| Author |
 Topic  |
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Jan 2005 : 20:56:59
|
Dear Batkol;
I picked up The Rosicrucian Manual (AMORC) 1918 approved by H. Spencer Lewis himself, from the federal repository this morning. That goes into the same Solomon/early Ritual Magick symbols and application to the Work. I am looking forward to that read maybe tomorrow.
Dear Bonservant;
It seems germane to structure the history of the various players by race. At least for now it feels productive and I am, for one, learning a lot. I threw some very inflammatory articles up for all to see and was hoping things would calm back down to civility where we could get some things in the light. It may just be a simple as understanding the remedy is there, right there in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. That is how you handle any libel against you and in theory even the cashier insisting you compensate for a gasoline purchase and play into the confidence game of "legal tender" is libeling. That's extreme, I know.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Suitors.gif
Saving to Suitors clause
In understanding the words for Ravage and Rosenthal, the Protocols and Rabbi Kuzriel Meir for the Sanhedrin in late '97, this overall analysis seems quite relevant to me. Albeit I imagine you may be fielding some amount of PM complaints. If so, thank you. If you disagree that this historical treatise by discussion is relevant, then please be more specific about what you think is important to the theme "War by Propaganda".
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 19 Jan 2005 21:22:06 |
 |
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2005 : 22:14:56
|
quote:
It may just be a simple as understanding the remedy is there, right there in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. That is how you handle any libel against you and in theory even the cashier insisting you compensate for a gasoline purchase and play into the confidence game of "legal tender" is libeling. That's extreme, I know.
That was my point... that the remedy is right there as you have been attempting to show the readers since you began posting here. While your method and approach may be offensive to some in the ecclesia, what you have presented in your various threads here (for the most part) is none-the-less factual and must be considered with "religious blinders" removed.
The current U.S. "Legal Tender" a/k/a Federal Reserve Note is a reality in this nation at this time. It MUST be dealt with according to the "rules" that created "it" (since a FRN is a fiat exchange and a complete falsification of "money"). This false "legal tender" is surely libelous to the true ecclesia, so I disagree that to say so is in any way "extreme."
As I have said before... the Right of Avoidance is the crux of this instant matter: Learn how the falsified exchange works so that any Man who is within and of the ecclesia can avoid the effects of it just as Jesus of Nazareth did. To rectify a falsification you must have a remedy to do so. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2005 : 01:40:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
When you strip away all the clutter and bazaar doctrine around Genesis 6, when you rip out all the fairy tale imagery of Watchers and Giants, even angels falling from heaven (Book of Enoch), you are left with the faithful Sons of Seth lusting after the Daughters of Cain. These peoples likely had very little genetic difference. Their difference that was significant enough for broadswipe death by Deluge was their distinctly different attitudes toward God - religious differences if you will.
What does Jude 1:5-7 mean, respecting what you have written hereinabove?
quote:
Jude 1:5-7....
Therefore I want to put you in remebrance, though you already know this, that Yahweh, having saved the people out-of-the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
And the malakim (angels) who did not keep their first estate, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day.
In the same manner, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities surrounding them, having given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example of those who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
Best Regards,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 20 Jan 2005 01:42:34 |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2005 : 02:03:51
|
Information concerning the availability of the book The Hidden Tyranny aka The Rosenthal Document compiled and footnoted by Charles Weisman is now edited into our 1/17/2005 3:20:05 PM post which appears above.
Best Regards,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 20 Jan 2005 02:05:29 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2005 : 08:37:28
|
Thank you Marty;
Specifically for www.seek-info.com. linking Weisman's writings. I am reading (for the third time in a decade) his treatise now, The Authority of Law.
Thanks to all for formulating a definition for "Jew". It may be useful in the Interplay. Some readers are probably being offended so we should conclude the discussion on that with what has already been said.
I heard about somebody who went into the US courthouse the other day. They wanted a Certificate of Search (who they are and who or what they are searching are irrelevant). The deputy clerk insisted he give his surname, or last name. He said it was irrelevant and that set off alarms (at least it seemed so by her Homeland Security attitude). She insisted he produce whatever picture ID got him in the building. She began summoning other deputies and the next logical step was Security. I am calling this "Interplay". I am not saying the events are the man's fault, just that he was part of the script. He left the building without the Certificate, expecting to be confronted by Security before he could leave the courthouse.
A good book about this is The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. It is probably the best layman's explanation of what has developed into Superstring Theory; what I call advanced-resonance inductive plasma physics. All events are possible in an infinite array of various and simultaneous "timelines" of events. The particular timelines we perceive to be true may not match up very well, but the definition(s) and the documented histories about races and Jews, Israelites and Edomites herein have helped us get on the same page. The potential agreements we reach on matters like these are nested within "standing waves" which when collapsed become the agreed upon timeline - true historical events. [For instance we could collapse a standing wave about an elephant falling on Elton John's piano. And if it happened during a concert in front of thousands of people that event would be an easily collapsed standing wave and an easily agreed upon historical event. Collapsing the standing wave properly out of the potential without witnesses would not "Interplay" well into "real things" by agreement.]
