Daniel

You're there. Well done. God capital 'G' cannot be known ( gnosis ), but, it can be understood as unknowable, ineffable, and mysterious. It can be understood as simultaneously immanent and transcendant. It can be understood as the "source". Once this is readily, fully understood, and accepted as true, a connection can be made with it, but it is indirect. It's an "open-secret", one of my favorite sympathetic-paradoxes known commonly as "hiding in plain sight". The secret is in the "heart". ( in quotes because it is not literally the heart. ) It's theoretically possible to connect intellectually, again, indirectly, but the emotive path is easier ( not easy, easier ) and there's virtually infinite options. Edit to add after reading one of your other posts: One of those options that works for many is God-the-Father. The reason it's popular, is because it works, if it is approached from the heart, not the mind.

First, when you use the words "True Will", that is coming from a specific philosophy. That philosophy positions it, "True-Will" as cerebral, but that is incomplete. If one researches the details of the philosophy, its origin, history, and evolution through time, it's clear to those who know, it is lacking. Although the adherents to that philosophy never appreciate hearing it, and few admit it. In a lot of ways, it matches the identifier "broken lineage". But, it's not intentional. Those who engage in it have no clue, TBH, even though the information is there if they choose to explore it. That said: Please see my quote below: The qualifier that produces the psychopath behavior is at the begining. And it is a universal qualification. Those almost never occur in real life. They are the far extreme, but it's important to be aware of it. And if everything else is ignored, then, a person can (falsely) justify acting on their desires to do anything they want, to whomever they want, at any time. Many people love this idea. It makes them feel like a god. "will" is, naturally, one of the most powerful motivating forces in the human psyche. But it is not "who we truly are" in total. Well, excluding the rare extreme psychopath / sociopath. "will" is an archetype. Understanding it, like so much of human behavior can be accomplished by examining it in the extreme cases, then moderating it. The mechanism which produces the varying outcomes of these archetypes is most clearly evident in the extreme cases. For example, in my country, not naming names, if I want to analyze the archetype of the "corrrupt politician", my first stop is the most corrupt politican I can find. Then once I have deconstructed their behavior, the motivating factors for them, the causes and effects, then I can take that extreme example and look for those elements as they exist in the spectrum of what is considered "common". The reason this works is because a very effective model of understanding and predicting human behavior is by using "vessels". In the extreme cases, like the absolutley corrupt poitician, using this model, there will be a vessel or vessels which are completely full consistently. And at the same time, simultaneously, all the other vessels are completely empty. Consistently. People like this are extremely rare. However, in the right circumstances each and every human is capable of producing behavior which approaches, or mimics the extreme case. If we are all, kinda-sorta, composed of the same vessels, then we are all, kinda-sorta, capable of being completely full in certain key areas and completely empty in the all the others, briefly. In a moment, or two. Maybe for an hour. Maybe we get triggered. But there's a problem. As humans, we almost always get better at things, the more often we do them. The more often we approach these extremes, the easier and more likely they are to occur. Once these vessels are linked up with "profile" consisting of a few specific vessels which are full, while all the otthers are empty, guess what? I can look for phenomena, circumstances which encourage and "select-for" personality types strongly inclined in towards that profile. Now I have something really useful. I can predict the cricumstances that produce the "corrupt politician". I can prevent them proactively. And. I can also look at the currrent situation in America and understand why almost ALL our politicians are corrupt. Not all the time, and not to the same degree. But it's still highly useful "intel" as they say. And all of that comes from this method of being aware of the extreme, analyzing it fully. Then balancing that against a spectrum of possible combinations. It's predictive, proactive, and can be preventive if applied towards morals ethics and all manner of decision making. I'll give a personal example: For me. Personally. In a leadership postion I fail. Everytime. I do OK in small groups if needed. One-to-one, I'm an excellent tutor or advisor. I'm also an excellent worker-bee, or a lone wolf. But put me in a leadership role over a group? Lets put it this way, I've never been successful. Sadly my own blindspot, my own affection for myself prohibits an objective assessment of what precisely is going on there. Even if I was extremely humble, I would not be able to self-assess in neutrality. But I'm confident there's something inside me that's full and all the others which normmally moderate it are completely empty in those leadership rolees, in that time-space-circumstances. Here's a picture of "will" gone wrong. But this is not actually just "will", it's both the inner and outer dimensions of "will" which have become corrupted and encouraged to ignore anything else. Specifically, "wisdom" and "understanding" ( two other archetypes of cognitive function ) are being completely flushed into oblivion. They are empty. There's others, but those two if, "wisdom" and "understanding" were not empty and were blending with "will", moderating it, then a lot of harm could have beeen prevented. In this case, by my judgement, "Will" and "Glory", those two are full. Everything else was empty. In the philosophy which uses the term True-Will, I think they use a different word "victory" instead of glory. "Glory" is a much better word in english once it is understood.

