Translated? (Enoch)

[allodial]

Well Hiero-glyphics, hiero-phant. Hier+archy. Hero/Pharoah--shepherd; chauffer.

Consider a priest as a trustee over people's minds, hearts, souls or lives. The rogue priest seeing profit conceals or ditches the original trust agreement or first estate, those he watches over might not know better if he sets himself up as "GOD". It has been widely suggested that such is what Cain (aka Sargon) did and Nimrod, they created 'religious systems' as a means of political, economic and social control over those they SOUGHT TO LIVE OFF OF (as in to consume their productivity). Consider the dust of the field being 'unregenerate and carnal men'. Consider the priest that is up-and-up being focused on making sure those under his or her trust live their lives to the fullest in upright ways. The rogue is about himself and his own profit. Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Keepers tend to protect who or what they are entrusted with. Did Cain protect Abel?

Anyways, its possible to avoid confusing carnal political control 'religion' from the good stuff.

[Michael Joseph]

Well Hiero-glyphics, hiero-phant. Hier+archy. Hero/Pharoah--shepherd; chauffer.

Consider a priest as a trustee over people's minds, hearts, souls or lives. The rogue priest seeing profit conceals or ditches the original trust agreement or first estate, those he watches over might not know better if he sets himself up as "GOD". It has been widely suggested that such is what Cain (aka Sargon) did and Nimrod, they created 'religious systems' as a means of political, economic and social control over those they SOUGHT TO LIVE OFF OF (as in to consume their productivity). Consider the dust of the field being 'unregenerate and carnal men'. Consider the priest that is up-and-up being focused on making sure those under his or her trust live their lives to the fullest in upright ways. The rogue is about himself and his own profit. Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Keepers tend to protect who or what they are entrusted with. Did Cain protect Abel?

Anyways, its possible to avoid confusing carnal political control 'religion' from the good stuff.

In the Egyptian Hieroglyphs there exists a story of the "Feather of Maat". The idea is that when one died his/her heart was weighed in the balance and if it was lighter than Maat's feather then he/she could pass. Later hieroglyphs showed a priest of AMU holding onto the scales with one hand which in this writers mind indicates that the priesthood had seized upon the concept of Salvation. Such that the priesthood was actively selling their interpretations for money [tithe]. There is nothing new under the sun. Fear of Hell was sold to the masses and the priests took their seat in power and office.

It is a shame that those who are given much to know many times use their knowledge to burden other men. Instead of a life given to service, these becomes parasites. Nevertheless there is a positive and negative sides to all things.

We find that Peter fished all NIGHT long and caught nothing in his own undertakings. But we also find that the Shepherds who watched their flock by Night were the first to see Christ. But at the dawn comes Jesus [enlightenment : water turns to wine] with instruction and then Peter is overwhelmed by the many GREAT FISHES which are truths.

Nevertheless in regard to religion:

Mat 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

Is it not the job of the priest to provide food for the people? Instead we see the priests with their hand on the balance. And we read:

Proverbs 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

And hell is apparently, I am told, a place of no escape. And yet:

Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Fear is indeed a powerful toehold on the minds of man. And now there is an annointing that one can receive such that a priest [outwardly] is not needed. Thusly there is no need for those who wold rip off the flocks - Sons of Eli.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The foregoing is the Spiritual inward path = The Way of Matthew 15:32.

[george]

Consider a priest as a trustee over people's minds, hearts, souls or lives.

I'd rather not.. lol j/k but that is just insane, no? (those people)

The rogue priest seeing profit conceals or ditches the original trust agreement or first estate,

breech of trust? how did he get the first estate? Im still working on comprehending trusts in general.

those he watches over might not know better if he sets himself up as "GOD". It has been widely suggested that such is what Cain (aka Sargon) did and Nimrod, they created 'religious systems' as a means of political, economic and social control over those they SOUGHT TO LIVE OFF OF (as in to consume their productivity).

I read somewhere that the first notions of property and ownership developed out of religions.

