denominations
True. I think a lot of the problem is that we had to have a few reformations to keep our faith from turning into the Pope’s personal dominion. Protestantism has been a mixed blessing.
Brahman
Aha so that’s what I got wrong then. Got it. I knew I’d read about Para-Brahman but it’s still very confusing as you said.
comparative
Oh indeed. As you can guess, I do a bit of this already. It’s definitely helpful to learn about other beliefs.
The God we refer to in Christianity is the source of reality or ground of being itself. If something exists then it necessarily depends on God’s power somehow. God’s goodness is like that of rain, causing crops to grow and thus providing life for all.
Likewise, evil in the absolute sense is merely a difference between His character and the harm being done by one of His creatures. It’s not like you can void reality itself but you can make it quite hellish by denying God’s character and intent.
It’s funny that you mentioned Hinduism though. I had a very interesting discussion with a Hindu about the nature of Brahma and he clearly states that Brahma isn’t the eternal existence of God in their religion either. He’s more like a helper that is working for the eternal God.
Anyway that’s not my belief system so I’m not gonna dig into that. But you’re very wrong that God’s authority is contingent in nature. It’s more accurate to think of God as a personification of reality itself than like Brahma.
Just because God establishes the authority doesn't mean it is being executed according to His intentions. The same Caesar to whom God granted authority to also executed His Son at the urging of the Pharisees. The stated purpose for God giving the "authority of the sword" to ruling authorities in Romans 13 is "punishing evildoers," was it not?
And isn't the crime of the Deep State that it punishes the innocent and lets the guilty go free? A state which punishes the innocent is a clear aberration from God's design. I think it is fair to suggest that we should understand the aberration of government as a result of sin.
And your citation of the Papacy is actually rather relevant since it sort of gets into my other post in this thread. The people of Magdeburg were exactly what you cited. They rejected the Papacy yet believed God established just authority according to Romans 13 as all Lutherans do. In reality, I believe the Pope is an office of antichrist acting in pretense against the original basis of its authority. The Bishop of Rome was one of the metropolitan leaders of the early Christian faith but over time they abused the claims of Peter's succession as a claim to authority above all Christians and bolstered such claims with forged documentations. This was rejected first by the Eastern Orthodox during the Great Schism and later by the Protestants who were fed up ith Papal abuses. The Pope chose to excommunicate and Martin Luther and others were forced to establish a Christianity which relied on the Bible not the Pope as its basic authority.
Their proposed resolution of the early Lutherans in Magdeburg was to recognize that each individual magistrate had an accounting to God and it is the duty of a proper God fearing magistrate to protect his or her citizens. And as with all Patriots, the tree of liberty was watered with their blood when the Pope inspired the Holy Roman Emperor to murder them in cold blood. But this is the beginning of what led to the eventual establishment of Western democracies where the magistracy is the property of the citizenry rather than hereditary rulers. Much of the rhetoric of the American Revolution revolves around establishment of the injustice and tyranny of the rulers they rejected and the intention to establish a more perfect and just system.
The issue now is that We the People are being usurped by would be monarchs who are themselves engaged in rebellion against just authority.
The issue is correctly understanding the Scripture. The citation of Romans 13 is in reference to God's establishment of just authority rather than unjust. The Bible doesn't say tyranny is OK. God specifically opposes tyranny in many places throughout the Bible. The correct response to tyranny is to oppose it without opposing the just uses of authority.
You might want to look at the Magdeburg Confession and its Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. It was seminal in the Protestant response to the Holy Roman Empire's tyranny and it was part of the seed that was incorporated into Western Democratic theory.
"It's gonna be Biblical" cites Law Abiding Citizen and is tied to "Bring the whole diseased temple down around them." The picture is that of Samson bringing down the temple of Ba'al around the Canaanites who had captured him after Delilah had exploited his weakness.
What do George Soros, the Rothschild family, Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx have in common? {x}
Q unambiguously calls out the first two as enemies. But there's a pattern and if anyone admits it you'll [wrongly] claim they're evil. The truth is the truth. Denying reality won't make it go away. The fact is that "not all {x} are good."
Hmm. That's interesting. As you can tell, I'm operating from a Christian paradigm so a lot of your beliefs are foreign to my understanding. I apologize for any mistakes I made about you here.
So, I guess I wasn't really aware that the Vedic tradition can be interpreted to teach a single Godhead like that. Your Scriptures have a lot of references to Devas in such a way that it comes off as worshiping those rather than a God above that. I know Brahma is seen to be involved in every other Deva's operation. I also know I've read points about Para-Brahman and Brahma reincarnating but that's not really something that clicks well for me. After all, Judaism has more experience dealing with the concept of reincarnation (gilgul ha neshamot) in its mystical literature than Christianity. We emphasize the Resurrection of the Dead (t'chiyat ha metim) to everlasting life (aionion zoe) at the end of time. So, in that sense, the closest concept I have is a "type" which is used to describe the connection of Elijah and John the Baptist. But that's not the same soul being cycled around.
