Why Women Destroy Nations, Civilizations

[David Merrill]

#1 Isn't every woman the daughter (planting) of a another man? (Female being one of two biospiritual modes of man)
#2 What or whom do you suspect the man is planting during normal copulation?
#3 What exactly is the pre-menopausal and ovulating female advertising other than the availability of eggs?
#4 Whose DNA and bloodline any given female advertising? Rejection of the idea of procreating with a particular female is refusal to facilitate continuing a specific bloodline or DNA.
#5 Is birth control bio-spiritually deceptive? (Hint: You bond with her as might be necessary if she was going to bring forth a child but due to birth control she is effectively infertile. You get the sense of liability and anticipation without the fruit.)

P.S. Onan's sin was refusing to procreate as required not in merely spilling his seed.

Many good questions, Allodial:


#4 Whose DNA and bloodline any given female advertising? Rejection of the idea of procreating with a particular female is refusal to facilitate continuing a specific bloodline or DNA.

Or blending one?

This is (conversely) the point I make about Abraham taking Isaac up to the summit of Mount Moriah to sacrifice him. The notion God is out there is just that absurd. Would not that make Him that insecure? - That he needs somebody to kill his son to prove the subject believes?

Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.

[allodial]

I persist: it was passe to in that day for people to sacrificing their children to mere idols. Abraham was tested but it was revealed that the God he had taken to did not want him to sacrifice his son. Post #40 revised BTW.

Many good questions, Allodial:


#4 Whose DNA and bloodline any given female advertising? Rejection of the idea of procreating with a particular female is refusal to facilitate continuing a specific bloodline or DNA.

Or blending one?

Eggs and sperm as packages. Apparently women are 'striped'. Something like: the male elements of DNA (her fathers') are said to remain in the body and show up as 'stripes' but are present nonetheless in a passive mode.



A father's disappointment over having only daughters might be subconscious revelation that he has managed to replant himself only into 'passive mode': meaning other men will the be locus of control for reproductive continuity. Feminism ends with truth because the idea of women being a separate and independent species is patently fallacious.

It gets deeper when you consider how the subconscious of the newborn child might be affected by the subconscious makeup of his or her mother (and father and their fathers and mothers and so on).

[David Merrill]

Very well. Sorry to make you persist.

It just seemed quite pertinent to the discussion. The recombining of DNA.

[allodial]

It just seemed quite pertinent to the discussion. The recombining of DNA.

Quite relevant I'd say.

[Michael Joseph]

#1 Isn't every son or daughter the planting of a man? (Female being one of two biospiritual modes of man)
#2 What or whom do you suspect the man is planting during normal copulation?
#3 What exactly is the pre-menopausal and ovulating female advertising other than the availability of eggs? Hint: she is expecting to attract men capable of inseminating and fertilizing the eggs.
#4 Widely overlooked consideration: Whose DNA and bloodline is any given female advertising? Hint: rejection of the idea of procreating with a particular female is refusal to facilitate continuing a specific bloodline or DNA.
#5 Is birth control bio-spiritually deceptive? (Hint: You bond with her as might be necessary if she was going to bring forth a child but due to birth control she is effectively infertile. You get the sense of liability and anticipation without the fruit. Proof that people aren't 'born gay' is that hysterectomies result in loss of interest in sex but this is covered up due to $$$$.)

P.S. Onan's sin was refusing to procreate as required not in merely spilling his seed.

Here is the AMAZING thing that the physical act of coitus reflects the Mental Act between the thought and desire. The seed or Sperm is the thought. So when I look upon Abram and Sarai - I see a degraded state of being in fallen mankind. What I mean is when you consider the "turtledove" and why it is a bird of sacrifice acceptable to Yah - it is a lesson unto the knower. For the turtledove pair lay two eggs and these two are male and female - and these two when they hatch are mates for life. This is akin to Adam - Eve. Also it is a perfect picture of the regenerated mind/heart - you could say 1/2 brother [mind] and 1/2 sister [heart].

Now physically Abram could not impregnate Sarai so emotion intervened. It was not until the body was circumcised which is really a story about the mind being regenerate that Abraham [a regenerate mind / or circumcised flesh] could impregnate Sarah [Spirit Womb]. Abram in his flesh [which is akin to his Carnal Mind] could only impregnate the "woman of emotion".

Now when one rises over flesh and blood and starts to see that Spirit is couched in these physical symbols, then one can begin to see with new eyes that the fleshly stories couch deeper meaning of the workings of the Mind and Creation.

In regard to sense of insecurity in women well the world of carnality is a place of burning - Sodom - or Gehenna if you like. For we are told that Jesus was SPIRITUALLY crucified at Sodom and Egypt.