Consider the dust of the field being 'unregenerate and carnal men'. Consider the priest that is up-and-up being focused on making sure those under his or her trust live their lives to the fullest in upright ways. The rogue is about himself and his own profit. Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Keepers tend to protect who or what they are entrusted with. Did Cain protect Abel?

that is a lot to consider.

Anyways, its possible to avoid confusing carnal political control 'religion' from the good stuff.

TBH at this time its hard for me to imagine that any religion is good stuff, and its not for lack of trying either but Im not done yet.



MJ, some have said that Hieratic script was the first cursive writing which would seem to indicate that it was used to hide things or keep secrets. interesting post and I at least agree with "there is a positive and negative sides to all things"

thanks

[allodial]

Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spirtual and physical, where would you or anyone else be? You would call it 'religion'. But where would you be without the light of truth? I'm not talking about perversion of truth for immoral political ends and objectives. Do you want the chaos of the heretical Gnostics where everything goes even murder is OK? Probably not.

As for cursive writing being used to hide something that makes little sense. In my studies it seems that cultures that were highly stratified with a small ruling elite and a large underclass promoted pictographic writing. Consider China (why is it that there is so little talk about the political structure of China in the MSM?), they have thousands of hieroglyphic characters. Typically the wealthy and elite learn them all or most of them or know way more and the 'plebes' who are left with a small and meager vocabulary. In contrast there is phonetics. In the USA, since WWII, there has been a trend to undermine phonetics in education and to instead teach the asinine "word picture" or "whole word" style of reading. The idea of using 'cursive' to hide something makes little sense and to suggest such seems very misleading because there is little difference in uncial and cursive in that they are both fundamentally phonetic. I have studied linguistics for decades. If you look at John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education he gets into the phonetics vs. 'word pictures' style of teaching reading. Hiding something would probably tend to focus on pictographics vs phonetics.

A book that gets into development of "Hebrew" (aka Chaldee): Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew by Joshua Blau.

As for ancient Egyptian in the book of Genesis: Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths. Beware of the Babylonians because they have been claiming to be the source "of all things", when that might not be true. They try to claim Babylonian origins of Genesis, etc. when evidence is quite to the contrary--ancient Egyptian words that predate Babylon are found in the text.

Want to hide something with cursive writing? LOL--nonsense. You could make your own language or script instead. Consider this instead (as contrasted with phonetics):

My thesis is that university students, generally speaking, are academically unprepared for a rigorous education because they are victims of the whole-word method of reading instruction. The whole-word method created a crisis of vocabulary. The vocabulary crisis made books inaccessible to students, which then necessitated a drop in content-knowledge levels. This lack of content knowledge made it futile for teachers to expect students to think critically and independently. The system then created a number of ways to cover up this problem. (source)

Word pictures, like hieroglyphics would tend to hide the phonetic nature of speech and etymology of words. If you study linguistics you'll see how its possible to control a people's entire reality through the words you teach them or don't teach them. Understand vs overstand (they left that one out). Consider 'upon' vs 'on' vs. 'in'--in and on are much the same word in other languages. (He was "upon the land", he was "on the land" vs "he was in the land". )

Regarding religion and such: IT WAS (PROGRESSIVE) HORACE MAN "FATHER OF COMMON (COMMUNIST) SCHOOLS" IN AMERICA THAT FIRST ATTACKED PHONETICS AS A METHOD OF TEACHING READING SKILLS. SURPRISE: THE FATHER OF COMMON SCHOOLS (OR PUBLIC EDUCATION) WAS ALSO THE FIRST TO ATTACK A SOUND APPROACH TO READING SKILLS -> IT SEEMS THAT DUMBING PEOPLE DOWN WAS HIS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE ALONG WITH HIS COHORT JOHN DEWEY.

Horace Mann (1796-1859) has been called the "father of the common schools." I have seen no history book to date that bothered to tell anyone that Horace Mann was a Unitarian, a member of a "Christian" denomination that denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Unitarians, especially in the New England states, were in the front lines of the struggle to implement compulsory public schools.

