Psychic vision of schizophrenic's "demon"

reply to post by Darkblade71


I believe your story. And i think it is not his mind that create him. It is something else that following him and make him worse. I have saw things like this too next or inside people that mentally disturbed in any level, different from what you have saw, but same weird and scary.

I think that it was your guardian that "reshape" what it looks in your eyes, to tell you more about it behaviour and what the impact to this guy. The way you see things like this, you might see things half real and half like symbol with your guardian help, cuz with this type of sighting, you can always "re look" at it again, and make it in slower motion or more still image. This way you can know more than it looks but some situation and implication to other.
But usually the more you "rewind", the more far it from the real sighting.

Originally posted by Darkblade71
reply to post by Dragonfly79

 

Thank you for your reply!

That is also an angle I am considering.

The Angel verses Demon thing is something that this discussion has skirted a bit.

DontReally suggested demons as broken psyches; but I consider them angels in rebellion-- from a Scriptural basis.

What that implies is that Angels and demons are the same creatures by nature, but different in ability and purpose by choice. They are no part of mankind, but separate creatures, essentially spiritual but able to take corporal form.

The idea that an encounter with a Holy Angel would be all warm-fuzziness does not match Scriptural descriptions. The Holy Angels are fearsome. Often the first thing said to a human encountering an Angel is along the lines of "Get up off your knees and have no fear."

But the notion of spiritual entity appearing in such a chaotic form as He-Man/Betty Boop hardly suggests holiness and order. Whatever it was, it was an unnatural mess.

I am not claiming that I have psychic powers, abilities or anything else.

However..

I've met a total of three strangers in my life that made my heart sink and skin creep so badly that it's hard to describe. Even if I don't really believe people can radiate evilness, I have no other way to describe these three random encounters. I'm over 30 years old. That means briefly 1 every 10 years. I'm glad they are not more common.

All three also seemed to hate me at first sight for seemingly no reason.

This baffles me. So much.

reply to post by Darkblade71


Oh....Sad ....... My moms manager sisters a schizophrenic. She too has the problem of getting off her meds, and when she does she ends up in the psyche ward. Last time she ran into the street trying to get hit by a car.

Though apparently when shes on her medication shes a very nice, good looking girl. So sad. This generation we live in has so many problems.

reply to post by dontreally


Its actually a part of the process of becoming a mage. Crowley speaks of a Watcher at the Threshold of the Abyss. When you delve into this kind of realm, you have to, as part of the growth process, be stripped of your ego and actually freefall menatally for awhile. If you can pull it together and actually survive mentally, you come back as a mage. Unfortunately, some poeple have a genetic predisposition for mental illness or combine their freefall with drugs or alcohol and never quite come back.

This is a pretty good link, actually:
hermetic.com...

"Crowley perceived the "Abyss" as a literal gap in the stuff of creation, separating the human levels of existence from the transcendental or divine levels. He describes this gap as a region of nullity and terror, in which anything that enters is torn asunder. (In this much, he was following a long-established theme in Hebrew cabalistic lore.) In order to attain to enlightenment, the magician must "leap" into this Abyss, where his human self is ripped apart and destroyed. If he has established enough momentum in his climb towards the divine levels, then the divine spark in himself (freed from its bindings to his human self) will be carried over to the other side of the gap to become a Master of the Temple, the magickal grade equivalent to the basic enlightened state."

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by Darkblade71
reply to post by Dragonfly79

 

Thank you for your reply!

That is also an angle I am considering.

The Angel verses Demon thing is something that this discussion has skirted a bit.

DontReally suggested demons as broken psyches; but I consider them angels in rebellion-- from a Scriptural basis.

What that implies is that Angels and demons are the same creatures by nature, but different in ability and purpose by choice. They are no part of mankind, but separate creatures, essentially spiritual but able to take corporal form.

The idea that an encounter with a Holy Angel would be all warm-fuzziness does not match Scriptural descriptions. The Holy Angels are fearsome. Often the first thing said to a human encountering an Angel is along the lines of "Get up off your knees and have no fear."