Sure, that sounds good to me too.

"will" is the outer dimension of a specific cognitive function. It's name is "rahtzohn". It is the outer dimension of "Keser/Keter" which means "crown". I propose it is part of the whole in spite of its popularity and the misconception that it is supreme and nothing else matters. The reason it is idealized and idolized is because it is simple. Just like a light switch, it is on or off. Just like a crown, it is on or off. And if everything else is ignored, then, a person can (falsely) justify acting on their desires to do anything they want, to whomever they want, at any time. Many people love this idea. It makes them feel like a god. "will" is, naturally, one of the most powerful motivating forces in the human psyche. But it is not "who we truly are" in total. Well, excluding the rare extreme psychopath / sociopath.

.

This is not directed to me, but, your I think you should follow your intuition to determine its meaning ( and be skeptical of those who attempt to convince you a specific glyph is wrong for you. ). And. Since you really liked it, and, you have shared what it means to you, now I can use this to suggest a tattoo for you. Let's see how I do. A combo of the three designs below. The first is primary and empahisized. The twin serpents would be in the foreground, but with the geometric elements included / nuanced / suggested in the background, because, there are geometric elements in the art on the card. And the last detail is in the third picture; I'm envisioning the serpents striking up at the geometric designs which represent order being established by the status-quo. I think the serpents and the flowers, bring the feminine natural elements. But are also mythic and will fit well into the whole collection you described, but, there's also elements of geometry and the oppostional spirit which I'm picking up as accents from the card which you were naturally drawn to and the impression it made. Twins are very "beezelbub", because the traditional conventional abrahamic creator god claims to be "the-one-and-only". Also if the serpents are reaching up and striking into the "light", that is very "beezIebub". At the top of the ( technically the bottom ) of the klipoth ( inverted sephirotic tree ) are the twin serpents. However, it could be that you already have the serpent motif included in one or more of your current collection? Hopefully this is not a repeat of an idea you already had. Here is a link to what I consider an excellent write-up on the symbolism and opportunty that is included in this archetype. - LINK However, it is not 100% correct. It is lacking some details. That's almost always the case for these subjects. But enough of it is correct that I think it has a lot of value. The most important detail to get correct are their names. The article gets this wrong. Their name is נוֹפֵל וּ גְלוּי-עֵינָיִם ( "Nohfail and G'loohyeh-AiNahyim" ). I tried to indicate the accents properly. Oh, Ooh, and Ah are accented. The "yeh" at the end of the G'loohyeh is diminshed and brief. There is a "y" consonant ending on the word. "yeh". The pronounciation is given simply to be complete. But the Abermelin clearly states, and it's well known in my community, that it's far more important to know and understand the meaning and spirit behind these words, or any words and symbols for that matter. It's much better to go ahead and use the native language rather than employ some other if it is being misunderstood. Nohfail and G'loohyeh-Ainahyim means "falling-down and eyes-open" Technically, their names are joined in a disjunctive "but". Which is beautiful in itself. They are locked in their own paradox, doing what is almost impossible to do. Falling-down, but eyes are open. The twin serpents declare: "The rest of the world says, ascend? Nope. I'm falling down, and I'm going to watch every last second of it as I plummet faster and faster and faster towards what all of you consider certain death. But to me, that is called "being alive". And I think that has profound meaning when considering the archetype in total. It is the Queen of the opposition. Falling-down-but-eyes-wide-open. The flowers bring the feminine element, naturally, but your artist can customize it. Based on the other nature scene you posted, the female figure is strong, knowing, but not over confident. ( It's in the eyes ). Perhaps ivy? Or some lovely wiggly branches. But the serpents are the foreground, rising up to strike at the glowing ( will you be coloring the design? ) geometric symbols in the background, which represent opposition to the the order and status quo hovering aloof and uninvolved. Those are my suggestions. I hope it helps, and if not, I hope this was a fun read none the less.