The Unitarians felt that Christian schools were backward. They felt that education must be concerned with "liberty" and that "liberty" came from the state, not from God. In their eyes, education, to fulfill its calling, had to be government-run. Mr. Mann felt that government-run schools would rid the nation of crime, poverty, sin, etc., within a century. Well, the century has passed, and guess what? To say that Mann's claim was erroneous would be a gross understatement. (source)

Horace Mann helped bring about the start of the progressive tide that began to sweep big American cities starting in the 1880s. In many ways the progressives were reactionaries, rebelling against all that was the past: religion, non-centralized society, faith, and a flawed humanity. They were also certain that the new age of industrialization and science was the new path that would help them to help society evolve into what it could be – rational and ultimately perfectible. (source)

They attacked that societies weren't overly-centralized and that power wasn't centralized in a few--and they attacked existing religion as part of their objectives.

Horace Mann is the person credited with starting government-run education in the United States in 1839. He learned his techniques {from} Prussia. His motivation was to end education by Christians. Horace Mann was a Unitarian, did not believe in the inspiration of the Bible, or the Trinity. Horace Mann's religion was Secularism.'

John Dewey, in the 1920s and 1930s, really established Horace Mann's principles. He introduced the concept of "Humanistic education as a religion." Dewey was President of the American Humanist Association and a signer of the first Humanist Manifesto. He saw Christianity as a huge problem that needed to be solved. Dewey's religion was Secularism.'

Horace Mann visualized a world where no one would be in the prisons, a virtual utopia, if he could just get Christianity out of education. He has largely succeeded, and the result is horrible in terms of teen pregnancies, abortions, assaults, robberies, murders, rapes, vandalisms, and the list goes on. Horace Mann, in his idiocy, predicted utopia, but he got the currently increasingly awful mess. (source)

"Secularism" ...communism. "State as God". Maybe that's the kind of religion you might prefer instead, george?

The first schoolman to seriously challenge what is known today as phonics was Friedrich Gedike, a disciple of Rousseau, director of a well-known gymnasium in Prussia. In 1791 he published the world’s first look/say primer, A Children’s Reader Without the ABC’s and Spelling. The idea was to eliminate drill. Kids would learn through pictures following suggestions the legendary mystic and scholar Comenius set down in his famous Orbis Pictus of 1657. (source, PDF-page 89) --The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto

Also:

• Why Do Students Regard Reading as Torture?
• If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, Why An Egyptian Word for Noah’s Ark?
• Decrypting Education In America

[xparte]

Spiritual . . . But Not Religious

"Fearlessness is the first requirement of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral." -- Mahatma Gandhi Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spiritual and physical, where would you or anyone else be? Theodore Nottingham: The Knowledge of the Essenes The Essenes were an advanced and highly evolved race of people," Nottingham observes. "Much of their time was devoted to the study of ancient texts, various branches of the healing arts, (and) there were also those who travelled far and wide through the various centers they maintained."

In very modern terms, Nottingham explains how, "(l)ike many of the ancient gnostic groups, the Essenes believed that humankind was made up of three aspects: the body, mind and emotions." "The ultimate goal of the individual," he explains, "was the evolution, not only within him or herself, but also in regards to the planet and universe as a whole. The body was the outer means through which this was expressed, while the mind was seen as the inner manifestation, and creator of thoughts and emotions, which the body then responded to and acted upon. Thought was therefore considered to be the highest, most powerful force in the universe, as it was seen as the instigator of both feeling and action.

"The Essenes," Nottingham points out, "therefore trained themselves to harness this power in a positive way, knowing that each thought effected the lives of everyone on the planet through the vibrations they sent into the collective unconscious." It appears to me that wealth and how much one required forgiveness for that wealth. it was the greatest need that both spiritually and morally Men became wealthy within the church. Spiritually Christ has little need for a latin mass or a protest and Reformation of the word. When Christ cant accept himself he would have just become religious and thats just not acceptable Spiritually.I impart the obligation is pure of heart.