But the notion of spiritual entity appearing in such a chaotic form as He-Man/Betty Boop hardly suggests holiness and order. Whatever it was, it was an unnatural mess.

Angels and demons are only delineated in Judeo-Christian theology. They were, before the delineation, all the same and were quite neutral. They acted according to the will of the Magus and amplified intention.

Demon~c.1200, from L. daemon "spirit," from Gk. daimon "deity, divine power; lesser god; guiding spirit, tutelary deity"

reply to post by Frira

What that implies is that Angels and demons are the same creatures by nature, but different in ability and purpose by choice.

Angels and Demons dont have 'free will', in that they dont choose to be either good or bad. The very definition of an angel - is an archetypal energy, or emanation, of the creator. The Hebrew word for angel - malak - also means 'messenger' ie; the angel is the intermediary between the creator and created.

Demons are of the same nature. Even their propensity to deny God is built into their inherent structure. But neither angel nor demons struggle with good and evil, as you seem to be implying (and which has gnostic implications). A Good angel cannot become bad - on its own - but only through human free will. The angelic energy, which enters consciousness and reality through the decision making of the human being, can be trasmuted and become a demonic energy, one that sucks spiritual vitality which can only be gained through the individual soul-consciousness.

This is a basic staple of Hebraic thought (and if christianity doesnt agree with it, that just shows how far the two are from each other). Man has complete power over the spiritual worlds; over angel and demon. It is mans hands to 'destroy' the power of the other side - sitra achra, simply by his decision making.

The idea that an encounter with a Holy Angel would be all warm-fuzziness does not match Scriptural descriptions. The Holy Angels are fearsome. Often the first thing said to a human encountering an Angel is along the lines of "Get up off your knees and have no fear."

I agree. But in general, a spiritually unevolved individual who dares to ask anything of an angel has another thing coming to him. They are archetypal energies and powers. In Goetha (a midieval magical system) which is based on the Kabbalah, reality is made up of 72 archetypal powers. These powers are initially the 4 cardinal powers, or forces, which become 36, and then 72. These are also akin to Islams "72 virigns" (or aspects of the Shekinah, the divine presence). I was listening to a lecture of a kabbalist who described how one invokes such powers, and he warned time and again how incredibly dangerous it is for one to do this without preparing himself before hand; and if he isnt completely free from fear, this archetypal energy can - without any compunction - destroy his consciousness, leaving him insane. This just shows that God punishes one who drinks more then he can handle: "Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it"

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
how do you / did you learn to separate yourself from others?

i have the same random flashes from people that i cant control, but not images usually, its mostly what i would call "balls of emotion and thought"...

...and the closer i am to someone the farther away i can be from them and still get the feelings.

This happens to me, also. And, like you, it gets more pronounced the closer I am with someone, emotionally...regardless of physical distance.

I started visualizing the connective energy, between myself and whomever it happens with, as real physical threads. For some reason, in my visualization, they connect from my abdomen. I don't know why. But I visualize them and then I physically take my hand and make a cutting motion, like scissors, across the threads...like I am cutting the ties and separating my energy from theirs.

I don't know if this is a good or bad thing to do, nor if it is something that would work for everyone. But it works for me. I don't really know as much as I would like about things like this and I am not an expert, even on myself, lol. As I said, its just something that I have had to figure out in order to stay separate from people, and it works for me. Just thought I would throw that out there for you.

OP, this is an interesting thread and I am looking forward to reading through the rest of it.

I was listening to a lecture of a kabbalist who described how one invokes such powers, and he warned time and again how incredibly dangerous it is for one to do this without preparing himself before hand; and if he isnt completely free from fear, this archetypal energy can - without any compunction - destroy his consciousness, leaving him insane. This just shows that God punishes one who drinks more then he can handle: "Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it"

Amen to that. You actually invoke a living, breathing version of your personal mind set....or energies in harmony with your own and can, literally, find yourself mad in the aftermath. Crazy-mad. Some practitioners consider conjuring, facing and banishing a demon, especially one in your own energetic signature, a prerequisite to adept status. I actually agree. The initial experience is powerfully disturbing and destroys all sense of self and reality. It scares the crap out of you!!! This initial event triggers a deep respect and can lead to great insight and power if followed.