Now I am going to choose to believe this man's account about the 'Homeland Security' treatment without interviewing the deputy clerks and other witnesses. But I am saying he "Interplayed" the event, primarily by having a Passport with his legal name on it. Maybe the passport should have been signed "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST". Then he could have easily explained to the clerk he had no 'last name' and it was improper to make one up since it is irrelevant to a Certificate of Search who the party is asking. It is also irrelevant whether the search is for a man or woman, a human person, or a vessel. These are actually all vessels in admiralty. Do not faithful people call themselves, "Vessels unto the most high God"? But there is no requirement for a last name on the searched entity - in fact many vessels have no last names - "The Catherine" or "The Huntress".
Speaking for myself; I have no picture ID. I might offer a Certificate of Search on my true name David Merrill. But this man was after what I already have. But I would not give them the prima facie evidence I have a last name on the way in the door. The deputy clerk knew the man had already been "tricked" [don't fall for this baited word because the man chose to be tricked] into giving a legal name at the door. It has been a while but what I do whenever I need to enter the US Courthouse in Denver is summon the clerk to the lobby. Steve Ehrlich usually has some sarcastic remark, "I will let you in if you promise never to file anything in my court again." I counter, "Are you serious?" in front of witnesses, Steve laughs like, 'It was a joke and you have no sense of humor.' Well why should I think his usurpation of my courthouse is funny? Especially with so many losing property and life over that exact same usurpation? The really important point is that I prevent the collapse of the 'usurpation' standing wave and redact it to a joke about usurpation. Then Steve nods me past security into my courthouse so that no denial of access can be properly accused.
The point being Interplay.
When the county clerk started acting up, the deputies started demanding the name on the receipt was crucial for me to pick up the document originals. The register printed "DAVID MERRILL" and I would strike through the misspelling. The reception number was right there on the face of the receipt claim to the document. This girl was telling me she could not get the document because the name was striken through! Finally when she started to counter my claim for the third or fourth time I shouted, "No!" - like she was a naughty little puppy. The whole area of the office stopped to pay attention to what happened next. She stood up and got my document for me.
We are not solely creating the reality around us. We are part of the script. The words of Rosenthal, and subsequently Charles Weisman have documented a certain take on reality concerning us all. About international banking. We are all effected even in "paying" for gasoline at the filling station.
I agree with Bondservant that the important subject matter here is to understand the kingdom of heaven on earth revealed properly through applying the right KEY to the Mystery. Ponder Mark 4:10-12 in context. Why in the world would Jesus say something so out of context with Christianity and its perception of Jesus Christ's ministry?quote:
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mr 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Jesus seems to be admitting he is hiding the Key to unlock the Parables he spoke to the layman masses. He admits the apostles who he revealed his survival of the Cross to were a tiny esoteric mystery cult - that the Key was to remain hidden until the fullness of the Gentiles could come into God's Word. When they were starting to slip into thoughts of the supernatural pagan Resurrection, Jesus countered:quote:
Lu 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Lu 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Lu 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Lu 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
Lu 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
Lu 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
There is a specific reason I have slapped you all in the face with such shocking doctrine from Ravage, Nilus (Protocols), Jesus Christ, METRO (Patroons) and Rosenthal et al. And the reason is exactly the opposite of what you expect. I am telling you there are no conspiracies - not that there are conspiracies!
And you are probably thinking... That's just not true. I have been pointing out conspiracies all along and then I throw in these sound-bytes about how paranoid you all are that make absolutely no sense in the context of all the conspiracies I have been pointing out. I was having lunch with a psychotherapist friend (we met in a creative writing course). I remember once while paying for his sandwich he held his wallet open for me to see he had some kind of special government ID - I was not reading it carefully but it looked like some kind of security clearance. We never discussed it (and that is just because I never became curious enough to ask). While we were eating one afternoon we were discussing banking and such and he said, "Once you start down that road [paranoia] there is no getting off of it."
Those words stuck in my craw for a week. I proved him wrong. But somehow I think they were essentially true. Most people start collapsing standing waves around their presumptions about conspiracy theory and thus fill thier grab bag of belief sets up with confirmations and never get 'off that road'.
So I implore you all reading to consider why a world full of sensible people consider you a flake for believing "Homeland Security" is a bad thing. That the "Patriot Act" is a terrible infringement on your rights as an American. [From my perspective, the only clause that applies to me is "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction" being that I am hardly ever in the District United States, or for that matter in the City of Colorado Springs/METRO positive law jural society.] You can at least try to understand what I am saying rather than to just call them all Sheeple and despise them for having full use of houses and cars and airplanes, Passports and bank accounts etc.*
Regards,
David Merrill.
* Crosstalk: The other day a suitor broadcast:quote:
----Original Message Follows----
From: Suitor
To: [About seventy suitors' email addresses sanitized.]
Subject: Re: arrests
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:05:11 -0800 (PST)
Dear Suitors;
I have heard some people say that Mr. David Merrill is crazy, and he has no idea of what he is talking about when it comes to how the system really works. From my own experience, I have found that David does know what he is talking about, but, when I was introduced to David Merrill, it was the best thing that ever happened to me besides my wife and my children. He showed me the way to real freedom. We must never give-up the fight for our freedom and our salvation.
Regards;
Mr. [full legal name with abbreviated middle name]
Another suitor by Reply All added:quote:
Amen - he is not crazy, at all.