[george]

Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spirtual and physical, where would you or anyone else be?

You would call it 'religion'. But where would you be without the light of truth?

thats an interesting thought to ponder actually. with so many truths and insights though things get very confusing. heck just the words we use are confusing once you start to "change the mind" (forget everything we thought we knew and start over. repent?) for instance: "light of truth" not unlike "state of kansas", or the constitution "of" instead of the constitution "for".

not to say that I think you are being deceptive at all allodial, Im grateful you are here and to be able to converse with you about these things! and youre at least part of the reason that i even notice what i might have not before, had you not been posting your truths here and elsewhere.

I'm not talking about perversion of truth for immoral political ends and objectives. Do you want the chaos of the heretical Gnostics where everything goes even murder is OK? Probably not.

TBH it doesnt seem we are too far from that now and in many ways we are there. men acting as cops and soldiers seem to get away with murder often, no? and this is a large part of the reason I now question everything including my own long held beliefs in jesus. its not easy (very few could even deal with the thought of this even) life was much easier prior but this is where im at now and that is subject to change too.

where would we be? a different world, that is near certain.

As for cursive writing being used to hide something that makes little sense.

yes, but i meant not so much the cursive part (but that does have the element of curse it seems) the hieretic but that is all new to me so more investigation needed.

In my studies it seems that cultures that were highly stratified with a small ruling elite and a large underclass promoted pictographic writing. Consider China (why is it that there is so little talk about the political structure of China in the MSM?), they have thousands of hieroglyphic characters. Typically the wealthy and elite learn them all or most of them or know way more and the 'plebes' who are left with a small and meager vocabulary. In contrast there is phonetics. In the USA, since WWII, there has been a trend to undermine phonetics in education and to instead teach the asinine "word picture" or "whole word" style of reading. The idea of using 'cursive' to hide something makes little sense and to suggest such seems very misleading because there is little difference in uncial and cursive in that they are both fundamentally phonetic. I have studied linguistics for decades. If you look at John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education he gets into the phonetics vs. 'word pictures' style of teaching reading. Hiding something would probably tend to focus on pictographics vs phonetics.

A book that gets into development of "Hebrew" (aka Chaldee): Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew by Joshua Blau.

see, this is why Im grateful and thankful to converse with you here. Im just now realizing that linguistics is a key, if not the key needed to unlock a major portion of life's mystery and so having the opportunity to discuss with those who have so much experience is invaluable. Im so glad you are here and share it with us allodial.

As for ancient Egyptian in the book of Genesis: Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths. Beware of the Babylonians because they have been claiming to be the source "of all things", when that might not be true. They try to claim Babylonian origins of Genesis, etc. when evidence is quite to the contrary--ancient Egyptian words that predate Babylon are found in the text.

will check that out and probably have more questions too. thanks

Want to hide something with cursive writing? LOL--nonsense. You could make your own language or script instead. Consider this instead (as contrasted with phonetics):

Word pictures, like hieroglyphics would tend to hide the phonetic nature of speech and etymology of words.

yes I see, for the longest time Ive thought that hieroglyphs pre-date written word.

If you study linguistics you'll see how its possible to control a people's entire reality through the words you teach them or don't teach them. Understand vs overstand (they left that one out). Consider 'upon' vs 'on' vs. 'in'--in and on are much the same word in other languages. (He was "upon the land", he was "on the land" vs "he was in the land". )

yes, i agree, it is certainly a worthwhile study.

Regarding religion and such: IT WAS (PROGRESSIVE) HORACE MAN "FATHER OF COMMON (COMMUNIST) SCHOOLS" IN AMERICA THAT FIRST ATTACKED PHONETICS AS A METHOD OF TEACHING READING SKILLS. SURPRISE: THE FATHER OF COMMON SCHOOLS (OR PUBLIC EDUCATION) WAS ALSO THE FIRST TO ATTACK A SOUND APPROACH TO READING SKILLS -> IT SEEMS THAT DUMBING PEOPLE DOWN WAS HIS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE ALONG WITH HIS COHORT JOHN DEWEY.