I also agree on the fear part. Fear opens you up to possession....

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

What that implies is that Angels and demons are the same creatures by nature, but different in ability and purpose by choice.

Angels and Demons dont have 'free will', in that they dont choose to be either good or bad. The very definition of an angel - is an archetypal energy

...

But in general, a spiritually unevolved individual who dares to ask anything of an angel has another thing coming to him. They are archetypal energies and powers. In Goetha (a midieval magical system) which is based on the Kabbalah, reality is made up of 72 archetypal powers. These powers are initially the 4 cardinal powers, or forces, which become 36, and then 72....

I like you and your scholarship, dontreally, but I don't always (or even often) agree with you. You and I recognize very different authorities, at times. To me it appears you have leapt out of theologically based metaphysics, retaining a pinch of medieval alchemy, and dragged that, kicking and screaming, into numerology.

I am in sympathy with the displaced alchemy! Let it go back where it belongs!

Let's just say that your certain description of what the elephant's leg is like does not match the description I would give of the elephant's ear which I am holding. We may both hold a part of the elephant, but neither of us may have correctly identified its essence.

Frankly, in this case, I don't think you are describing any part of an elephant-- but you start with differences ("which just goes to show how far apart...") whereas I prefer to look for similarities-- the common ground is usually the good soil for truth to spring up.

That "which just goes to show how far apart" thing bothers me. You cannot be suggesting, can you, that mainstream Jewish thought has ever been anywhere close to what you have put forth?

But I'm just not going to pretend to follow you into the numerology being married to medieval metaphysics while one cheats on the other with modern psychology. These seem unnatural relations, and surely you must conceded that in my playful way of putting it, I at least have a point?

reply to post by PapaKrok

Some practitioners consider conjuring, facing and banishing a demon, especially one in your own energetic signature, a prerequisite to adept status. I actually agree.

That initself can be dangerous. But at the same time, i can see how it can be important.

The initial experience is powerfully disturbing and destroys all sense of self and reality. It scares the crap out of you!!!

Its scary because a part of you believes it, and is fearful of it.

I have never invoked a demon, but i have experienced my own demons, as i explained earlier in this thread. It is an incredibly disturbing experience. But getting through it gives you a strength and power conducive to invoking angelic powers.

reply to post by PapaKrok




Another angle to come from.

The guy was messing where he shouldn't be messing.


I have a lot of respect for Crowley, and H.P Lovecraft.

They went where no one dares and looked madness in the eyes and came back quite insane.

Crazy stuff.

reply to post by Frira

You and I recognize very different authorities, at times. To me it appears you have leapt out of theologically based metaphysics, retaining a pinch of medieval alchemy, and dragged that, kicking and screaming, into numerology.

Im not sure what you mean by this. My entire personal theology is based on the metaphysical interpretation of the "old testament".

As for numerology. It is an inherent part of the Hebrew language; the numerical dimension of the Hebrew language alludes to deeper metaphysical connections between different realities. So, Echad and Ahavah - one and love, equal 13 (Bob Marley himself was interested in Hebrew, which Rastapharian mystics derived from earlier traditions), aswell as "avi" - 'my father' signifying that the power of unification lies in the masculine principle, while the feminine principle signifies multiplicity.

whereas I prefer to look for similarities-- the common ground is usually the good soil for truth to spring up.

I have no problems identifying similarities between Christianity and Judaism. I study all religions. I have Thomas Aquinas, Ignatius Loyola, Therera of Avila, st. John of the Cross, and many other Catholic/Protestant authorities in my personal library. But unlike most westerners, ive taken a deep interest in Judaism - orthodox Judaism. I am thus able to see clearly how Christianity and Judaism follow different directions, and how in some ways, they are light years apart.