The woman may only offer herself thus she submits to the advances of a man. For her egg is Static - Nevertheless - she receives seed [thought - sperm] and conceives seed and gives birth to a child. Now the question remains is the seed "good or bad" - see parable of the Sower. But also in what "type" of womb is the seed placed. Meaning was the nature of the Womb fear or emotion or was the nature of the womb Love and Faith. Thusly the character of the Woman is important for NO MAN ever gave birth to a child. Consider that FACT:

Now consider the following in the Mental realm:

Isa 54:1 “Sing, O barren one, you who did not bear! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you who have not been in labour! For the children of the deserted one are more than the children of the married woman,” said YeHoVaH.

Isa 54:2 “Enlarge the place of your tent, and let them stretch out the curtains of your dwellings, spare not. Lengthen your cords, and strengthen your stakes.

Isa 54:3 “For you shall break forth to the right and to the left, and your seed inherit the nations, and make the deserted cities inhabited.

Comment: A city is symbolically a place of consciousness. A nation is therefore a great archetype in thought. Nevertheless we see this will manifest without as too within.

Remember it was said of the "woman" that she would be saved in child birth. For this is her anointing. Notice now the birth of Jesus in Mary [a Church] but if you prefer I use physical terms [a Womb]. The Holy Spirit entered into her [Feminine nature of GodHead] and the Power of the Most High [YHVH - male nature of GodHead]:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Comment: YHVH sowed seed in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Seed was conceived of the Holy Spirit and placed in the Womb of Mary. Mary is a surrogate. Now the Holy Seed was sown in the Church and the Church was to nurture said Holy Seed and birth the Elect Children - sister/brother churches [children].

I refuse to judge one who engages in any sexual activity - their consciousness judges them - and who am I to sin against God and man - as judge for at Romans we read that those who judge and condemn others are close to hell fire themselves. There is but one judge. Nevertheless, we may look to nature as our guide.

The carnal mind is not to rule the temple. For at once carnality is hatred against God. Now then how do we procreate with our Minds? Do we spill the seed or is the seed to be placed in a womb? Consider the external physical reality reflects the Spiritual inner reality. Which is more real? Spirit or Matter? And which proceeded the other?

To my experience Mind always proceeded creation - thusly I believe in faith that Spirit understands Matter. Thusly if one studies Matter and its operations, one may get a better handle on Spirit.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Returning to the enlargement of the tents - Paul was a tent maker yes? Now we see - so are We who teach truth. Not literally - but merely in analogy. For the letter killeth but the Spirit gives life. One reads a book with limited consciousness and has limited understanding from said book. Others read the book with greater consciousness and have a greater understanding.

The Holy Seed birthed in the Church brings forth the children [fruits] of the Spirit:

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Now then the husbandman that plants the seed has right of the first fruits.

2Ti 2:6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

Rom_11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Comment: Did you see that? Firstfruits is PLURAL. There are multiple harvests. But notice again the Husbandman that labored to plant seed in the Earth is YeHoVaH [male nature] WITH the Holy Spirit [female nature] and this pregnancy was placed in the Church [Mary] and birthed from her Womb. Again, Mary is a surrogate.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Comment: The seed of the set-apart Woman is the "testimony of Jesus Christ" which is the "spirit of prophecy" and also she keeps and obeys the commandments of God thusly she voices and acts in accord with said Law and Prophecy = Moses and Elijah [Ref. Mount of Transfiguration]. But she does not act in her own accord she follows the Direction of the Holy Spirit acting in her. For she has submitted to that leadership! Wives submit yourselves unto your Husband. For even the Scriptures say the Holy Spirit or the Comforter comes in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Shalom,
MJ

[allodial]

As I've asserted before, the male-female marriage relationship is a model that reveals truth (i.e. things otherwise mysterious). This is one reason marriage is targeted by the Vampire Cabal, it reveals truths they want to monopolize. Abraham and Sarah don't need to be merely symbolic or allegorical because the male (conscious/superconscious) and the female (subconscious) can be read in actual, tangible relationships between husbands and wives. Likewise with the potter (actor/male) and his clay (acted-upon/female) or the artist (actor/male) and a substrate such as a canvas (female).

[David Merrill]

Many good questions, Allodial:


#4 Whose DNA and bloodline any given female advertising? Rejection of the idea of procreating with a particular female is refusal to facilitate continuing a specific bloodline or DNA.

Or blending one?

This is (conversely) the point I make about Abraham taking Isaac up to the summit of Mount Moriah to sacrifice him. The notion God is out there is just that absurd. Would not that make Him that insecure? - That he needs somebody to kill his son to prove the subject believes?

Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.

I persist: it was passe to in that day for people to sacrificing their children to mere idols. Abraham was tested but it was revealed that the God he had taken to did not want him to sacrifice his son. Post #40 revised BTW.

Very well. Sorry to make you persist.

It just seemed quite pertinent to the discussion. The recombining of DNA.

Quite relevant I'd say.

Here is the AMAZING thing that the physical act of coitus reflects the Mental Act between the thought and desire. The seed or Sperm is the thought. So when I look upon Abram and Sarai - I see a degraded state of being in fallen mankind. What I mean is when you consider the "turtledove" and why it is a bird of sacrifice acceptable to Yah - it is a lesson unto the knower. For the turtledove pair lay two eggs and these two are male and female - and these two when they hatch are mates for life. This is akin to Adam - Eve. Also it is a perfect picture of the regenerated mind/heart - you could say 1/2 brother [mind] and 1/2 sister [heart].