They attacked that societies weren't overly-centralized and that power wasn't centralized in a few--and they attacked existing religion as part of their objectives.

thats probably who got rid of teaching parsing. I never even knew what parsing was until discovering David-Wynn: Miller, he mentioned it and why it was stopped from being taught. he has a very unique insight into laguage for sure if not the most unique.

"Secularism" ...communism. "State as God". Maybe that's the kind of religion you might prefer instead, george?

i dont think so, at least not "state as god" and dont know enough about secularism. communism is interesting only becasue I worked with three men from russia for a while who had been through alot over there then made it to america (their dreams come true or so they thought) and had been here for a couple of years and they left to go back to russia with a very bad taste in their mouth from our system. even said that communism sucked but was much better than the ways here because of the nickel and dime to death operations of our governmental system. said they actually had better living circumstances in soviet russia than here in the early 2000s these were good guys too, very intelligent and hard workers so that has always stuck with me and I could relate so much to the nickle and dimed to death, havnt looked at comunism the same since then either but Im not ready to endorse it yet either.

Also:

• Why Do Students Regard Reading as Torture?
• If Genesis Borrowed from Babylonian Epic, Why An Egyptian Word for Noah’s Ark?
• Decrypting Education In America

thanks for the suggestions here and the time and effort youve spent again too. also, please forgive me if I might make you angry or disgusted from time to time, not my intent at all. just trying to learn and not the best writer either.


thanks

edit:

Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths

OK, this is an interesting read.. all new to me the egyptian creation stories. what I noticed was that in all these creation stories, the water preexists/wasnt created, no? also, I thought Id read that elohim was plural and that is why some text read "let us create him"

also more aware now of an opposing story, that of the babylonian origin which obviously you dont subscribe to but since im not familiar with it or exactly why one or the other matters, I think I need to look it up now too. if you can further clarify any of this, it would also be helpful.

thanks

[allodial]

Spiritual . . . But Not Religious

"Fearlessness is the first requirement of spirituality. Cowards can never be moral." -- Mahatma Gandhi Without truth or insight about reality and life and laws spiritual and physical, where would you or anyone else be? Theodore Nottingham: The Knowledge of the Essenes The Essenes were an advanced and highly evolved race of people," Nottingham observes. "Much of their time was devoted to the study of ancient texts, various branches of the healing arts, (and) there were also those who travelled far and wide through the various centers they maintained."

In very modern terms, Nottingham explains how, "(l)ike many of the ancient gnostic groups, the Essenes believed that humankind was made up of three aspects: the body, mind and emotions." "The ultimate goal of the individual," he explains, "was the evolution, not only within him or herself, but also in regards to the planet and universe as a whole. The body was the outer means through which this was expressed, while the mind was seen as the inner manifestation, and creator of thoughts and emotions, which the body then responded to and acted upon. Thought was therefore considered to be the highest, most powerful force in the universe, as it was seen as the instigator of both feeling and action.

"The Essenes," Nottingham points out, "therefore trained themselves to harness this power in a positive way, knowing that each thought effected the lives of everyone on the planet through the vibrations they sent into the collective unconscious." It appears to me that wealth and how much one required forgiveness for that wealth. it was the greatest need that both spiritually and morally Men became wealthy within the church. Spiritually Christ has little need for a latin mass or a protest and Reformation of the word. When Christ cant accept himself he would have just become religious and thats just not acceptable Spiritually.I impart the obligation is pure of heart.

There was more than one sect known as "The Essenes". A most fundamental principle is to do with reaping and sowing (i.e. reaping what one sows). The Bible doesn't tell necessarily tell you that you CANT sow things that would come back and destroy you, instead the good priest and good shepherd encourages those under his care to AVOID doing things that would result in a 'destructive reaping cycle'. Homosexual males hate the idea of someone telling them that engaging in sexual practices can cause disease and destruction. But just because they hate it, it doesn't change the law of reaping and sowing. "ignorance" instead of referring to "lack of knowledge" might be instead referring to active "ignoring or avoiding" any input associated with the truth as a way of avoiding liability (i.e. to practice cluelessness as a lifestyle so as to have a reason for lacking accountability.)