I very much appreciate what you wrote here. It is absolutely true. And. It is vitally important. Some things are worth fighting for. Most consider fighting for those who cannot defend themselves against the tryannt who rapes, muders and steals to be justified. But. It is also justified to fight for those who will not fight to defend themselves. Why? Why is it justified to fight for those who will not fight? Aren't they choosing to to take a stand against violence of any sort? Don't they have a right to choose to die for this noble pursuit? The reason is: These extreme pacifists are precious souls; vessels of a unique wisdom which can only be attained via their extreme pacifism. Recognizing their value, and the mechanism that produces it, comes from a complete understanding which includes the "ego", so-called lower self, and does not abandon it. While, simultaneously, recognizing that there is tremendous value in the denial of the "ego" by those extreme pacifists, the precious souls that need to be protected. This is not an easy concept for some. For some it comes easily. I hope that I'm being clear. Both ideals, the unitary perspective, and the dual ( mutiplicity ) perspective need to be held in the mind simultaneously. This is a complete understanding. And yes, it is inherently dual. For some, it is discord, a source of cognitive dissonance, for me, it feels perfectly natural. It's like music. Harmony. Chocolate and Peanut Butter. It's a partnership. The two are opposing ideals, but they need each other to survive. This sympathetic relationship is reflected everywhere in the natural world and in science. So. The extreme pacifist absolutely needs it's partner, a guardian, which is quite literally watching its back, and perhaps, will trade its life for their's. At the very least, the minimum required is to have a "spotter" on duty so that while the pacifist is in their "trance", they can be aroused from their oblivion ( the unitary perception ) in order to flee to safety, assuming safety exists. These "spotters" are the ones who can see and appreciate the dual perspecitive both in general and in particular. Zooming out, and zooming in. Above, below, left, right, inner, and outer. They can see the extreme pacifist as an individual, even though the enlightened, precious soul will deny it. These "spotters" value them as individuals. This is natural for them. Just as it is natural for the enlightened masters to deny it to the point of discouraging the "spotters" from doing what needs to be done, which, in this case, is dual-perception. The enlightened discourage this dual perception, and train people in methods to escape it forevver, even though this dual perception is actively protecting them. But their denial is for the good, because it is a vehicle for vast amounts of valuble wisdom... As long as it (the denial) is protected by those who do not, and will not, ever deny it, to the point of sacrificing their lives. This sacrifice is what happens when a soul knowingly maintains the dual perspective, agreed? It just depends on what it means to be "alive". And that determines whether it is a sacrifice or reward. Both are valuable, both are necessary. Neither should be neglected. This is complete understanding.

You rang? I see this is from many months ago, do you still have questions? I'll give the briefest of brief over-view: Judaism: You. yes you. human. you are not a god, you are not perfect. None of those other gods are god either. God is a mystery, and life is complicated, get used to it. We're all in this together, let's make the best of it. Questions will be accepted after a snack. Pass the rugelach, please. ~yummy~ Christianity: Love conquers all, don't make things too complicated. God and salvation are much-much closer than you think. Isalm : How could you say that God is close? God is far far beyond any of us. But I agree religion shouldn't be so complicated. Follow the law, stand by your commitments! That's basically it. Breaking a commitment to god and others is one of the worst of the worst sins. Yes, there's a time to fight some people. They're just plain wrong, especially when they break their contracts. Arrrgh. No good. And if they are aggressors, fight, fight, fight.. But when they cease, cease. No exceptions. And at the end of the day, some people are never going to figure things out. As long as they are not aggressors, don't fight them. If they are unbelievers and sinners, leave that to god. god is the very best of everything....

I agree with what you're saying 100%. It's difficult on so many levels understanding and if needed diagnosing these phenomena. And those tasked with doing the work of triage and diagnosis are people too. I have, what I consider a beautiful academic write-up from a credentialed PHD which describes the absolute necessity of the provider to, how can I say this, empty themself of any and all preconcieved biases and assumptions prior to attempting anything theraputic. That includes diagnosis. The one seeking help has a context, the one who is sought out for that help also has a context. The burden is on the provider to do the hard work of dropping their's and meeting their client on the client's level, in client's world, where the client is, without any interference or judgement. But, that's an ideal, and from what I have been told it is almost never happens that way. And if that context ( which includes cultral background, but is certainly not limited to it ) is highly divergent from the providers, the likeliyhood of misdiagnosis is greatly increased. And then there's the limitations placed on providers by american insurance companies... oh-dear... The one seeking help ends up being responsible for "being in the driver's seat on the road to recovery" when they are in the worst possible position to do so.