[Yet another suitor followed up with a short joke about me being crazy like a fox.]
A wonderful compliment and endorsement to my sanity but the thing that really impressed me was the confidence the suitor had in signing a broadcast to all the other suitors in his full legal name. This guy, for all intents and purposes has "arrived". He appreciates the snake oil I peddle; that I am a charlatan supreme. An idiot savant who leads you on a merry trail back to where you began; just dispelling the folie a deux (group psychotic disorder) along the way. For $500 I will tell you nothing you did not already know and sell you nothing you did not already have. The law is not mine to sell you! |
Edited by - David Merrill on 01 Mar 2005 10:01:47 |
|
|
|
Werner Maximilian
Senior Member
USA
55 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2005 : 12:03:10
|
The thing I get a kick out of , is no one ever forced us to believe the propaganda, we just do. It's as though some primal human instinct compells us to go along to get along. Go with the herd.
Federal Reserve notes are a great example. At first they stated right on them that they were redemable in some real substance( Dollar is a weight measurement, defined as 1/20th oz. gold or 371.25 grains fine silver) Look at any Note prior to 1933. After 1933 states," THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUPLIC AND PRIVATE." It's like we traded those little suger packets as money, then one day they no longer had suger in them but we kept using the empty paper packets anyway like they were still money. Who are the stupid ones?
As soon as you understand the game, you can always go around, under ,through, or over the obstacle . If you want to trade honestly with your neighbor there are still pre-1965 silver coins availeable and their value doesn"t melt away as though they were minted of ice the way an FRN does. Not to mention the false money merchants HATE real money. It's like throwing dirt in the carefully machined gears of the fiat money machine.
Point is, upon closer inspection, almost all the ills in our lives can be traced to our own baser instincts, greed, fear,sloth. Thats how "They" have aquired so much control in our lives. Too simple? Man, I hate not having something outside myself to blame for all my troubles.
Yours in fun,
Werner Maximilian |
Edited by - Werner Maximilian on 20 Jan 2005 13:06:41 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 08:25:37
|
Your words are well spoken, Werner Maximilian!
quote:
Go with the herd.
Which of course, is why the Set-Apart Scripture refers to us as "sheep"...if the lead sheep runs off a cliff, the vast majority will run off with it.
The only difference between them and us is that if one decides, independently, not to run off the cliff, sheep don't chide, persecute and condemn him for his choice [though admittedly I do not speak or understand b-a-a-a-a-a]; they simply ignore him.
quote:
Not to mention the false money merchants HATE real money.
It has been reported that this is the very reason that both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated; they both were desiring "real" money to be once again printed or minted.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Jan 2005 12:01:11 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 09:22:41
|
Greetings and salutations brother Marty:
Peace be unto the house.
A few thoughts on at least part of this, though it was not directed toward us:
quote:
What does Jude 1:5-7 mean, respecting what you have written hereinabove? quote: Jude 1:5-7....Therefore I want to put you in remebrance, though you already know this, that Yahweh, having saved the people out-of-the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.And the malakim (angels) who did not keep their first estate, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day.In the same manner, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities surrounding them, having given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example of those who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
We see from Lot’s response in verse 18 that they apparently wished to “know” them in an unnatural way!
Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Man lying with man is a breaking of the Law of Nature!
SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Is it “a crime against nature” for a red rose to crossbreed with a white rose, or for a white horse to crossbreed with a black horse?
We see from extracurricular sources that the Sodomites apparently practiced wife swapping [adulterating seed], incest, homosexuality, pedophilia and perhaps even bestiality, but no mention is made of race mixing. Is it at all possible that perhaps this is the “fornication” spoken of in Jude 1:7?
*fornication n. 2 Bible a) any unlawful sexual intercourse, including adultery b) worship of idols – Webster’s New World Dictionary of the English Language – Third College Edition (1988)
*adultery n. voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife, or between a married woman and a man not her husband; see also FORNICATION (Ibid.)
*ADUL'TERY, n. [L. adulterium. See Adulterate.] 1. Violation of the marriage bed; a crime, or a civil injury, which introduces, or may introduce, into a family, a spurious offspring. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
*SPURIOUS, a. [L.] 1. Not genuine; not proceeding from the true source, or from the source pretended; counterfeit; false; adulterate. (Ibid.)
This is how someone adulterates a man’s seed line, not by marrying an Ethiopian woman, which is not to say that some men may feel that marrying someone of another race adulterates their seed line, that is their prerogative.
There is another important understanding of "fornication" within the Scripture, and it is…
Fornication – But this word is more frequently used in a symbolical than in its ordinary sense. It frequently means a forsaking of Yahowah [God] – Easton’s Bible Dictionary
This is why it appears from the Old Covenant readings that only women may commit adultery. Now, we would like everyone to think about this for a moment; if the issue was "race mixing" would the Scripture not have said for the women to put away their "strange husbands" as well? Nowhere in Scripture do we find the phrase “strange husbands”. Why? Because it is, as Easton states, mainly symbolical; the “wives” correspond to the citizens of Yahowah’s Kingdom and the husbands personify Yahowah, and Yahowshua, Yahowah’s Anointed Chief Ruler/Principle Officer [Kohen]. Keeping in mind that nowhere in the Set-Apart Scripture are the wives instructed to put away their strange husbands, we find Shaul/Paul, in the New Covenant [Testament], making this statement…
Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Does this “adultery” refer to race mixing? We think not. We further put forth that this is also “symbolical” since we read in the very next verse…
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the [that] law by the body of the Anointed One; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto Yahowah [God].