[george]

I impart the obligation is pure of heart.

that of the Essenes? as you have described them here, i think so too.

There was more than one sect known as "The Essenes".

how so?

"ignorance" instead of referring to "lack of knowledge" might be instead referring to active "ignoring or avoiding" any input associated with the truth as a way of avoiding liability (i.e. to practice cluelessness as a lifestyle so as to have a reason for lacking accountability.)

yes, i also think that is what ignorance means and it seems obvious, and in that same way one who lacks knowledge would be twice ignorant i guess since the knowledge was possible.


thanks

[allodial]

thats an interesting thought to ponder actually. with so many truths and insights though things get very confusing. heck just the words we use are confusing once you start to "change the mind" (forget everything we thought we knew and start over. repent?) for instance: "light of truth" not unlike "state of kansas", or the constitution "of" instead of the constitution "for".

There might be many perspectives or observations but I dunno how there can be "many truths" in the sense of two things holding true but conflicting.

On the topic of 'state of Kansas'..."Kansas" (like "Florida" or "Bavaria" or "Belgium") is technically is the name of a nation. The estate they formed was called State of Kansas. "Constitution of the State of Kansas" is a title of the document. However "Constitution of the State of Kansas" can also refer to its collective makeup (principles, laws (written and unwritten), etc.). The Federal Government calls its districts states. The Constitution of the United States is a general reference to the jurisprudential makeup of the Federal State known as "the United States". The Constitution for the United States of America refers to a document because that very same document bears such self-reference. That which constitutes --constitution. The by-laws of the State of Kansas set forth by the nation (i.e. the association of People which call their association "Kansas"). Kansas is not the State of Kansas. The (e)state of Kansas comes out of (is 'of') Kansas the nation. First one has to determine what a "Kansas" is...it is a name of a nation--the name of an association of people who associate under or through the name "Kansas" (not much different than a tribe). Federal districts of (associated with) Kansas are regarded to be states also.

IMHO terms like "Kansas Constitution" should be viewed with caution because they don't necessarily mean what they seem to mean. As in "Constitution of the State of Kansas" and "Kansas Constitution" aren't necessarily the same. With "Kansas Constitution", "Kansas" seems to act as a modifier of "Constitution". "citizen of Kansas" and "Kansas citizen" don't strike me as being the same. Similarly, "Constitution of Kansas" is not the title of a document based on the document called "Constitution of the State of Kansas". Constitution of Kansas appears to be a reference to the general makeup of the order, realm, nation, real, state or people associated under the name "Kansas".

The term "state of Kansas" is a generic reference to the estate of the nation called Kansas ("the People of Kansas") which is formally known as "the State of Kansas"--the name of the state as distinct from the state itself. The independent and free state of Missouri (the nation) is stiled "The State of Missouri". What they left out of high school is that Missouri, Florida, Georgia are nations. Missourian is a nationality. "The State of Missouri" is not the same as "the State of Missouri". In the first "The" is not operating as "the". A Missourian is technically foreign to the United States. The People don't necessarily live in the estate they formed. Just because you and I buy land and declare certain areas to be "commons", that doesn't make our private dwellings part of that estate, does it?

Despite all of the progressive thinking, I'm not sure how the United States could be regarded as an organic nation.

Linguistics can be used as a weapon. Attention to detail is an important part of defense IMHO.

TBH it doesnt seem we are too far from that now and in many ways we are there. men acting as cops and soldiers seem to get away with murder often, no? and this is a large part of the reason I now question everything including my own long held beliefs in jesus. its not easy (very few could even deal with the thought of this even) life was much easier prior but this is where im at now and that is subject to change too.

That's militant atheism arising out of heretical gnostic ideas. They will not get away with it. They only seem to, but they are mistaken as to the consequence. The longer it takes the rock to fall....

where would we be? a different world, that is near certain.