Am i saying one is more right then the other? No. Im merely pointing out that Judaism is the authentic continuation of the Hebraic Mosaic code - while Christianity can make no such claim without contradicting itself, that is, Christianity betrays almost everything the mosaic code represents - which is the concept of law, order, and boundaries, and rather, embraces pagan metaphysics, the so-called "perennial philosophy" present in every religious tradition. Christianity is inherently anti-nomian. Nothing in the Christian scriptures teaches one HOW to live. It just gives abstract philosophical principals which could be practiced in a seemingly endless number of ways. Infact, one could argue that the seeds of secularism were planted within the Christian tradition, to blossom forth later on.

That "which just goes to show how far apart" thing bothers me. You cannot be suggesting, can you, that mainstream Jewish thought has ever been anywhere close to what you have put forth?

In the late 18th century, after a full 2000 + years of Rabbinic Judaism, reform Judaism was created by Abraham Geiger. Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, is not traditional Judaism. It doesnt acknowledge Halacha - religious law, and even disavows the divinity of the Torah - that it was given by God to man - and even the historicity of the Torah - seeing it as nothing more than a book of moral advice. Modern Orthodox Jew resent reform Judaism for its complicity in turning Jews away from Judaism. What is Judaism afterall but its traditional teachings? Reform Judaism wipes it all away. They disregard Talmud, Maimonides, Rashi, and all the great commentators of traditional Jewish instruction. No wonder the intermarriage rate in America is so high! Theres no reason for a Jew to embrace Judaism; especially if there is nothing religiously significant about being a Jew. Why maintain it? Its pointless. A Jew born into Reform or conservative naturally veers to secularism - as has happened in America - and thus intermarries and his children become non-Jews. Reform and conservative thus contribute - knowingly mind you ('to eliminate the opiate' a book by Marvin Antelman, discusses the Sabbatean and Frankist roots of Moses Mendelsohn, Abraham Geiger and other Reform and Conservative idealogues) to the complete dissolution of Judaism, and Jews. Something not even the Catholics and Muslims could accomplish, the secular Jews of America, Europe, and Israel did in a few hundred years.

No wonder the popularity of the Ba'al Teshuva movement in Judaism - the return to authentic orthodoxy. Judaism simply doesnt make sense outside the original tradition. To boot, reform is more gnostic in its foundations then Jewish. Reform disregards - blatantly - commandments against homosexuality, licentiousnss, etc. They dont even keep Kosher, reform rabbis! They honestly make a mockery of the written law. So whatever 'modern' non orthodox Jewish theologians have to say, it isnt representative of historical Judaism. You may call it Neo-Judaism, if you'd like. But dont confuse it for Judaism.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

You and I recognize very different authorities, at times. To me it appears you have leapt out of theologically based metaphysics, retaining a pinch of medieval alchemy, and dragged that, kicking and screaming, into numerology.

Im not sure what you mean by this. My entire personal theology is based on the metaphysical interpretation of the "old testament".

As for numerology. It is an inherent part of the Hebrew language; the numerical dimension of the Hebrew language alludes to deeper metaphysical connections between different realities. So, Echad and Ahavah - one and love, equal 13 (Bob Marley himself was interested in Hebrew, which Rastapharian mystics derived from earlier traditions), aswell as "avi" - 'my father' signifying that the power of unification lies in the masculine principle, while the feminine principle signifies multiplicity.

...

Am i saying one is more right then the other? No. Im merely pointing out that Judaism is the authentic continuation of the Hebraic Mosaic code - while Christianity can make no such claim without contradicting itself, that is, Christianity betrays almost everything the mosaic code represents - which is the concept of law, order, and boundaries, and rather, embraces pagan metaphysics, the so-called "perennial philosophy" present in every religious tradition. Christianity is inherently anti-nomian. Nothing in the Christian scriptures teaches one HOW to live. It just gives abstract philosophical principals which could be practiced in a seemingly endless number of ways. Infact, one could argue that the seeds of secularism were planted within the Christian tradition, to blossom forth later on.

That "which just goes to show how far apart" thing bothers me. You cannot be suggesting, can you, that mainstream Jewish thought has ever been anywhere close to what you have put forth?