Pardon me. I did not make up my own defintion. The dictionary does not fully describe concepts. I appreciate your reliance on them, and I also acknowledge their limitations. This seems to be a disagreement we have had in the past regarding the over-reliance on a specific dicctionary as opposed to considereing an encyclopedia entry. I think, with the highest respect, that we can have a differing opinion about how to choose the meaning of certain words. But if the meaning I am choosing is coming from an encylopedia, that is not making up my own defintion. And, conversely, if you are choosing to define a word with a specific dictionary defintion, that does not mean you are ignoring the encyclopedia... until ... the dictionary is lifted up as the one and only truth and the encyclopedia, which is by definition more complete, is actually being ignored.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was poor judgement. I decided that my reply would be better made in private, and that's what I did. You didn't see what I wrote. I editted it immediately after posting it 14 hours ago, you responded 3 hours ago. These time stamps, pictures below, confirm you didn't see what I what I wrote. I promise it was not a personal attack. Even if it was, the fact that I recongized my fault, took action, and publicly admitted it, shows my character. Speaking of character, were you intentionally being deceptive? Making it seem as if you had read the contents?

{ . deleted . poor judgement on my part }

Oh boy, that's a big subject.... Generally speaking for me, doing bad has a real negative effect on me, and I see that it has a real negative effect on others. Doing bad makes a person insensitive, for lack of better terms. And then they need to keep doing bad things, worse and worse actually, in order to experience pleasure. On the other hand doing good makes a person more sensitive, and they recieve joy from simple things, simple pleasures and the pleasure is longer lasting. Eventually they are naturally happy with very little needs at all. Also, there is also a sort of cosmic justice system, but, it is not a one-to-one relationship between doing good and receiving reward or doing bad and being punished. But it supplements the sensitivity/insensitivity which is produced by doing good and/or evil. Ultimately I think the best results come from being harmony with one's surroundings and being compassionate. This harmony is often demonstrated by nature, so, as people grow older, they naturally develop intuition and insight into this. But, there are rare exceptions to following the example of "nature" as an ideal. Humans are animals, but also more than animals. That's what I think about doing good vs. doing evil.

This thread was started by someone who is troubled by their "visions" what ever they may be. I'm not sure where you are, but here in America any psychiatric diagnosis requires a negative impact on the the individual's life or the lives of those around them. In western medicine, perscription medication has come a long way as a tool for helping people distinguish between the false perceptions that their brain is creating and objective real world phenomena, but, it is a tool, part of a battery of interventions to help troubled people. I like to consider them as making space where the root causes can be untangled, if they are not purely chemical imbalances. And sometimes the medication can be tampered and eliminated once adaqute therapy has been recieved by a patient is open to it. Being open to it is key. Just getting someone who is hallucinating to trust the Dr. and take their meds regularly can be a very serious roadblock. However, there are people who have treatment resistent hallucinations and delusions. And that takes professional care, exorcisms from western magicians, do not have good track records for accomplishing any kind of long term recovery, but they do make the exorcist in "western occult magic" feel good, being needed and getting return customers. And they can tell stories about their successes, which are never verifiable. And if it doesn't work, they can always blame the victim. It's all a charade in the western "magical" world. Psycho-drama.

what is this supposed to prove? do you honestly think that a dictionary defintion contains all there is to know about a concept? All western magic is transactional. it is trying to "get something" from the "universe" from an individual, from an "angel" from a "demon". That's all there is. Even if it's just for self discovery, or curiousity, it's still transactional. That's the difference between magic and prayer. Prayer is devotional, it is giving to a deity. Magic is "give me" "My will be done", "I want". If it's for some other person, it's "they want" or "give me so I can give to them". It could be altruistic, but it's still trying to "get something".

The dictionary is incomplete. That's why there are encyclopedias. As I was telling someone else earlier today.... I'm overdue for a major mistake... when I fail, I fail big. The good news is, it's usually pretty funny. Although, it takes me a few days to figure that out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_games#Unconscious_games "... a central element of social life ALL OVER THE WORLD." Which is why I said: ... can happen. Not will happen. Deeply bad things can happen.