Now physically Abram could not impregnate Sarai so emotion intervened. It was not until the body was circumcised which is really a story about the mind being regenerate that Abraham [a regenerate mind / or circumcised flesh] could impregnate Sarah [Spirit Womb]. Abram in his flesh [which is akin to his Carnal Mind] could only impregnate the "woman of emotion"...

Shalom,
MJ

I enjoy the quasi-medical and biological interpretations MJ. You really demonstrate for me how the Bible teaches lessons that are so holographic, that can be taught and learned on so many levels.

Simplifying my point; when I spoke of Abraham and Sarah's incest, being half siblings to a Jewish-studied qabbalist there was quite a reaction and defense. There is a lot of guilt there, actually, a cover up. The cover story being taught is that Sarai was Lot's daughter, not Terra's. A couple weeks of study though and it comes down to we really best accept what the Bible teaches, whether allegorical metaphor or not.

Myself, I believe that at about that time, we are at a juncture between history and metaphor as far as the actual people; but that the lessons are open to interpretation and in such are eternal in value.

So in persisting...


The question really comes down to allegorical or not, was Abraham half-brother to Sarah? Ancient papers tell that Sarah's mother was Tehevita and Abraham's mother was Yoni - both wives of Terra, their father.

The only reason to persist for me is that I feel the whole deal of sacrifice evolves around guilt. - Meaning that is what drove Abraham to putting a knife to Isaac's throat when he reached puberty.

The turtledove analogy is helpful but not backed by actual biology. The female does not lay male and female eggs. I looked briefly and find nothing about the in-nest monogamy too. But bringing that midrash into the discussion is very interesting indeed. Especially that this characteristic, true or not, makes the turtle dove an approved sacrifice.

The guilt of Abraham would also include that he allowed Sarah to murder Hagar, and dying of dehydration is horrific. But that the issue survived - Ishmael - to father twelve Arabic nations, always in conflict with the resulting decision to allow Isaac to survive the intended sacrifice is important symbology. What we can do here is remember that the Israelites were hard-hearted and stiff-necked too.

So I am undecided whether or not the whole sacrifice issue is about genetics or guilt?

[allodial]

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. They may also have been separated by a generation (grandchildren). In those days and even as recent as the 70s and 80s grandsons and grandaughters were regarded as sons or daughters grandparents.

As for Abram's family and society having a moral upper hand, he was required to come out from them, to abandon their faith. Anyone claiming "We're OK cos we were Abraham's neighbors" would be claiming to be the very people Abraham was required to abandon and come out from among. The idolatry among Abram's society before he experienced any spiritual regeneration has been widely discussed. Even if Abraham could be traced back to a specific tribe in Indian or in the land of Kush or the like, there is nothing in the Tanach that suggests those people to have had the moral upper hand. Why would Abraham have been called out from them and required to leave them if they were morally upright?

Also, even among the Hindus, Brahman has a personality rather than being merely impersonal.

P.S. There is plausible evidence in Jeremiah having planted the Hebrew faith among Cyrus' forebears though some suggest that planting to have become highly 'paganized' over time: as in a link between Jeremiah and Zarathustra and Buddha though Jeremiah's doctrines are said to have been mingled with syncretism over the centuries. The reason Buddhism and Christianity may have similarities is that rather than being because of Christianity borrowing from Buddhism it may very well be quite the other way around. This is important because recent religious figures have tried to suggest Christianity to be a knockoff of some Buddhist play. I also discern that Orthodox Christianity had reached China and Japan and that mysteries behind World War II and the spread of Communism in Asia was to destroy the ancient Christian legacy (and I'm not referring to Simonianism). The timeliness of Jeremiah in Persia and the births of Zarathustra and Buddha's (Shakya-muni?) birth is quite interesting. The continuity and consistency between the teachings of Jeremiah and bible-based (orthodox) Christianity seems to be quite strong. It would not surprise me if the Communists in SE Asia were primarily out to destroy the Hebraic-Melchizedekic doctrines that Jeremiah planted in Persia. Look what the Communists did in Armenia, Western Europe and the Soviet Union: they attacked Israel's legacy and the royal, priestly line of the one named at Exodus 3:14. When one has the right perspective, Jacob's Time of Trouble is more clearly perceived. Anyone siding against that legacy should prayerfully and humbly consider the ramifications of doing so.

Zarathustra (ZOROASTER) appeared from eastern Iran in the region of Hara and Bactria. His original doctrine was monotheistic and even Biblical in character. After Zoroaster's death, his religion was paganised by the Median tribe of Magi, even though the original message had been Hebraic. Zoroaster, according to Iranian tradition had been taught by the prophet Jeremiah or by one of Jeremiah's pupils.

Related:
{Abram} - the Son of A Sumerian Oracle Priest

[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.