is what objectively determines evil or good. Because freedom cannot exist in isolation, it must be pushed down. It must be put in a "box" called "the law". And because of this, it, the Spirit of Freedom, will always and forever be rising. If it's not rising and striking at God, it will cease to be. The Absolute, the Source of ALL, God, whichever name is ascribed to it, permits it. God permits its rising and striking and nourishing itself off of Godliness even though it is not directly permitted. It's necessary. God permits the serpent to rise up, cross multiple boundaries, into forbidden territory, and strike directly at God's back. Sinking it's teeth, and feeding off what is not intended for it. God allows this, because it's necessary for a material world to exist. This is what Jesus was teaching, on a deeper level, regarding turning the other cheek. All the great teachings are like this. They are true in particular, in that time and place, literally, "turning the other cheek". But it's also true on a deeper level. In general, and in the heavens, in the spiritual realms. It's gospel truth. It's true, and it's true. It's Truly-true. Amein v'Amein. Jesus is quoted as saying this phrase, I think, well over 100 times in the book of John. In English it's sometimes translated as "verily". But the original Greek is faithful to the Jewish imperative, and writes it phonetically, correctly, "Amein v' Amein". You can find it in the Hebrew bible. Numbers. Sohtah ritual. Also in Deuteronomy. The Heavens and the Earth are the witnesses: Amein v'Amein.

Thank you, I'm not sure how much explanation is interesting for you on this branch of the conversation. In brief: there is a linguistic curiosity which is obscured by the English translations of the Eden story. Discussing this has lead down a winding road where it was proposed that Adam and Eve in the consummation of their marriage ( end of Genesis 2 ) was an act of unity, in the form of hearts, minds, bodies acting in unison. Their will was one and the same. I proposed an alternative which was not two acting in unison, but instead the two were acting in harmony with one another. The connection to satan is coming from the word chosen, int he original Hebrew, to describe the serpent at the beginning of Genesis 3. It's the same word being used to describe the manner in which Adam and Eve were engaging with each other: "Ahrum". Prior to English translations, lacking chapters and verses, this word repeated would have been obvious to any reader paying attention. Word repetition is common method for bringing emphasis to a word in this ancient text. The Hebrew reader, or story teller, would certainly see it. An example from this specific story is the original Hebrew words which are translated as "surely die". If you eat from that tree, you will "surely die". In Hebrew this is expressed as the word for death, more or less, repeated twice. So, there is a connection made between the manner which the Adam and Eve were together and this serpent which is the avatar for "satan". If Adam and Eve were acting in harmony, not in unison, and, the serpent was acting in the same way, then, the implication is that the serpent is also a member of a sympathetic yet opposing, harmonious partnership. Then zooming out, big picture, the entire Hebrew Bible can be read through this lens as a treatise on harmony and discord where even the discord is part of a grand plan which is harmonious, healthy, and good, even though bad things happen, even though satan exists, etc... It's pure optimism. And that's precisely how Abraham, the father of Judaism, is described in the stories. It's almost comical. In fact, it's literally funny. Abraham: "Sure Abimelech, take Sarah, she's my sister.... kinda" Abraham: "They took my brother, Lot. Hah! I've got 300 men. I can take those other 4 armies." Abraham: "No problem God, just a little nip and a tuck of my most sensitive regions, no anesthetic? no problem! I'll do it, presently." Abraham: "Of course Sarah, Ismael was jesting with Isaac. You want him gone? He's gone, he'll be fine.. in the desert." Abraham: "Yes God, Make an offering of Isaac? It's fine. Whatever happens on that mountain, I'm sure of it! We'll go and return together." @Taomeow, So, my goal, in this thread, was to help @NaturaNaturans open his mind to the possibility that even things that look bad, like "satan" are not really what they appear to be. Even and especially in the Hebrew Bible. Everything can be viewed in the Hebrew Bible from different points of view which contribute to an over-arching teaching, ( literally "the Torah" ) about harmony, partnerships, relationships, and connections. It's a similar teaching that I find much more elegantly and simply stated in the DDJ and practiced by Daoists. Yes, we Jews are taking the long road and winding road to get there. But, at least it's been memorable.

Nungali, you said it was Egyptian, then immediately corrected me ( and started mocking me ) for saying it was Egyptian. That's a massive flip-flop. You had a knee-jerk reaction. It's what you do.

Beware Drawing Conclusions from A Distance: The smoke is not a fire. It's a cloud. This is also a cognitive trap that internet researchers fall into. Because their information comes from the internet on a screen it's easy to forget how far they are from the events which they are learning about. Anytime a person is making a conclusion which ends with some form of the conspiracy theorist's favored expressions: "where there's smoke there's fire" or in America there's another expression about a duck: "It's walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck", the audience should be cautious. That is only true if the individual is close enough to *actually* see how the duck is walking and hear how the duck is talking. However, internet researchers are usually getting commentary about what an individual said, or commentary about what people are doing. They are not seeing it themself. They are not hearing it themself. They might see a picture, but, they can't see what happened to produce the outcome. Instead a reporter is commenting on what happened. The audience is far from the action. But they forget that, because the screen creates the illusion of proximity. From a distance, the smoke, and the duck, are just clouds being created in the mind. It's cognitive distortion.

