24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matthew 25:
Muslim’s claim descent from Adam, as a matter of fact they claim to be the original man and the conceit of being the perfect man. This informs their belief that they are a type of royalty, even though they are the most illiterate group of people on their planet. From their perspective everything and everyone is under their authority and subject to their judgment and punishment. They are the original, the final, and the only cause of the good and everything they do is good because they are the one’s doing it. You can manufacture this manner of stupidity when you have an illiterate people who can’t read themselves, and is told what to do, think and feel by a very small priest class. It is difficult to not be flippant on this subject or respectful even because it is so, so, stupid. Let’s examine. . .
Âdam ( Arabic: آدم, translit.: ʾĀdam, Alternate Spelling: Adem ) is believed to have been the first human being and the first prophet and messenger in Islam. Adam’s role as the father of the human race is looked upon by Muslims with reverence. Muslims also venerate his wife, Eve, as the “mother of mankind”. Muslims see Adam as the first Muslim, as the Qur’an promulgates that all the prophets preached the same faith of submission to God. His story is told in theQur’an in numerous places, though his Qur’anic narrative differs from that in the Torah in some aspects.
According to the Qur’an, God Created humankind out of clay, shaped it to a form and then commanded the angels to bow (submit) to Adam. Iblis (Devil) refused out of pride and was banished from Jannah (Heaven). Iblis was one of the jinn to begin with.
Coming after the Jews, they take the Jewish story and make it about themselves, dismissing everyone and everything that came before themselves as irrelevant. The interesting way this gets interpreted is that anybody that doesn’t recognize the superiority of the Muslims, is Iblis, this is why they refer to the jews as shayateen, Satan, and the United States as the Great Satan.
In an article previous to this I mentioned the phonological similarities of the word ibis and Iblis and the fact that Thoth has the head of an Ibis and I find this very significant. I will get into more of that later. Now, let’s use my Jewish exegesis to discover why Muslims cannot be descendants of Adam as they say.
Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or – simpler – interpretation of text inTorah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:
- Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — “plain” (“simple”) or the direct meaning.
- Remez (רֶמֶז) — “hints” or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
- Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: “inquire” (“seek”) — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
- Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in ‘bone’) — “secret” (“mystery”) or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.
First of all the Christians got it wrong, perhaps intentionally, the forbidden fruit was not sex it was in all actuality the human brain, it was the tree of knowledge after all. And in partaking of it one becomes like god. The whole purpose of life on earth was to be like god from the ancient perspective, in living you were performing Theurgia, the work of god. You balanced out the 4 elements fire, water, earth, and air just like god did. In living as a human you were attempting to understand god, this is what separates us from the angels and makes us their superiors. Secondly, since all will is god’s will the devil is actually doing gods will, “The devil is god’s hitman.” my saying and you can quote me on that.
When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, which is essentially heaven or the Yin world… (http://adstc.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/the-yin-world/) …they were happily unconscious not thinking with their brains but with their emotions, they didn’t have to think about practicality or survival, everything was provided for them. Now that they had chosen to be like god they had to live consciously not like ignorant little animals. Now here is the kicker, Muslims don’t do their own thinking, they reject thinking, they have a priest class to do their thinking for them. Most of them are illiterate and Saudi Arabia translates fewer books into their language than Greece does, and Greece has a much smaller population, Muslims are largest, fastest growing population on earth, reproducing irresponsibly. Muslims never left the Garden of Eden so they can’t be descendants of Adam.