We also see this, which further helps to clarify the symbolical “adultery”, from Ya’aqob [James] the Righteous…
James 4:4 Ye adulterers [men] and adulteresses [women], know ye not that the friendship of [association/joining to] the world is enmity with Yahowah? whosoever therefore will be a friend [an associate] of the world is the enemy of Yahowah.
Though the Old Covenant [Testament] seems to indicate that only “wives” may commit adultery, we see from the above verse that in the symbolical sense, “men” [not husbands] may also commit adultery. They do this by joining themselves to [marrying] another head [husband], a worldly head, a.k.a. a god or master, and as the Scripture appropriately states, one cannot serve two masters [husbands], but the Husband [Master] may have as many wives [citizens] as He wishes, and has not committed adultery.
HUS'BANDMAN, n. 1. The master of a family [nation]. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
“Strange” in Jude 1:7 is this…
Thayer Definition:
heteros
1b1) another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different
One may ass-u-me that this “strange flesh” refers to race if one wishes, but does it necessarily refer to this? First, and perhaps foremost, one of another class, etc. can mean one with a different "god" [ruler], one under a different government, i.e. one of a different body politic. And secondly we put forth that this also may mean “adultery”, in the literal sense. Using the “first appearance rule”, here is what we see concerning “flesh”.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Hence, "strange flesh" could very well mean someone other than your wife, "flesh of your flesh".
And as a second witness to what we are saying, we give you this...
1Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
Which of the four categories of flesh that Shaul/Paul give us would we put the black, or the brown, or the yellow, or the red-skinned man into?
(a) men
(b) beasts
(c) fishes
(d) birds
We suppose that if what Shaul/Paul stated goes against our doctrine(s) we can simply choose to ignore it or redefine it so that it fits, but is this Truth?
According to what we understand of the Talmud, those adhering to it would probably choose (b). But, if the adherents to Judaism truly believe this, then Jewish men very often knowingly participate in bestiality!!
*BESTIAL'ITY, n.1. Unnatural connection with a beast.
*UNNAT'URAL, a. 1. Contrary to the laws of nature…
Say!! Isn’t that the same as sodomy? Again, we ask the question, is it “a crime against nature” for a red rose to crossbreed with a white rose, or for a white horse to crossbreed with a black horse?
End note:
Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Where was our Chief Ruler/Principle Officer crucified? In Sodom? In Egypt? Or in Yerusalem? Think about that one! Yerusalem is known spiritually as Sodom and Egypt!!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Jan 2005 11:04:06 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 11:34:04
|
This is a great question because it targets the very heart of Christian mythos.
quote:
What does Jude 1:5-7 mean, respecting what you have written hereinabove? quote: Jude 1:5-7....Therefore I want to put you in remebrance, though you already know this, that Yahweh, having saved the people out-of-the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.And the malakim (angels) who did not keep their first estate, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day.In the same manner, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities surrounding them, having given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example of those who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
The Book of Jude is nearly the only explicit reference to the Book of Enoch that was allowed into New Covenant canons proper. See if you can get your hands on a good translation of the Book of Enoch. I suggest R.H. Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudapigrapha of the Old Testament, maybe at your library? I got mine for $175 (both volumes) through Bill at (719) 578-5044.
The Introduction to the Book of Enoch is educational. You find the book was probably written over a period of 75 years and by several different authors. The surviving manuscripts describe several authors wrote the book. The angels' names do not agree in three or four different listings.
The Book of Enoch was fairly popular at the time of writing the Book of Jude. Evidently the author thought it was genuine doctrine and inadvertently imported a fantastic doctrine about angels that worked its way into the New Covenant thoughts and Christianity - that a third of the angels fell from heaven and mostly through another fantastic interpretation of Genesis 6:1-8, through "Watchers" and "Giants" are actively functioning on some kind of parallel demonic/angel plane.
At any rate the Book of Jude's reference to the Book of Enoch punches a pretty big hole in 'infallibility' presumptions about the Holy Bible. Unless of course you believe that a third of the angels fell from heaven in the Lucifer Rebellion found in the Book of Enoch. Which I obviously do not. Elizabeth Butler wrote Ritual Magick - Magic in History and opens subsection Qabbalah with 1) Genesis 6:1-8 and immediately followed by 2) the pertinent passage in the Book of Enoch (Around §69 "The Secret Oath" the angels took in collusion so that if caught and punished, they would be in league). Therefore the doctrine about fable of "fallen angels" is appropriately called "Christian Cabala" in Encyclopedia Judaica.
So keeping that in mind for foundation, I am inclined to agree with you that the Genesis 6:1-8 passage clearly shows religious doctrines between the Sons of God (Seth) and the Daughters of Man (Cain) being intermarried was the problem that caused the Deluge. Not races.
I suppose that deviant religious doctrines quickly adopt deviant and even perverse sexual practices. Therefore supporting your analysis.