In the late 18th century, after a full 2000 + years of Rabbinic Judaism, reform Judaism was created by Abraham Geiger. Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, is not traditional Judaism. It doesnt acknowledge Halacha - religious law, and even disavows the divinity of the Torah - that it was given by God to man - and even the historicity of the Torah - seeing it as nothing more than a book of moral advice. Modern Orthodox Jew resent reform Judaism for its complicity in turning Jews away from Judaism. What is Judaism afterall but its traditional teachings? Reform Judaism wipes it all away. They disregard Talmud, Maimonides, Rashi, and all the great commentators of traditional Jewish instruction. No wonder the intermarriage rate in America is so high! Theres no reason for a Jew to embrace Judaism; especially if there is nothing religiously significant about being a Jew. Why maintain it? Its pointless. A Jew born into Reform or conservative naturally veers to secularism - as has happened in America - and thus intermarries and his children become non-Jews. Reform and conservative thus contribute - knowingly mind you ('to eliminate the opiate' a book by Marvin Antelman, discusses the Sabbatean and Frankist roots of Moses Mendelsohn, Abraham Geiger and other Reform and Conservative idealogues) to the complete dissolution of Judaism, and Jews. Something not even the Catholics and Muslims could accomplish, the secular Jews of America, Europe, and Israel did in a few hundred years.

No wonder the popularity of the Ba'al Teshuva movement in Judaism - the return to authentic orthodoxy. Judaism simply doesnt make sense outside the original tradition. To boot, reform is more gnostic in its foundations then Jewish. Reform disregards - blatantly - commandments against homosexuality, licentiousnss, etc. They dont even keep Kosher, reform rabbis! They honestly make a mockery of the written law. So whatever 'modern' non orthodox Jewish theologians have to say, it isnt representative of historical Judaism. You may call it Neo-Judaism, if you'd like. But dont confuse it for Judaism.

In short, this not the first time declarations of "What is" are made without support or attempt to lead another to the same conclusion-- which really ends the discussion of what you bring forth-- as valuable as it may be.

General indictments of those holding contrary views without making use of a mirror to see if those agreeing also can be so indicted-- that is not persuasive-- it is a red herring.

reply to post by Frira

General indictments of those holding contrary views without making use of a mirror to see if those agreeing also can be so indicted-- that is not persuasive-- it is a red herring.

What i didnt quite understand in this statement is "with those agreeing also can be indicted". Who are "those agreeing"? I understood the first part. That you hold contrary views and im apparently making a "general indictment" against your views.

It seems to me you can make any assertion - no matter how illogical, or fanciful it may be - and claim that im not putting up a "mirror" to see myself from your perspective. Therebye establishing a basic "logic" - which is really just a relativism - that i will never be able to penetrate.

If im misunderstanding you, im sorry, its late, and my mind is hazy.

Do you get though that contemporary "Judaism" is not Judaism, but merely Jews who profess a new religious theology and connect it to the Tanach? If you say this Judaism has theological merit, as much as that claimed by Traditional Judaism, i really dont see how you come to that conclusion. They may create their own religion. But they do not possess a proper metaphysics of the Bible they claim to be masters of (rabbi means 'my master'). It is simply an unabashed arrogation of the Rabbinic tradition which has led astray millions of Jews from their ancestoral religion.

This being so, i resent the malfeasance of it all.

But this isnt to assume i dont acknowledge an equal, albeit, peripheral significance to other religions. I think every revelation, each religion, manifests a different and unique aspect of the universal principle, or God. God relates to man, and reveals himself in a novel way, through a unique culture, language, and people, via the general revelation they recieved in their ancestoral past. So i think each has a truth and merit. Each constitutes its own "world" - since cosmos means just that. Each cosmology reflects mans own relationship to God.

I do however attribute a central significance to the Hebraic revelation because of its universal significance - in that the Torah begins with the creation of the world and then follows it up with a geneaological, or archetypal (since both ideas reflect two sides of the same coin), delineation of the root races of mankind.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

General indictments of those holding contrary views without making use of a mirror to see if those agreeing also can be so indicted-- that is not persuasive-- it is a red herring.