Secondly, they rejected the temple of Thoth in Egypt, as a philologist I frankly think the word thought comes from the Egyptian god Thoth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language) I suspect that they named their devil Iblis after the ibis headed Thoth and made him their Satan. Intelligence and wisdom and reason is their Satan. Thoth was a scribe, he recorded things, which means that he had memory, Muslims refuse to remember, they lie about history. In the UK they banned teaching the Holocaust in school to avoid offending Muslims. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445979/Teachers-drop-Holocaust-avoid-offending-Muslims.html)
Muhammad was very clever in an insane, evil, stupid kind of way. He re branded the old evil traditions and superstitions of Babylon as a new religion carrying on in the tradition of Moses and Jesus, when their reforms were to remove the co mingling of the insane, evil, murderous, social climbing Persians from their midst and rank. What he tried to do and is being somewhat successful in doing is making it as though Christianity and Judaism never happened, and extending the Persian empire as was always their tyrannical instinct and purpose.
Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, and competitors. Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes. Such changes typically aim to reposition the brand/company, occasionally to distance itself from negative connotations of the previous branding, or to move the brand upmarket; they may also communicate a new message a new board of directors wishes to communicate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebranding
Muslim’s are the children of the lie, and they spread their religion by lying, concealing the evil of it, lying about history and their deeds and their intent, killing anybody that tells others what they are really about and snickering all the while as their evil plan succeeds. The Pharisees in the bible that plagued Jesus were of this creed, it is obvious from the rhetorical tautologies in their narrative and from Jesus own words, “don’t even step foot in a samaritan encampment…”
mathew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
Matthew 10: 16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
The Samaritans are adherents of Samaritanism, an Abrahamic religion closely related to Judaism. Based on theSamaritan Pentateuch, Samaritans say that their worship is the true religion of the ancient Israelites prior to theBabylonian Exile, preserved by those who remained in the Land of Israel, as opposed to Judaism, which they say is a related but altered and amended religion, brought back by those returning from the Babylonian exile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans
Remember if you will how the Pharisees lost debate after debate to Jesus, and they were constantly asking him questions to put him in a trap, where either he would say something illegal by Roman Law, or by Rabbinical Law. This same philosophical battle wages today. Jesus argued against the violent interpretation of the law from the old testament. Argued against stoning women. Argued against a violent revolution. And when he spoke to the Roman leaders they respected him because he spoke with authority, they treated him as an equal.
In ancient Rome, Auctoritas referred to the general level of prestige a person had in Roman society, and, as a consequence, his clout, influence, and ability to rally support around his will. Auctoritas was not merely political, however; it had a numinous content and symbolized the mysterious “power of command” of heroic Roman figures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas
Muslims claim that Jesus was a prophet of Allah, not true, he serves another god. But if that was the case why then do they have this obsession with the Pharoahs of Egypt that persecuted the Jews?
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
So, who are they really? Well I am glad you asked.
But recite unto them with truth the tale of the two sons of Adam, how they offered each a sacrifice, and it was accepted from the one of them and it was not accepted from the other. (The one) said: I will surely kill thee. (The other) answered: Allah accepteth only from those who ward off (evil). Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, lo! I fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. Lo! I would rather thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me and thine own sin and become one of the owners of the fire. That is the reward of evil-doers. But (the other’s) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he slew him and became one of the losers. Then Allah sent a raven scratching up the ground, to show him how to hide his brother’s naked corpse. He said: Woe unto me! Am I not able to be as this raven and so hide my brother’s naked corpse? And he became repentant. For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth. (Surah 5:27-32 Pickthall)
If you carefully read this transliteration, and you deconstruct the vagueness’s, obfuscation, and manipulations you see that they are defending the one that killed his brother and placing blame for the killing on the one that got killed. It is unbelievable, they are saying that the one (unnamed) whose offering was accepted, wanted to kill his brother, he didn’t say it, he thought it, and apparently the murderous one had the ability to read minds even though god didn’t accept his sacrifice. “But (the other’s) mind imposed on him the killing of his brother, so he slew him and became one of the losers…” how is that not insane? You forced me to kill you with the power or your brain, but I forgive myself because Allah forgives me. (smh)
One last thing I have said how throughout history these two different peoples strove one against the other, an epic battle between good and evil. Ponder this after everything I have told you, who are muslims really descended from?