I suppose the last piece of the puzzle involves self-induced hallucinations which is self mind manipulations, or perhaps manipulating the mind of an "initiate" through a form of hypnosis or sensory deprivation. In a group setting there is a increased likelihood for the phenomena if all parties are ... drumroll... open to suggestion. This is the illusion of summoning an angel or a demon. An angel or demon is just an archetype that lives in the psyche, in the mind. The angel/demon is invoked into a human body or evoked into a sigil drawn on the floor or on some other surface or on a vessel. Then the individual or group convinces themself, manipulates their mind that this archetype is among them or possessing them. But again, it's all mind-games. It's neither miracle nor magic. It's a psycho-drama being "worked" or "crafted" on those who are highly suggestable and open to the concepts. So, when someone gets involved in these things and is having trouble, the best non-medical intervention / remedy is non-belief. It's like a light switch. None of those angels / demons / magic tricks are real. They're all in mind. And it's literally true. All of them are just mind-games. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_effect https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-71631-001 https://dictionary.apa.org/collective-hysteria

This is another common bit of spicy psychology, and it fits very nicely into what I was writing about, the mind-games that can be played to produce what appears to be ESP or fortune telling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying Scrying is looking into a "black mirror" in order to probe the sub-conscious mind. This is where Tarot Cards, looking into a Crystal Ball, reading runes, tea-leaves, incense smoke, and all sorts of meditative, divination ( fortune telling ) practices come from. But the images are usually so vague that they can be easily believed if the recipient is simply open to suggestion. Then the fortune teller gets a psychological boost when the recipient feeds their faith to the fortune teller. The spicy psychology part comes in when the fortune teller is reading the recipient's reaction to the fortune as it is being told bit by bit. Then the fortune narrows in bit by bit. The fortune teller is actually not reading the medium, the tea-leaves, they are instead reading the reactions on the recipient. That's the secret which shatters the illusion. The fortune teller begins by casting the net far and wide... then they read the reaction on the recipient.

No, that's precisely what I meant. The thing is, through psycho-drama a person is manipulating themself, basically. And that's what these rituals are. Stabbing a special knife in the air in a specific way and shape.... wearing specific clothes and using different names... it's psycho-drama, role-play. And that's the underpining of western occult "magic". Another term that is often used is "spicy-psychology"

@stellarwindbubble, I see your confused reaction to my post. Send me a private message if you would like me to explain in more detail.

"Magic" as it is "conceived" in western occultism is precisely that "mind-games". And it's amazing how much can be accomplished through these sorts of mind-games. Amazing. But, when good people dabble in them deeply bad things can happen.

@ChiDragon, @Cobie, I see the confused reaction. Let me put it this way. Casting a net far and wide is almost gauranteed to catch a fish... unless one is waving it in the air. "I hope your trip to Asia was worth it, Now leave these people alone" is an awfully big net. No details are given. It's supposed to be a demonstration of ESP. Extra-sensory-perception. But it's just casting a wide net and waving it in the air.

There's a lot going on in the gospels. And their method for compilation is somewhat unique as well. are we still talking about John 6? Do you think that Jesus the Jewish Rabbi would be referring to himself and his blood in pagan language and imagery? Do you think the authors of the gospels would be intentionally using pagan language and symbolism? The gnostics will say there is a great secret here, and the "normies" the "muggles" are hiding it from you. Or perhaps they're not "normies" and "muggles" they're power hungry people who want all of these secrets for themself... blah-blah-blah. And that's one of the ways that good is flipped into evil. Once it's known that a person desires to know "secrets" then thay can be exploited using this as currency, bait. Did you know that driking blood is prohiibited 5 times explicitly in Leviticus and 1 time explicitly in Acts? I'm guessing the gnostics are in favor of drinking blood, right? Everytime that happens, something is grinning in the darkness.