Among other things, the evidence is that brown-skinned Christian and fair-skinned Christians tended to get along quite well until the heretical Gnostics started meddling with things. There are rumors suggesting the "Gay Agenda" is an indirect tactic of "White Supremacy"--a tactic to diminish the rights of brown-skinned people by associating with persons who claim cultural affinities based on their sexual fetishes (how does one identify primarily with a sexual fetish and call it a culture?). Or is it a tactic to diminish the rights of everyone? Seriously, as much intelligence and potential a man can have, for one to based his identity on how he sexually pleasures himself seems to be bottom rung. A society of engineers, a society of doctors, a society of seamstresses, makes sense. But a society of buggerists, felatioers or strap-oners? How does that happen? The association of traditional sexual taboos with "Blacks being free" seems to be a type of assault.

Speaking of hieroglyphics, word pictures and art.... ^

...meaning is the “holy grail” not only of linguistics, but also of philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience—not to mention more distant domains such as cultural and literary theory. --Foundations of Language by Ray Jackendoff

Speaking of linguistics: there is the use of linguistics as weaponry, subversion through modification of original meaning or intent. Take the term "homophobia" which means fear (phobia) of the same technically but is redefined to mean "hatred of homosexuals". Disgust is redefined by the same Bolshevik politicals as 'hatred'. Because someone might be disgusted should one stick one's finger ones arse and pick one's nose right or because someone suggests doing to same to be disgusting or could make you sick --that is simply disgust and concern. But the politicals behind the Gay Agenda use have been attempting to redefine 'disgust', 'fear' as 'hate'. The same have spent quite a lot of energy to redefine 'gay' from the original meaning of 'happy' to refer to someone who has a penchant for buggery or other associated sexual fetishes.

This gets more to the OP: There are 'occultists' who suggest things like words or letters having power in and of themselves. Perhaps they know the truth and are operationally bent on hiding it. In any case, it seems rather evident to me that words and letters are tools of expressing meaning. The word 'word' itself is similar to the word 'veritas' or 'verdad' (in Espanol): which means truth. But when we say 'word' we mainly are referring to letters assembled to mean something. gay means happy. But to the Gay Agenda psychologists, politicians and spin-doctors: gay refers to men who identify with unhealthy sexual practices. In all honesty, there is really no such thing as a lesbian--at least not among females who have yet to reach menopause.

In warfare, disrupting communications by jamming useable radio frequencies is not an uncommon tactic. Politically or on the PYSOPS level, attempts at the the same kind of jamming or disruption has been carried out through attacking 'meaning'.

Related:
What Is Militant Atheism?

[xparte]

It appears to me that wealth and how much one required forgiveness for that wealth.[reaping what you sow ]it was the greatest need that both spiritually and morally Men became wealthy with reaping what was planted in there head within the church. Spiritually Christ has little need for a latin mass or a protest and Reformation of the word. When Christ cant accept himself he would have just become religious and thats just not acceptable Spiritually.I impart the obligation is pure of heart.The Bible doesn't tell necessarily tell you that you CANT sow things that would come back and destroy you, instead the good priest and good shepherd encourages those under his care to AVOID doing things that would result in a 'destructive reaping cycle'. Homosexual males hate the idea of someone telling them that engaging in sexual practices can cause disease and destruction. a spiritual destruction is not just a religious taboo all good shepherds prey on ignorance not intellect why a good priest is moral or cowardice is a spiritual choice perversion of truth is a Man,s agenda what section of the essenes that are politically correct is of no spiritual wealth knowing a man thats gay or ig noring all ignorance is still of no spiritual wealth tell a guy not to be gay is who,s ignorance or fetish if millions of christians were spiritual the pedophil priest would never sheperd cowards formless and void thats the spiritual or ritualistic nonsense being slung the moral void is truth not forming it i impart the obligation is pure of heart. we created the void where ever cowards form the greater the void what sect does it for me Christ row 3 section 7 season tickets and ignorance.