Chains of Probability are ALWAYS decreasing in certainty. This one is possibly one of the most common cognitive traps that I have noticed contributing to false conclusions coming from internet researchers operating outside their field of expertise. The individual feels they have many many points of evidence for their criticism or conclusion, but, the pieces of evidence are not actually increasing the certainty of the proposition because the data-points rely on each other to be significant. The best examples of this come from conspiracy minded individuals. They collect vast amounts of examples of the conspiracy, but, each individual example is utterly insignificant until it is brought together with all the others. The key to identifying this cognitive fault is recognizing that the individual examples have no inherent connection to each other until the individual, the conspiracy theorist, creates the connection, themself. When that connection is made by the individual, that signals the individual data-points are relying on each other in order to be significant. Because of this, adding more examples does not increase the certainty of the conspiracy theory. It is always decreasing. It's simple math. For example, Let's say: I have 2 pieces of evidence which are supposed to be supporting a conspiracy involving mail fraud. 1) A postal truck went missing from an overnight staging area. 2) The manager of the staging area is a disgruntled employee who ash the opportunity to cover up the conspiracy. Bringing these two data points together do not increase the likelihood that there is a conspiracy. It actually reduces the probability. The postal truck goes missing? Let's assign that 50% odds this is producing mail fraud. The postal manager is disgruntled? Let's assign that 50% odds this is producing mail fraud. Probabilities don't add. They are products. They are producing a likelihood. And that is where the faulty thinking is coming from. The conspiracy theorist is adding, when they should be multiplying. In the conspiracy theorist's mind. Two bits of evidence which are 50% likely to produce their conspiracy should be added which results in 100% certainty. But they should be multiplying. 50% certainty * 50% certainty = 25% certainty. When the data-points rely on each for significance, in a chain, the probability is always decreasing. But the conspiracy theorist is not doing the math. I see this happening often with outsiders doing internet research. They're not necessarily conspiracy theorists. But the outside internet researcher wants to prove that even thought they're not in the community which they're criticizing, they're accusations should be taken seriously. So they amass many many examples from their internet research, but, they neglect the simple fact that each of those examples is decreasing the probability of their proposal not increasing it.

I'm not affected by your bullying Nungali. You can't push me away from this forum like you do to others. Just like last time, when you were caught talking out of your ass, and I showed you, you started lying and putting on a circus performance to distract from it. That's when I put you on ignore.

It is. I posted a screenshot, which you, of course deny.

I'd like to find a Jewish Kabalist who themself confirms this as opposed to others, outsiders, making assumptions about what Jewish Kabalists believe. It doesn't change that the hexagram was in use in the Hindu religion, nor its legitimacy as a point of syncretism and agreement between the two mystical traditions.

It's a special case. Attachment to detachment and nothing else. He was 100% full of will to be 100% empty of will. It's absolutely 100% singular focused intention directed towards doing the other's will which requires significant will-power.

Correct. What you posted, Nungali, was bovine excrement. You stated the pentagram was egyptian, then the very next post contradicted yourself.

Yes, you've admitted to having a condition.

he asked me a question, but is avoiding a detailed answer. something I did not claim. I can't be expected to have evidence for things I never wrote.

Avoiding detailed information contributes to cognitive distortion.

You're over-reacting, Nungers. You have lifted "over-reacting" to its maximum. If you need that to be happy. Please continue with my blessing.

It's very simple and straight forward. Nothing wiggly or squirmy about it.

What NN write about "not wanting to read an essay" was what prompted the thread. Thus he was tagged.

Is the document translated there? You have no clue what we're talking about, do you?

Well done. When was the last episode?

there's hope for us both

they were sympatheic opposing partners. Nods to @Taomeow A sympathetic opposing partnership? Sound familiar? Harmony? Sal, He was "of no will, of no heart, functioning as no spirit, mind and purpose". He cleaved to her. Not the other way around. That''s very important. They did not cleave to each other. Biologically, bro, One was pointy. The other was not. Tab-A >>> Slot-B. But he was the one which was submissive to her. Yes, they were of one heart, functioning as one spirit, mind, and purpose. You're not wrong. But they were approaching that unity in two completely different ways. He was 100% empty of will. She was 100% willful. Combined they are, yes, "of one will, of one heart, functioning as one spirit, mind and purpose", but, not because they were the same. It's because they were sympatheic opposing partners. That''s harmony. For someone into mantras, I understand if harmony is not... on your mind.

fair enough a den of vipers? no such thing?

wow, you really are confused. whatever definition you're using Nungali, it's shared by very few, perhaps ... only you.

Except you just posted that oldBob was wrong and I was right.