You also said:
quote:
Though the Old Covenant [Testament] seems to indicate that only “wives” may commit adultery, we see from the above verse that in the symbolical sense, “men” [not husbands] may also commit adultery.
And I recall an historical incident in the Gospels where a woman is tried for adultery. Jesus seems to be respected enough to adjudicate the validity of the forum. So what seems obvious (or did until you brought this point up anyway) was that the woman was acquitted because of entrapment. Why not be trying the man she was making out with too? Logically the man would be in as much trouble and if I recall correctly, that is also according to the Babylonian Talmud. The only resolution is that the woman was suspected and prone to weak moments but one of the accusers tempted her and they got "caught in the very act" - a sting - entrapment.
I always like the passages that Jesus wrote in the sand. That makes my mind wander. According to the Urantia Book Jesus was not to write things about his ministry, some kind of heavenly mandate around faith. So my question is "What was Jesus writing and did it influence the outcome of the mob/jury?" Maybe he was writing the subscription for detecting adultery? [That is found in Deuteronomy I believe. Write a certain accusation and then steep tea with the paper. Make the woman drink it and if she does not get deathly sick, she is innocent.] Or was he writing the ineffible Name of God? That may have been his way of telling the accusers his authority to adjudicate the validity of the forum a common lynching; disclosing intellectual property only of the inner esoteric of the Levites - the cohen gadol. Jesus was revealing his position as High Priest (of the order Melchizedek).
There are a lot of pagan (perverse) Babylonian customs that the early Jews had to incorporate in order to survive the Captivity. Furtunately educated Jews reading the Talmud in today's synagogues realize the Talmud cannot be strictly applied. It is and is used only for Midrash; to hash out the philosophical basis. It would actually condone pediphilia among Jews if taken literally.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Midrash.jpg
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. There is an historical journalist/explorer here in Colorado Springs who has made some startling discoveries about Mount Sinai and done some explorations to find Noah's Ark - www.baseinstitute.com
quote:
Ge 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Ge 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Ge 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Ge 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Ge 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jan 2005 19:22:54 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 13:42:07
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brothers and sisters:
Peace be unto the house.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
There are major problems with this translation, in our humble opinions. “Giants” is the first snag…
H5303
nephiyl
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant
FELL'ER, n. One who hews or knocks down. Isa 14. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
So what we see here is that those “giants” were, and still are, “bullies” and “tyrants”; nothing new under the sun! Nephiyl comes from the root word naphal and means causatively, to throw down, to prostrate, to overthrow.
The next snag we run into is the word “God”; everyone presupposes that this always refers to Yahowah, but it does not? Just because some scribe or interpreter put a capital “G” on it, does not make it so. Since there were no upper case letters in the ancient Hebrew, many times they misinterpreted what was said by making certain words proper pronouns, and the word “god” was one in particular that received much of this abuse.
This verse actually states that the “children of ‘elohiym [rulers] came unto the daughters of men (adamites)”, and once we know that ‘elohiym simply means, ruler or rulers, it begins to make more sense. The children of the “ruling elite” (Cain-anites) came unto the daughters of men (adamites)”.
Who was the “ruling elite” at this point in time? We rightly suspect that it was the Cain and his descendants because the citizens of Yahowah (Adamites) had not yet committed High Treason, enmasse, against their King.
Yahowah [Jehovah] was the sole King of the Yisra’elite [Jewish] nation. But there came a time in the history of that people when a king was demanded, that they might be like other nations. – Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Since this did not occur until the time of Shama’el, we can assess that these children of “god” [rulers] were not the children of Yahowah.
Once this occurred however, the children of this union became a mixed multitude, and they themselves became known as mighty men, i.e. to act proudly (toward Yahowah [God]), and goes on to say that part of these became the ancient men of renown, i.e. “of conspicuous position”, “authority” ; in short they “made a name for themselves”.
“Mighty men” is the Hebrew word gibbor which comes from the root word gabar, which means to be strong, prevail, act insolently.
It was at this time that the Scripture tells us that Yahowah perceived that the wickedness of His adamites was great [abundant] in the earth.
It was for this cause that Yahowah said, my spirit (mental disposition/rational mind) will not always rule man and that man’s every conception (purpose) and the contrivances (machinations) of his mind had become continually evil.
The good news is that there was one man, Noah who was perfect in his time/dwelling and “walked with Yahowah”, that is to say, he retained Yahowah as his Head!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 13:56:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations brother Marty:
Peace be unto the house.
A few thoughts on at least part of this, though it was not directed toward us:
Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
We see from Lot’s response in verse 18 that they apparently wished to “know” them in an unnatural way!
Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Man lying with man is a breaking of the Law of Nature!
SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Is it “a crime against nature” for a red rose to crossbreed with a white rose, or for a white horse to crossbreed with a black horse?
Question by brother Robert:
Is it “a crime against nature” for a red rose to crossbreed with a white rose, or for a white horse to crossbreed with a black horse?
Answer by Cornerstone Foundation:
Your question suggests what could be a multi-faceted discussion.
On one facet, we would answer. “No” it is not “ crime against nature" for a red rose to crossbreed with a white rose.
This would be like a German Israylite mating with a Swedish Israylite. To call it crossbreeding, in the strict definition of crossbreeding, may be a misnomer.