That's a fair statement, because it is prefaced with "I would say..." I'll explain just a little more below. Agreed. Neither am I. Hopefully that was crystal clear with my post about harmonizing trinitarian and unitarian perspectives. However, I place a high premium on duty ( which is a form of "will" ). My duty is a personal code, and I take it very seriously. Included in that code is to honor, repsect, and protect ( when I can ) the intentions of ancient sources of written scripture. If the scripture is changed, you would not have these sayings for inspiration. For me, it's like protecting the grand canyon or the pyramids at giza. When someone asks for feedback regarding an interpretation they have, or a conclusion they have reached about scripture, if it is not, in my judgment, in harmony with the intentions of the author, then, I feel it is my duty to speak out against it. Not to argue endlessly, but, at least to speak out. Some choose to argue endlessly with me, and since I do not quit, and do not defer, it appears that I desire endless arguing. But that's not what's happening internally for me. What it sounds like you are describing are "sparks" of monism contained in the gospels. I agree those sparks are highly significant, but I do not think the author/source intended for it to be interpretted in that way. And from that I wonder, "why are those sparks there in the first place?" And "why are they reflected in so many scriptures"? I think that verse would need to be probed deeper since I brought verses which negate it. On the other hand, if you don't care about those other verses, then, I suppose it's you who have decided what the flesh is, and it isn't really coming from scripture at all. In context of your conversation, I was not actually asking what you thought. I was asking about Christianity and what is written in scripture. Many people idolize flesh. That is not uncommon and is understandable. Although, it seems what you posted earlier conflicts with this since the body is just an old garment. "The soul goes through a cycle of bodies, just as a person changes worn-out clothes for new ones." If you think Christ is flesh, I strongly disagree with you, and what is quoted above strongly disagress with you. You are saying Christ is flesh, and flesh is like old-worn out clothes. I don't think you need to feel that way. At least not if I am the audience. My only caution when reading these words would be: "Beware of a false summit. Keep going." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_peak Insight is not gnosis. Insight is understanding. Gnosis is knowledge. There's a huge rabbit hole there. Huge. The Gnostics idolize knowledge. And I mean that literally, she is a god for them. Sophia. Everything is flipped for the gnostics, if you delve deeply into it. But what they teach is not false, it's incomplete. This is evident by our current conversation. What the gnostics teach ignores large portions of the written word. That is, by defintion, incomplete. Anyway, what you seem to be describing is not an attainment of "knowledge" (gnosis) because knowledge is essentially closed. But you seem to be open. Some of the language you're using is "closed" language. But you still sound like you are open. For example: "realising that what you are, is fundementaly awarness." is closed language. It's kind of like saying "What I am is ONLY awareness". That is closed. But by using the word "fundementally" that means there's more to it, and you are still open. From my perspective it is much more than awareness. And I ask myself, "why stop at awareness"? Basically what I'm saying is, "understanding" is moving beyond knowledge. It is skipping-over it. And this is good. Understanding always and forever supercedes knowledge because, understanding produces knowledge as needed on demand. That's "insight". The word "insight" can be both noun and verb. Insight, the noun, is a piece of knowledge, a small thing. Insight, the verb, is understanding, a huge accomplishment. All peace treaties are accomplished via mutual understanding not knowledge. This is one of many examples. If you keep going, I think you'll find that "awareness" is just one layer, one level, one dimension of "self". At the top of the tree, as high as one can go is "being". Being in love, Being in hate, Being merciful, Being strict, Being knowledgable, Being understanding, Being wise, .... Being aware, etc... this is what the self "is doing". And this active, verb-form, language is a better descriptor than stopping at "awareness". My approach would be to look at each of these in context and try to understand the intentions of the author/source in each case, then, draw a conclusion from there. As I said, I am quite confident that, at best, there is something unique about Jesus' flesh. And this would mean that it is not teaching monism. The famous verse about eating flesh and drinking blood is certainly not literal. In context Jesus is pushing away those who had come to challenge him. Then his disciples ask how it could be true "It's a difficult teaching, master", and the explanation is non-literal. He's not talking about flesh. And if there is a dark force which desires to wiggle-and-giggle its way into corrupting the hearts and minds of humans, a dark force contained in the flesh, then... my friend, each and every written scripture will have bits and pieces of this dark force making brief appearances subliminally. So, a person should, imo, be cautious. If it is intended, then a person can read more and more and more of the scripture and all of it will agree with the intention. If it is unintended, then reading more and more and more of the scripture will defeat it. From this a choice can be made, "Do I want to follow what is written, or do I want to explore the unknown?" And, imo, they both can lead to the same place. One is a lot more effort and takes a lot more time, and is perhaps dangerous, but, maybe more rewarding, who knows? My intention, my duty, is only to show the difference between what is "written" and what is "not". Then each person can make an informed choice. I don't think it's proper for a group of any sort to fool people by pointing to this little bit and distract or delude from the rest because it syncs up with their desires. That is how people are manipulated and exploited. It's by compromsing their desires and using it against them. Again, Gen 3, the garden. Beautiful. Does it matter to you what the author/source intended for these sayings to mean? Or is it only your own desired meaning that matters?