Ahura Mazda (/əˌhʊrəˌmæzdə/;), (also known as Ohrmazd, Ahuramazda, Hourmazd, Hormazd, and Hurmuz,Lord or simply as spirit) is the Avestan name for a higher spirit of the Old Iranian religion who was proclaimed as the uncreated spirit by Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda is described as the highest spirit of worship in Zoroastrianism, along with being the first and most frequently invoked spirit in the Yasna. The literal meaning of the word Ahura means light and Mazda means wisdom.
BELOW IS A RELATED ARTICLE, RABBINICAL LINEAGE OF SOME PEOPLE GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO EGYPT, SOME PEOPLE POSSESSED THE SECRETS AND THEY TOOK THE SECRETS WITH THEM ON HOW TO BUILD, YOU HAD TO EARN THE RIGHT TO BE PRIVY TO THOSE SECRETS AND NOT EVERYBODY WAS ABLE TO PASS THE INITIATIONS. IF THEY HAD ACCESS TO THOSE SECRETS THEY WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THEM IF THEY WERE CAPABLE.
I am trying to explain to people what I do and how I make predictions based on my psychological models. Because people are acquisitively mimetic, they copy behaviors that they see being rewarded. People copy whatever behavior they think of as winning behavior when they want to win. So when one person succeeds in a certain behavior people emulate that behavior and that creates social patterns. When society rewards these patterns it increases the frequency in which we see the pattern repeated and it also increases the intensity of that pattern.
The Psychologists Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal developed this concept of thin slicing in their treatment of married couples. What they found as they interviewed couples and then went back over the tape is that there were two expressions that repeatedly signaled the near demise of the relationship, disgust and contempt. Depending on the frequency and intensity of these expressions the relationship could be determined to be very close to ending.
So I observe in conversation, on the media, in human behavior these patterns and I make predictions based on them. So what does this mean for the near future? Society is about to get a divorce? No, much much worse. The first thing I noticed when I saw Richard Dawkins for the first time was the frequency with which he would flash this feral micro expression of disgust. And then I observed the Fundamentalist Drift of Science as the Dawkinites conflated themselves with science, I call them the cheerleaders of science. And then I noticed the increased hostility of the conversations in the narrative and dialogue on the internet. If you observe the body of evidence I have put together on this blog (http://atheistfallacies.wordpress.com/) you can see that I am not making these claims lightly. I have spent a long time doing social experiments on these people to find out exactly where their heads are at.
Most people aren’t smart enough to detect Richard Dawkins subtle subterfuges in his rhetoric. What he propounds as a philosophy is not a philosophy at all and he is not a philosopher, he is a revolutionary propagandist. He has conflated the hatred of God (misotheism) with atheism and atheism with science. What he is trying to do and succeeding at is making science into a machine to attack religion. He is creating an environment where children can be exposed to the casual ridicule and hatred of religiosity, so that they start to think not only is it normal it is also good. And then he wants to build a bridge for them into the scientific fields and into upper academia, where they will put their prejudices to work, harassing religious people and preventing them from going into certain fields. What he is doing is so dangerous and insidious and deliberate.
This conceit that Atheists have that atheism is new, no it isn’t. Socrates was accused of being an atheist. So ask yourself why have you never heard of that one Atheist culture that was so successful? Because Atheism is unviable as a form of government. There are certain things science can’t do, and when you try to change what science can do you change what science is. Dawkins is building a testament to his own ego. He wants to be worshiped. He sees himself as a kind of Moses of Science taking his people out of a heathen land.
When Karl Marx wrote his theories on Communism, he thought it was science, they even called it that.