However, if it were possible, it would be a “crime against nature “ for a male red rose to attempt to crossbreed with a male white rose.
The same concept applies for horses. We have observed them...they don't do it...they have horse sense.
We don't know as much about roses, but wish we did know.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 21 Jan 2005 14:39:57 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 14:23:58
|
And your answer... "This would be like a German Israylite mating with a Swedish Israylite. To call it crossbreeding, in the strict definition of crossbreeding, may be a misnomer" ...would be as though we had asked you if it was against the Law of Nature for a white rose to crossbreed with a white rose" [male and female of course].LOL
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 21 Jan 2005 14:26:22 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 14:27:38
|
Which of the four categories of flesh that Shaul/Paul give us would we put the black, or the brown, or the yellow, or the red-skinned man into?
(a) men
(b) beasts
(c) fishes
(d) birds
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 15:52:43
|
quote:
David Merrill wrote:
This is a great question because it targets the very heart of Christian mythos.
quote:
originally posted by Cornerstone Foundation....
quote within a quote:
What does Jude 1:5-7 mean, respecting what you have written hereinabove? quote: Jude 1:5-7....Therefore I want to put you in remebrance, though you already know this, that Yahweh, having saved the people out-of-the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.And the malakim (angels) who did not keep their first estate, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day.In the same manner, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities surrounding them, having given themselves over to fornication, and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example of those who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
quote:
David Merrill wrote...
The Book of Jude is nearly the only explicit reference to the Book of Enoch that was allowed into New Covenant canons proper...
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
We disagree with you on this point.
2 Kepha(Peter) appears to be a parallel or “second witness” if you will. There may be others.quote:
2 Kepha(Peter) 2:4-10…
For if Yahweh did not spare the malakim (angels) who sinned, but cast them into the abyss, delivering them into chains of darkness to be be reserved for judgment;
And did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the unrighteousness; those who were Lawbreakers;
And condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, and in this way made them an example for those who afterward would live unrighteously;
But delivered righteous Lot, who was deeply grieved by the filthy conduct of the wicked,
For that righteous man, dwelling among them, was tortured in his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds-
Yahweh knows how to deliver the righteous out of temptations; trials, and to reserve the unjust to the day of judgment to be punished;
And especially those who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise authority. Presumptuous and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, ...
quote:
David Merrill also wrote.....
...So keeping that in mind for foundation, I am inclined to agree with you that the Genesis 6:1-8 passage clearly shows religious doctrines between the Sons of God (Seth) and the Daughters of Man (Cain) being intermarried was the problem that caused the Deluge. Not races.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
David, we are not certain when you wrote I am inclined to agree with you if the pronoun “you” refers to Batkol or Cornerstone Foundation.
We are interested in knowing who the “Sons of Yahweh” and the “Daughters of Men” refer to.
At this juncture we are entertaining the possibility that it is as you state above, but we are not convinced that rendering is correct.
Our reason for not being convinced is that such an understanding may be inharmonious with other passages of Scripture.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 21 Jan 2005 16:33:57 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jan 2005 : 17:02:57
|
The doctrine in the Book of Enoch was popular among the literate of Judea for quite some time. [By the way, the 'quote within a quote' was presumed quoting the Book of Jude. That is why I did not specify it otherwise.]
Who I was agreeing with? I will try to clarify instead. Sometimes I get title-handles mixed up anyway. But I did prefix - "nearly" the only occurance.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_BibleBookshelf.jpg
Here is typical commentary from I believe the 1930's, before the Rapture Theory and other developments:
quote:
From The Pulpit Commentary
...consistent exegesis requires that only extreme urgency, in fact absolute necessity (neither of which can be alleged here), should cause the sons of God to be looked for elsewhere than among the members of the human race. 3. The third interpretation, therefore, which regards the sons of God as the pious Sethites (Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, Keil, Habernick, Lange, Murphy, Wordsworh, Quarry, 'Speaker's Commentary'), though not without its difficulties, has the most to recommend it.
And even in Jewish synagogues:
quote:
From Pentateuch and Haftorahs; Hertz Soncino Press 2000
Among several ancient peoples there was a belief that there once existed a race of men of gigantic strength and stature, who were the offspring of human mothers and celestial fathers, and we are supposed to have an echo of that legend in this Biblical passage. Philo, Josephus and the author of the Book of Jubilees were misled into this interpretation by the analogy of these heathen fables*. There is, however, no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew thought. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many moderns.
Others render beney Elohim by 'sons of the great'... This verse would thus state that the sons of the nobles took them wives of the daughters of the people, who were powerless to resist. These marriages were the result of mere unbridled passion, and are an indication of the licence and oppression in that time.
'Sons of God' may, however, also mean those who serve God and obey Him, those nourished and brought up in the love of Him as their Father and Benefactor.. It is quite in accord with Biblical usage that those who adhered to the true worship of God - the children of Seth - are called 'sons of God'' and that, in contrast to these, the daughters of the line of Cain should be spoken of as 'daughters of men'
* In parallel to War by Propaganda playing off the pagan Roman/Greco mindset hopeful of rebirth and Resurrection. |
Edited by - David Merrill on 21 Jan 2005 17:38:14 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2005 : 03:03:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Which of the four categories of flesh that Shaul/Paul give us would we put the black, or the brown, or the yellow, or the red-skinned man into?
