Why the Angels Rebelled: A Perspective

[allodial]

Phillipians 2:5 is in a larger context pertaining to humility:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

That even being aware of his own Divinity and who he was at the time:

[1] made himself of no reputation;
[2] took upon him the form of a servant;
[3] was made in the likeness of men;
[4] he humbled himself; and,
[5] became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

It is generally sick to me how sexuality is used as a weapon. I was giving some thought the other day concerning a statement one made to me about sexual repression by a certain church. Said one was very angry and as such, I generally do not give too much credence to an angry man. On and on he went about oppression and suppression. After he left, I considered his statements and I thought when something is taboo it is EXCITING. Now if something is "generally accepted" as okay according to the mores and norms of society, then the "fun" and "excitement" is generally removed. So now, reflecting upon this angry man's words, I thought he is a bit double minded. I mean, why does he need someone else to "grant" permission for what he desires to do in his own bed? While I admit there is a fine line to consider, I got a good laugh afterwards. I think said man just likes to be angry. I am sure he would choke on a gnat if I asked him was his sex life exciting.

I think it was you allodial who showed me a book years ago titled "The Rite of Sodomy". While it is a horrible tale, it is quite enlightening in regards to controlling the mind. Furthermore, those who practice sodomy to activate the Jupiter chakra do so to "blow open" all seven chakra's at once. If memory serves me, I believe in that book the practitioners called Sodomy the key of David. In relation to opening and locking doors. Since a door is a gateway one can even see that it may be used to create multiple personas.

It has been suggested that 'immortality' is being sought through sodomy, i.e. stealing access to a body so they can jump to that body after death of their existing body. If they didn't believe in hell or expect bad, bad, bad after-death Karma, they wouldn't be trying to escape disembodiment.

Left hand pathers trying to use the Bible to justify their orgies (in the sense of secret rites worship) is nonsensical. When everything and all flow of thought becomes deemed merely allegorical and symbolic that placing an order for steak and eggs at a restaurant takes the staff 10 hours of meditation and study--no matter how many Koans someone quotes to make it sound good--something is wrong.

The key of David has to do with command over doors and access to things spiritually and physically. Has nothing to do with chakras and buttsex. I actually met someone who a pastoring elder of a congregation said he obtain a powerful vision of having the key of David when he attended a congregation meeting. Now through the years, the stories he has related: people who wanted to screw him over never could, he always had doors open for him and anyone attempting to shut him out of access to things he needed or required could not. They could never stop him from accessing treasures from God's storehouse. Also, he was able to shut doors for protection too. Proof of concept no doubt.

The Key of David in operation: "what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

But this is all generally sick and perverted and I speak to the man and woman in a pure state without perversion. I certainly do not think of the woman who married me as beneath me. In many ways, she is my teacher. And in other ways she is my leader. When it comes to her strengths she leads and vice versa. There is always that "sick mind" which wants to dominate another be it male or female. Unregenerate is unregenerate regardless of form.

Just as a husband's own emotions ought be subjected to holiness and orderlines, so ought his wives'. The husband protects the wife and children assets/valuables. It is the husband's place to protect her from adverse emotionalism and from outside adverse emotional influence. The children are also in the care of the husband. The husband is the head of the wife, he is the most responsible. An admiral in charge of a fleet does not necessarily think lowly of his suboordinates, he is responsible for them and is their protector: his service makes is what him the greatest of them all. The suboordinate who threatens the welfare of the fleet is dealt with accordingly, not necessarily for the admiral's (husband) sake but for the fleet (the children)--the admiral himself is responsible to a higher authority a trustee. Teaching men to lend their power to an emotional and irresponsible being has gone on for too long. It can be rather dangerous.

Its amusing how many teenage boys these days (brainwashed) speak of equality of their girlfriends and equality of women but when faced with the fact that they are expected to risk their lives even give up their lives for a woman (who might be more liability than asset) should she face danger, the theory of equality goes out the window. Many women will look down on the man who allows her to dominate. If equal then you'd flip coin to see who has to deal with the bear that got into the house, wouldn't you? Be not deceived.

If I put A in charge of B, C & D and A yields his authority to B, C or D, A will be responsible for what happens. If you don't think the typical female gets this principle, think again: this is why so many men these days have found themselves raked over the coals with the State.