Anyway, refocusing... So what it seems like you're saying that the "reincarnating Brahma" is more like a benevolent Demiurge (to borrow a term from Gnosticism that is representative) or the Jewish idea of Metatron (the angel who helps YHWH create) rather than what the Abrahamic faiths understand as the Most High God/El Elyon. That's rather different than I was expecting.
I suspect there's a lot of hidden history buried in the Middle East of a prior conflict between the Vedic and Abrahamic religions that's been somewhat buried which might be involved in producing these differences. Abraham is said in Genesis/Bereshith to have come from Ur Kasidim and rejected his fathers (Terah's) gods in favor of El Elyon/El Shaddai. (The Most High) Also Zoroaster also rejected Daevas and promoted Ahura Mazda as his vision of the Supreme God. Likely both of these were confluent into the Jewish tradition's own rejection of "other gods" which ultimately gave us our understanding in Christianity that the term Divinity is restricted only to the Most High God as St. Paul expressed in 1 Corinthians 8:6. As I said before, the most distinction we have that might imply multiplicity is that God is also Triune. We understand God necessarily operating in thee distinct "hypostases" to accommodate the principle of the Logos and Divine Wisdom that are necessary for Salvation to exist without dividing His Nature and Will. The Trinity isn't independent wills acting in cooperation with the Father but an economy of God's eternal work manifesting itself into distinct personal manifestations.
I get the sense from Vedic literature that these Devas act with their own will and their connection to Brahma is merely in the sense that all souls derive from the origin.
There's a key issue between Christianity and Vedic religions on the nature of what constitutes a "god." In Christianity, we inherit from Judaism a recognition that the term "god" can only legitimately refer to the Most High God and that any other use of the term is done in pretense. There is a distinct understanding that the Most High God is jealous and does not share His highest honor which is carried under the term "god." In Vedic faiths, the term "god" is generally used for lesser emanations like Devas as well as the Supreme Being. (which they have named Brahma)
There is an issue in terms of a Creator/Creation distinction which is strongly maintained in the Abrahamic tradition. The Vedic tradition seems to interpret reality as layers of Absolute, "Divine+Creation" and Creation-only. Consequently, there's issues arising from both doctrine and ontology. The ontological aspect that it's less beneficial to worship a middle man than to worship the Source. Yes, a common objection raised by many non-Christians is that most Christians are Trinitarians and recognize that God reveals Himself in three personal forms but this is not understanding the doctrine. The Trinity are not separate beings acting as middlemen but coequal personal aspects of the same Divine Godhead/Nature. The Nature is indivisible. The distinction is in terms of a personal economy of Divine actions which manifest in distinct persons: God the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit whom are necessary to understand and receive Salvation.
Hinduism sees all Devas as coequal emanations of Brahma worthy of worship by themselves. This is a serious conflict with Christian monotheism since YHWH is a jealous Supreme Being who does not like the highest honors due to Him alone being given to lesser beings. Angels do not seek worship. While some traditions of Christianity may venerate creatures like angels and saints in a commemorative or petitionary sense this may never be raised to the same sense of absolute devotion and trust that belongs to the Most High God.
Epstein Barr virus. Someone upstairs has a sense of humor.
If they're controlled by demons (or ETs masquerading as demons) someone might be interrupting the signal.
If "reptiliandude" is correct, the Kayeen choose new bodies when the old one is about to die and then overwrite the new baby's consciousness with their own. Supposedly he says that's what happened to Epstein.
As for "aged up clones" idea he says there's huge problems with that. You'd have to keep the body in suspended animation and the muscles and organs would atrophy.
AG is also attorney general. Unfortunately that one is a big ‘?’ at third point.
Sleeper of the Cabal.
So who is Glycon or Zophiel? Why is he calling himself "reptiliandude" and saying the Naigaje worship the same God as Jesus?
Yes. Preferably something secure and quantum encrypted so it can interface with a digital system and not be hacked like our current bank systems are with their "modular exponentiation" technology.
Just so long as you realize that the Gamestop stuff is a mechanism that "We the People" can use to punch back at the banks that were behind the election steal. Enough people hurt their pocket book they can't do the same evil schemes.
It's some dude posting crap. Ignore the shills.
reddit's soul
His name was Aaron Swartz.
Antinomianism fails because God works using flawed sinners as the instrument. Not working means not letting God work.
Legalism fails because it is supplanting man's fallible desires for God's ultimate truth. You follow God's Law but you will also have fallible desires that may need to be curbed.
Of the two, legalism is the more insidious. Antinomianism is obvious. Legalism is sneaky. Think about the Original Sin itself. Notice that as she was deceived Eve added an additional part to God's "if you eat of that fruit you shall surely die," namely the part about "do not touch." Where did that come from? It's the insidious nature of Legalism to "add more" to what is really being said.
Q97 Flynn. New target: Charles Flynn.
Geez this rabbit hole.
Weaponizing a concept by turning it from a descriptive model into prescriptive pattern.
They expect you to rat on your fellow employees who don't, too.
Great job breaking it, Commie Joe.
My theory is that she's a part of the Cabal's reboot strategy if they fail. Got to have insiders who can pretend to be "good guys" just in case.
Sure. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. (I'm a bit of an oddball...)