What i didnt quite understand in this statement is "with those agreeing also can be indicted". Who are "those agreeing"? I understood the first part. That you hold contrary views and im apparently making a "general indictment" against your views.

It seems to me you can make any assertion - no matter how illogical, or fanciful it may be - and claim that im not putting up a "mirror" to see myself from your perspective. Therebye establishing a basic "logic" - which is really just a relativism - that i will never be able to penetrate.

If im misunderstanding you, im sorry, its late, and my mind is hazy.

Do you get though that contemporary "Judaism" is not Judaism, but merely Jews who profess a new religious theology and connect it to the Tanach? If you say this Judaism has theological merit, as much as that claimed by Traditional Judaism, i really dont see how you come to that conclusion. They may create their own religion. But they do not possess a proper metaphysics of the Bible they claim to be masters of (rabbi means 'my master'). It is simply an unabashed arrogation of the Rabbinic tradition which has led astray millions of Jews from their ancestoral religion.

This being so, i resent the malfeasance of it all.

But this isnt to assume i dont acknowledge an equal, albeit, peripheral significance to other religions. I think every revelation, each religion, manifests a different and unique aspect of the universal principle, or God. God relates to man, and reveals himself in a novel way, through a unique culture, language, and people, via the general revelation they recieved in their ancestoral past. So i think each has a truth and merit. Each constitutes its own "world" - since cosmos means just that. Each cosmology reflects mans own relationship to God.

I do however attribute a central significance to the Hebraic revelation because of its universal significance - in that the Torah begins with the creation of the world and then follows it up with a geneaological, or archetypal (since both ideas reflect two sides of the same coin), delineation of the root races of mankind.

No. I was referring to the ranting list of sins of modern Jews and Christians embracing secularism-- apparently because they read without numeric understanding.

But the discussion moves toward a dead end-- I know from experience. Coming soon to a post near me is something to the effect of "because in Hebrew the numeric value of 'angel' and the numeric value of 'dark' are both prime numbers, then we are to understand Angels and darkness are related in a metaphysical way." And when that happens-- and it has-- the conversation comes to a screeching halt.

All that may be valid, but the sense of it fails to be delivered. That you disparage contrary views and have a medieval cipher as THE support for your statements of certainty that your view is correct... Where do we go?

I know where I go. I think ,"It means what it means-- Hebrew is not a secret code to be deciphered." Then, I throw up my hands knowing the thread is lost.

Originally posted by Pocky
reply to post by Darkblade71

 

This is the only other place that I have heard of cartoon like demons, aside from one I saw in my dreamscape, one time, a hideous one.

www.spiritlessons.com...

I saw demons around this boy, that resembled cartoon figures. There was Dragon, BoyZ, Ben 10, Pokémon, Doral, etc. "Lord, why is this boy here?" Jesus showed me a large screen of this boy's life. I saw how he would spend all of his time in front of the TV, watching these cartoons.

Jesus said, "Daughter, these animated cartoons, those movies, those soap operas that are seen daily on TV are satan's instruments to destroy humanity...Look, Daughter how this came to be." I saw how the boy was rebellious and disobedient toward his parents. When his parents talked to him, he would run away, throwing things and disobeying them. After this happened, a car ran over him and ended his life. Jesus told me, "Ever since then, he has been in this place."

- the boy ended up in Hell

edit on 24-10-2011 by Pocky because: (no reason given)

Who gave three stars to this bullsnip? Come on, own up.

Watching cartoons will damn you to the fiery lake forever? Ricockulous.

Satan's tools to destroy humanity? More like God's "children" are probably bored as hell (excuse the pun) having to sit in an empty room at 5am reading from fictional books about floods and carpenters.

I assume "Dragon, BoyZ" in the quoted post should be "Dragonball Z" which is an AWESOME cartoon/anime which if the hardcore Christians would get their heads out their asses would realise is all about teaching life lessons such as loyalty, friendship, good and evil etc in cartoon and comic book form. Damn, one of the main villains was an arrogant prince who acted superior thinking he was more powerful than the hero who had lived on Earth most of his life and became like an Earthling but then eventually realised that power didn't come from how strong you were, it was how much you believed in doing the right thing.