“Scientific socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered byKarl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism“) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes and/or falsification of elements of the theory.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
And when the Germany adopted it, and Stalin adopted it, and Lenin adopted it, they all thought they were doing science and they couldn’t fail. Pure atheist societies are arrogant, heartless, and violent. You can’t use atheism or science or evolution for making an assertion that man should have inalienable rights. They are amoral systems. Dawkins puts religion on trial for all of the crimes that have been committed in the name of religion for thousands of years, Dawkinites assume that atheism is something new. What they are forgetting or ignoring is that while religion has created horrors and atrocities, IT HAS BEEN AROUND AND SUCCESSFUL MORE OR LESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, while atheism has never been successful, ever, for any prolonged period of time.
Atheism is moral and philosophical anarchy, it isn’t a belief system, it is the absence of the presence of the belief that god exists. It isn’t big enough of an idea to make any assertion, you can’t build a law code on it, or a government on it. Atheists might be found that have morality but atheism itself is amoral, and atheists don’t have to come to any agreement on what behavior is and is not acceptable, after all, it is survival of the fittest right? If you survive or succeed you are the fittest. Evolution works!
But yeah, things are bad and they are going to get worse… this I promise.
Baba muktananda used to tell a story about an ecstatic, Muslim mystic that went to prayer, while praying he became overwhelmed with the spirit and started shouting, I AM GOD, I AM GOD, I AM GOD over and over again. The other Muslims dragged him out into the street and counseled him never to let it happen again for it was blasphemous and heretical to say that oneself is god. He apologized and said that he would make a concerted effort to make sure it never happened again. But it did in spite of him. He was drug out in the street and attacked. The man that hit his legs with a stick had his own legs broken, the man that struck his arms had his own arms broken, and the man that struck him in the head developed a concussion. Because when you are in a state of being one with god, all of your enemies blows land on themselves…
The four principal Mahavakyas
Though there are many Mahavakyas, four of them, one from each of the four Vedas, are often mentioned as “the Mahavakyas”. According to the Vedanta-tradition, the subject matter and the essence of all Upanishads is the same, and all the Upanishadic Mahavakyas express this one universal message in the form of terse and concise statements. In later Sanskrit usage, the term mahāvākya came to mean “discourse”, and specifically, discourse on a philosophically lofty topic.[web 1]
According to the Advaita Vedanta tradition the four Upanishadic statements indicate the ultimate unity of the individual (Atman) with Supreme (Brahman).
The Mahavakyas are:
prajñānam brahma – “Prajña[note 1] is Brahman”[note 2], or “Brahman is Prajña”[web 3] (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
ayam ātmā brahma – “I am this Self (Atman) that is is Brahman” (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
tat tvam asi – “Thou art That” (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
aham brahmāsmi – “I am Brahman”, or “I am Divine” (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)
I don’t know if John the Baptist was a real person or not, but the story is too full of hidden symbolism not to be taken as an allegory. Salome is amusing King Herod with a belly dancing strip tease which itself is full of hidden meaning. The dance itself is a metaphor for Isis and Helena Petrovna Blavatsky named her book after this concept “Isis Unveiled”. Seeing Isis unveiled is seeing nature in it’s stark reality. During the dance the performer removes seven veils, the 3 primary and secondary colors and the last one, white. These represent the veils of Maya, illusion. (let us not forget “Salome” means peace and is the female version of Solomon).
One of the forms the Shechinah takes is the rainbow.
Shekinah, Shechinah, Shechina, or Schechinah (Hebrew: שכינה), is the English spelling of agrammatically feminine Hebrew name of God in Judaism. The original word means the dwelling or settling,and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem.
The shechinah is god’s holy spirit or wife. This metaphor is an ancient one. There was a hunter that was such a mighty archer that he was the only person that could pull his mighty bow. In the Ramayana Rama is just such a cat and he is the Indian version of Adam. I personally believe that the Hebrew story of the Garden of Eden is a retelling of the Ramayana.