(a) men
(b) beasts
(c) fishes
(d) birds
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
I say (a) because the idea in the Bible says through one man sin entered the world. All men have sinned.. Add that with Acts 17:26, " and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation". Monkies don't have fish. Horses don't have kittens, birds don't have snakes.... kind after kind.
Also keep in mind that the Israelite bloodline has a mix of "Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizites, Hivites and Jebusites"
as well as other genetics that had been added in from virgin females
taken as war prizes from the enemies. Also factor in the "mixed multitudes" that got mixed in...How one can say that the above ingredients are to be found in Anglo-Saxon DNA is a real mystery. Any takers in going a few rounds on this one?
Peace,
Steve |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2005 : 09:28:41
|
Dear Batkol;
You said:
quote:
Also factor in the "mixed multitudes" that got mixed in...How one can say that the above ingredients are to be found in Anglo-Saxon DNA is a real mystery. Any takers in going a few rounds on this one?
And there is no real tracking bloodlines anymore. It makes sense that there would be mixtures this 'late in history'. [Note the spectrum of skin tones http://www.aish.com/a/wall.asp ] [Note the Khazarian/Siberian headdress: http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Midrash.jpg ] http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_People_MiddleEast.jpg
But I said:
quote:
Thanks to all for formulating a definition for "Jew". It may be useful in the Interplay. Some readers are probably being offended so we should conclude the discussion on that with what has already been said.
And above you also said:
quote:
Also keep in mind that the Israelite bloodline has* a mix of "Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizites, Hivites and Jebusites" as well as other genetics that had been added in from virgin females taken as war prizes from the enemies.
* Amplifying your point as I understand it in context of something I recall you said earlier on this Topic. It sounds as though you are equating Canaanites with Israelites at the onset. Now I think it is finally becoming clear why so few people agree with your theories about White Races. The Biblical presumption is clearly that Israelites are from the lineage Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. It is presumed that Abraham, formerly Abram was of lower Euphrates/Mesopotamian origins (Kuwait region) and of course that is a composite of his parents, grandparents etc. Like the doodle at the bottom of these notes:
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/Resonance3.gif
Resonance Three
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_SpiralFromPentagram.jpg
I have pointed out that you have hashed this over thoroughly and can be found by the inherent search engine by "batkol white race" on six Topics. Readers are welcome to view your opinions regarding this on your extant Posting history.
Me having started this Topic, I would rather not 'go rounds' with the White Race doctrine. I genuinely believe it was helpful in formulating common agreement about Jews. But we have interesting things to move on to, I hope.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 22 Jan 2005 16:15:11 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2005 : 12:21:58
|
Hi David,
You said: It sounds as though you are equating Canaanites with Israelites at the onset.
Me: I am not saying that at all. I am showing that the Bible says the Canaanites (as well as a host of other folk) have married into the bloodline. That's the point, not that the Israelites 'are' Canaanites. The reason I keep bringing it up is the topic keeps calling for it. The posts between oneisraelite and Cornerstone Foundation are dealing with race. I offered my comments because Cornerstone Foundation's posts are from an Anglo-Israel perspective yet the Bible, IMO which I am happy to debate, supports oneisraelite's perspective for the reasons I outlined in my last post. No problems. No name calling. Everybody is being nice however if some want to assert that the Israelites are the progenitors of the Anglo-Saxons I would love to have a friendly chat about it. The discussion would ultimately tie in with some of the ideas germane to this topic but I won't loose any sleep if nobody thinks it is worth the effort.
I look forward to seeing the topic advance. BTW, Great thread David.
Peace,
Steve
|
|
|
|
Cornerstone Foundation
Advanced Member
uSA
254 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2005 : 14:16:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Which of the four categories of flesh that Shaul/Paul give us would we put the black, or the brown, or the yellow, or the red-skinned man into?
(a) men
(b) beasts
(c) fishes
(d) birds
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL.
Cornerstone Foundation wrote:
In the context that Paul made the above statement we believe that he intended for the people of color to be included in category (a.) men.
Having said that we feel it is appropriate to also point out that when the Hebrew word "chay" is translated into the English word "beast" in the Old Writings it sometimes refers to bipeds (people) and it sometimes refers to quadrupeds (animals).
Taking into consideration what the connotation for the word "beast" has become in this day and age, we think it is unfortunate that the translators chose to translate the word "chay" into "beast" when referring to people.
We would like to make it abundantly clear that we do not regard people of color as being of an inferior creation.
We believe that Yahweh created each of the races separate and distinct. We believe that Yahweh created each race for a purpose. We believe that Yahweh's creation was and is good.
Having said that, we will also say that we believe the Scripture teaches that mixing of the races is outside of Yahweh's will and is a violation of His Law.
Respectfully submitted,
Marty |
Edited by - Cornerstone Foundation on 22 Jan 2005 14:23:24 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2005 : 10:51:00
|
quote:
The reason I keep bringing it up is the topic keeps calling for it.
Fair enough. It is an interesting conversation and I suppose obvious the "White Races" are mixed to some extent.