That villain then became one of the good guys and protected his Earth born wife and son as well as his new found friends.

If that's Satan's plan, to teach us all right from wrong as kids by using tv shows, cartoons and comic books then maybe people have been worshipping the wrong guy?

reply to post by Darkblade71


I agree with you on that.
That stuff can suck you down.

PLPL

reply to post by Frira

No. I was referring to the ranting list of sins of modern Jews and Christians embracing secularism-- apparently because they read without numeric understanding

Oh..ok, thanks for describing my posts as "rantings". And it has nothing at all to do with a lack of "numeric understanding". Infact, many secular gnostic Jews - who follow a "reform" Judaism subscribe to the hidden mysteries of the Hebrew language.

Again, shows how little you know.

But the discussion moves toward a dead end-- I know from experience. Coming soon to a post near me is something to the effect of "because in Hebrew the numeric value of 'angel' and the numeric value of 'dark' are both prime numbers, then we are to understand Angels and darkness are related in a metaphysical way." And when that happens-- and it has-- the conversation comes to a screeching halt.

What on earth are you talking about?? Youre a little bit of a headcase Frira. I never once said that - so i dont know where you get "and it has". Dont believe me? fine. There are HUNDREDS of books on gematria and i am not the first person to refer to this.

Ancient Jewish Rabbinic writings from as far back 200 BCE, like Sepher Yetzirah and Bahir, talk about this. Its an ANCIENT system, inherent to the Mosaic tradition. Not only is it ancient, but all languages possess to some degree or another a metaphysical dimension at the level of numerology. Koine Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, English...

All that may be valid, but the sense of it fails to be delivered. That you disparage contrary views and have a medieval cipher as THE support for your statements of certainty that your view is correct... Where do we go?

Honestly. WTF are you talking about? This has got to be one of the worse posts i have ever seen you write. My mention of gematria was parenthetical to my post. It wasnt an argument; just an interesting dimension to Hebrew that i thought you would have the mental capacity to understand and appreciate. Clearly, it is too annoying for you to accept. It is something i encounter often with Catholic, Muslims - - essentially anyone who subscribes to a thick dogma that allows for nothing that could jeapordize their faith in it.

Do me a favor, Frira. I'll ignore you, and you can ignore me. These replies annoy the hell out of me and given your replies to me - i seem to annoy you. So lets spare ourselves further annoyance and ignore each other. Because clearly you sdont know how to disagree without offending the person youre speaking with at a personal level ie; my posts are "rantings", misrepresenting my arguments to make me look idiotic - ala saying that 'gematria' was my argument for why reform isnt true Judaism. REREAD over my post. I never made that argument. I made a sane and logical argument for why Reform is not Judaism. If you dont like it, fine, ignore.

and BTW - i am not against secularism. But at the same time, i do not grovel before its doctrine as if it were the only truth. Maybe to a Christian - tied to the ancestoral consciousness of ancient Rome - it is a truth. But to a Jew - and for that matter, Muslims aswell, secularism makes no sense, because has played no part within their history nor their scriptures. Both Islam and Judaism, are theocratic religions. Halacha - lit. "way to walk", is designed to eliminate from the unconscious of the people lower tendencies, or tendencies strengthened by the secular mentality, associated with Non - Jewish religions.

So you could call me a libertarian, i guess. I am both conservative and liberal. Liberal, in that i dont reject secularism, but also conservative, in that i acknowledge the beauty and worth in the state being used as an instrument to enforce the laws of religion. I guess you could say im even more liberal - that is, accepting of differring views, because i dont reject those views which disagree with my own. While you get all cranky the instant someone disagrees with your own belief in the truth of secularism ie; dualism.

Th

reply to post by curious7


Well, I gave one star for contribution.
As for the other stars, couldn't tell you.
I appreciate the input.
It is what I asked for.