God gives as a sign he won’t destroy the world anymore by flood the putting of the Rain bow in the sky. God did not however promise that he wouldn’t destroy the world by fire. There is an ancient story about a culture that wrote down it’s mysteries on two pillars, one of marble in case god destroyed the world by fire and one of water in case god flooded the earth (because then the wooden pillar would float and the wisdom would be saved). But I am getting off topic.
The 7 veils are also a metaphor for the 7 days of the week and on the Jewish week the last day is Saturday, it was changed to Sunday by the Catholic Church to conceal origins and truths. On the 7th day god “rested” that is a metaphor for death. 7 represents death. Remember that when Jesus resurrected Lazarus he said that he was sleeping. Now the 7th chakra is actually outside the physical body and that is attained to after one’s mahasamadhi.
Now in freemasonry they also have a 7 chakra system and the final chakra is represented by a sprig of Acacia representing reincarnation.
Remember that John the Baptist was known as “the voice crying out in the wilderness” he represents the voice of god. Jesus was the greater “Moses” and John the Baptist recognizes the superiority of Moses over himself. Remember that Moses never made it to the holy land. In a way he got stuck in the Wilderness/Abyss. So this voice of god comes not from inside our physical organism but from a superconsciousness that nobody will usually make an effort to hear, because being able to hear it means getting close to death.
In order for a philosophy to be valid it has to be unfalsifiable and yet specific, and it can’t create disparate impact. Now if you study enough philosophy you realize that every philosophy is invalid because their is a point at which the philosophy is self contradictory or it fails to get desired results. This has less to do with philosophy and more to do with the nature of the universe being not entirely rational. The universe itself is sometimes rational and at other times irrational. Most people get disheartened when having studied one philosophy they find errors in it. Most people do not study many philosophies and find the errors in those as well. So their is no perfectly valid philosophy which is not to say that philosophy is worthless. Philosophy is very important.
It is very difficult to be rational and yet society, successful society, is based on reason, and the success of that society is directly related to the reasonableness of that society. So while the universe might not be rational, success in relationship is governed by reason.
Relationship and society can only be successful under the auspices of reason. Which means that analysis and not emotion have to govern society. That means that logical fallacies such as emotional appeals cannot make up the majority of the reasoned dialogue if society and relationship are to be successful. Which is to say that the sentimental perspective of women is not equal to that of a mentally and emotionally stable man, educated in logic, debate, and philosophy. Women are incapable of making hard choices. They presuppose a surplus created for them by someone else. When you have these self-appointed moral authorities forcing us, in a failing economy, to give our money to other people while our own cupboards are going bare, instead of creating an ACTUAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM THAT CREATES THE MAXIMUM VALUE FOR EVERYBODY, you have the downfall of a civilization…
You cannot place feminine thinking as an equal with true Reason. It is not equal because it is dependent on it. The feminine principle can only be merciful and charitable out of the surplus created by the masculine principle, in the form of Wisdom, Reason, Logic, Understanding, etc. Analysis and analytical data have to be the basis of the rational relationship.
I created the term “tyranny of reason” as an experiment that I was going to unleash on the world and observe the reaction that people have to it. Due to the nature of the mind being 10x more averse to that which it doesn’t want (my philosophic calculus) people would focus in on the word “tyranny” and react negatively to it. Because human beings are organic computers (in my theories). The female mind making superficial aesthetic snap decisions reacts before it understands. Reason by it’s very nature does not and cannot be tyrannical. But the word “tyranny” has negative survival data to the mind, and in my theories every thing said, or done, every object and person has survival data for the individual, communicating to the individual that they are surviving well or poorly.
REASON IS PREJUDICED
A Meritocracy of Reason also creates disparate impact because not everybody can be equally reasonable. Is Reason prejudiced? or is Reality prejudiced? The only sustainable relationship or society is a tyranny of reason, a system that is prejudiced towards reason and that knows how to recognize it. People always ask me if I am prejudiced and who “my people” are. My response, People that are reasonable. And my love of them is directly related to their ability to be rational in relationship with me.