I am grabbing the thread we have touched upon that since even the Israelites were mixed up in Egypt and in the generation or so in the Sinai Desert, pure bloodlines are not so critical as creed or religion for distinction of peoples. That blands things out a bit so I will introduce a tangent from there; the basis of creeds and religious agreement in mental archtypes.
quote:
Marty for Cornerstone Foundation said:
Having said that, we will also say that we believe the Scripture teaches that mixing of the races is outside of Yahweh's will and is a violation of His Law.
It would seem hypocritical for Marty to say, "Those blacks are great people; they just cannot mix with us whites." So he qualifies the statement with a fairly subjective clause about asking for approval from Yehovah (Strong's suggested spelling). In the Messianic Age, at least since the first advent, this becomes confusing so back to mental archtypes. [This is in fact the basis of the statutory Marriage License - the presumption of ministerial or priestly counsel and approval for marrying out of the tribe or clan. - Acquiring the approval of the intermediary to God (the State as God).]
I am talking about certain ingrained symbols. Traumatic events when we are young (about five) will induce a dichotomy of character as a protective mechanism - schizophrenia. There is a tendency to be able to blame a character that is introduced - for instance this is the common denominator for virtually all 'alien abductions'. And the reason that all the aliens invariably have the skinny limbs and big eyes. That is a fine example of a mental archtype.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AlienVisitation-1.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AlienVisitation-2.jpg
As you read the passage from American Historical Documents - The Voyages to Vinland and first White exploration of North America, about, "...her hair was of a light chestnut color, and she was pale of hue, and so big-eyed that never before had eyes so large been seen in a human skull.", the hairs on the back of your neck should prickle. This is indication of 'striking a chord'. This particular mental archtype is so old (at least a millenium now) that we almost all relate to it.
So what I have been getting at is a better way, a more productive way to hash through what many to perceive to be racial foundation. Our thought symbols. I could probably become Muslim, white as I am. I know that a lot of black people can easily adopt Islam. The religious symbols are independent of race.
http://www.fmsfonline.org/mpdsra.html
The link above may be a great example. I cannot find the actual lecture on FMSF (False Memory Syndrome Foundation). Only the article linked about FMS. But I should have the lecture itself linked soon (I saved it when it was available). In the same tone that Dr. Hammond quit lecturing about the phenomenon, too many readers were probably using the lecture to confirm CIA Mind Control torture chambers. I recall meeting a man who was adamant about convincing me these things were real.
quote:
FMS Foundation's home page describes folie adieu, Group Psychotic Disorders being passed around among groups*
Does it matter if someone has a false belief about the past? Most of the time it doesn't. Sometimes, however, false beliefs cause great harm, not only to the people who hold them, but also to others. This site provides information about how some false beliefs about memory have seriously harmed the believers, their families and other innocent individuals.
The mental archtypes introduced recently into America were by Allen Welsh DULLES, the second Director of Central Intelligence but over 11 years and covering the end of WWII, clearly the most formative director. He brought the 'intelligence' of Nazi Germany's medical doctors who had been forming deep trauma "experiments" in the Nazi Death Camps. As you will read, the leader of these autrocities was a Jewish Qabbalist (Dr. Greenbaum = Greentree => Qabbalistic Tree of Life - Ten Sephirot) who turned against his own people to survive; much like Adolf Hitler himself. [So we can see how flimsy holding to race for foundation is.]
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/kabbala101/Kabbala_19_-_History_of_Kabbala_Part_II.asp
The phenomenon Dr. Corydon Hammond was lecturing about in 1991 was that certain mental archtypes had been incorporated into the minds of Americans that were beginning to surface in schizophrenic patients while under deep hypnosis. At the time '91, Hammond is playing with the idea that this is an indication real torture is taking place. What does not add up is that he claims that if he gets killed for revealing his findings, so what. But shortly after the lecture he completely dropped the endeavor. Why? Most paranoid people presume it was because the good Dr. was intimidated by the government and CIA busy torturing our children into Manchurian Candidates. While I cannot speak for Dr. Hammond, I have concluded he quit speaking because he detested what he had started with the lecture. The CIA Mind Control torture chambers are a mental archtype, a dreg of the psyche, and admittedly about as nightmarish as it gets. Nothing more. But people were quickly thinking that behind the security of chain-link fences of military bases, these sniblies of tortured Jews are still being enacted under the dead programs of MKULTRA and other Cold War doctrine. [See Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.] DULLES gave the 'doctors' of the Death Camps amnesty and careers here in the United States in order to secure the lab results of those terrible experiments. See The Craft of Intelligence by Allen Welsh DULLES.
quote:
After repressed memory therapy "movement" emerged in the mid-1980s, many alarmed and concerned researchers and clinicians began studying the issue closely and found that the suggestive techniques recommended in the self-help literature and employed by many therapists led patients to evaluate mental images incorrectly as accurate memories of actual events.
I bet you will feel the same little hairs creeping up your spine when you read The Greentree Lecture. That is the same feeling about ghosts and goblins. Another popular mental archtype.
Regards,
David Merrill.
* I was speaking to a man, an expert marksman undergoing therapy after being a long-range sniper/assassin in Vietnam. He took note of the psychiatrist indicating "mental instability" when he admitted he believed in Jesus Christ.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 23 Jan 2005 18:06:36 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Original War by Propaganda
