Why Women Destroy Nations, Civilizations

[David Merrill]

Dear Allodial;

You are a wonderful asset - your library.

Though I'm not sure how Abraham or Sarah were "Jewish" in the sense of Judeans or Judahites since Judah was yet born, I can perceive merit in considering why people ever felt the need to sacrifice anything even to idols and to consider the nature of the psychology behind it. Is it innate? Or is it systematically taught? Is it because of guilt or is it a means of avoiding guilt (speaking of a tendency or perhaps character and propensity toward blaming someone else)?

However, one thing I don't get is why they (Abraham and Sarah) would have would feel guilt about something that was acceptable in their society. Though possible they may have been siblings of different mothers.

Today I do not run into any professed Israelites, they are all Jews - formed in Babylon. It was a Jewish qabbalist who defends that they were not half-siblings, in the same manner that you do by offsetting a generation.

Is it because of guilt or is it a means of avoiding guilt (speaking of a tendency or perhaps character and propensity toward blaming someone else)?

It may be projection/reflection on my part but you validate my hypothesis well. Should sin actually be the emotion and feeling that God is separate and even angry then this all fits together well. Sacrifice in itself is a sin. Which brings us back to Passover; that blood was a mark, a taboo or oath sworn to paint on the doorposts showing faith. Since families were ordered to share, so that the lamb could be better consumed completely the Passover Lamb was not and is not a sacrifice at all.

Again, I see what I want to see; but I spend a lot of time researching and trying to be objective while I do. It looks to me that a pastor will utilize guilt for the collection plate but when you call him on it, the Blood of Jesus is quickly redacted to a Mark of Faith like Exodus 13:16 in the Libel of Review:

Exo 13:16 And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.

However it is acceptable to speak of Jesus as the perfect sacrificial lamb by substitution for the animal sacrifices in bible studies. Interestingly, I can easily adjust this by bringing to mind that the Passover Lamb is not a sacrifice and the Substitution described is sealing up the Veil, rather than tearing it top to bottom. Saying that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial laws is to say that the sacrificial laws were functional to begin with.

[allodial]

Today I do not run into any professed Israelites, they are all Jews - formed in Babylon.

The Israelites were called Christians at Antioch.

It was a Jewish qabbalist who defends that they were not half-siblings, in the same manner that you do by offsetting a generation.

Your own objectiveness is appreciated likewise. I can easily accept that they may have been children two different mothers of the same 'generational level'. Like 'academic retroprojection', I am not the sort to be an apologist to the point of weaving fig leaves to cover the fact of Abraham and Sarah's sibling-ness. I don't see the need to, persay, "make a lie seem true as a alleged favor to God". I consider that all of the possibilities could have been true. Though I suspect it to be most like that they were of different mothers. I find no reason to project Mosaic law back in time. Thusly if they were siblings of different mothers but the same father, how can I find them guilty retroactively? So like many 'academic, fig-leave garment weaver-retrofitters' I am not necessarily finding a need to cling to the falsely-constituted psychological liferaft or comfort-blanket of Abraham and Sarah not being siblings of the same father. Either way, Mosaic law was yet imposed. I'm speaking of my approach rather than pointing the finger at anyone else's approach: if it makes me wince if someone else were to do it, it also would make me wince if I do it.

I see Abraham and Sarah as Hebrews rather than "Jews". Babylon AFAIK was yet established. While modern "Jews" may rightly find an affinity with Abraham and Sarah, to call Abraham and Sarah Jews seems to be a kind of 'retroprojection' (even if only for the reason that Abraham and Sarah predate Darius and Cyrus by a long, long way). There is a someone holding themselves out as a Biblical anthropologists who (though her writings are quite interesting) insists that Abraham lived in Edom--kind've like saying the Iroquois lived in New York prior to the Mayflower arriving. So I aim to keep a strong objectivity. I figure the Most High is capable of providing adequate safety nets as I persist in truth.

It may be projection/reflection on my part but you validate my hypothesis well. Should sin actually be the emotion and feeling that God is separate and even angry then this all fits together well. Sacrifice in itself is a sin. Which brings us back to Passover; that blood was a mark, a taboo or oath sworn to paint on the doorposts showing faith. Since families were ordered to share, so that the lamb could be better consumed completely the Passover Lamb was not and is not a sacrifice at all.

Again, I see what I want to see; but I spend a lot of time researching and trying to be objective while I do. It looks to me that a pastor will utilize guilt for the collection plate but when you call him on it, the Blood of Jesus is quickly redacted to a Mark of Faith like Exodus 13:16 in the Libel of Review:

...

However it is acceptable to speak of Jesus as the perfect sacrificial lamb by substitution for the animal sacrifices in bible studies. Interestingly, I can easily adjust this by bringing to mind that the Passover Lamb is not a sacrifice and the Substitution described is sealing up the Veil, rather than tearing it top to bottom. Saying that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial laws is to say that the sacrificial laws were functional to begin with.

I'm amazed at how that (the identification) and the notion of a ransom payment to a hostile adversary could be missed by so-called pastors. Its like missing a herd of giraffes grazing the middle of the highway. I've met someone (a Roman Catholic though I'm not suggesting her to speak for anyone else but herself though some kind of infiltration of the RC organization and Vatican has been widely suggested) who outright asserted God himself to have crucified Jesus and to have taken pleasure in it. But yet the NT shows Jesus/Yeshua/Yehoshua (?) as defeating an adversary at the Cross. Hmmm.

On the topic of identifying with the blood, Smith Wigglesworth gave a very interesting sermon about a regenerate orthodox (lower-case 'o') Christian man who visited a seance motivated by unctions to prove his faith. When the seance started, he proceeded to "plead the blood" (i.e. he asserted identification with the blood). The seance leader had trouble starting and she sought through her means to speak into the spirit real as to why the seance would not proceed. Apparently after an hour they failed to get the seance under way. The seance leader came up with the explanation from the spirit realm: "Something about the blood" or "Someone here has belief in the blood." (They may as well have said "Someone here identifies with the Blood of the Lamb.")

I have first-hand witnessed many similar effects (I could not in honesty deny what I witnessed repeatedly first-hand) of someone 'pleading the blood' in encounters with dark-side occultists, tarot card readers, etc. "Sorry the pool is closed today for some reason. Come again tomorrow?" A key reason black magicians are out to wipe out orthodox Christianity is because they think doing so would end the general embargo and impediments to black magic in the spiritual realm since ~30 A.D. Those in Rome that relied on oracles were incensed at Christians when the oracles stopped working after the Crucifixion. so they set out to slaughter those Israelites. It is widely suggested that Adolph Hitler was very much aware of this and saw Christianity/Israelite priests of any kind as an impediments to restoring "ancient, pure occultic practices" he may have deemed to have been 'original to his ancestors'.




The original Smith Wigglesworth sermon that I read was from a different book.