Saturday, November 5, 2011

YHWH is always getting a bad rap.

And I think this is despicable. Especially on the part of people
who have presumably read the entire Bible or large sections
of it, and the New Testament, and especially when they have
fast and efficient (?) minds. I put the question mark there,
because more than IQ is at work in "brains."

This is demonstrated by some studies that showed that high IQ
in children do not always result in success later. It is other factors
playing a role, incl. emotional and social issues.

Among the emotional issues, one that can operate hidden, not
showing as a "feeling" or "emotion" until it is challenged, but
the driver behind decisions and choices of what to accept or
reject, is the sin of pride, and its relative, vainglory.

Sometimes these go with success, IF circumstances are such they
favor the person with this flaw, AND he or she has a lot of skill
or "talent" in whatever is at issue. If any of these don't fit, then
failure or mediocrity may result, with concomitant envy, semi
submerged anger being in denial about one's abilities or whatever,
or just throwing over the traces and being a "rebel" considering
everything is beneath him or her anyway.

Now, I think when you have someone who studied patristics at
Oral Roberts University, and also graduated from Oxford, UK,
and wrote a book on the level of any of the ancient Fathers on
heresy and the driver behind all the Christological heresies
(not the first to identify it, but other great thinkers and writers
always draw on predecessors anyway), which is confusion
between person and nature, and translated and wrote a profound
introduction to St. Photios the Great's Mystagogy of The Holy
Spirit, still (or at least relatively recently available at St. Vladimir's
Seminary book store), and this person decides that YHWH is a
bad guy, something is wrong somewhere.

Now, the usual pattern is, either YHWH is condemned for being
too lenient, or for being too bloodthirsty. Such people can only
like a God Who is kindly and coddling and takes care of us, but
despise His justice and discipline. Some will accept justice only
if viewed as discipline to teach us and improve us, which of
course pending the Last Judgement, all justice is potentially
since it may cause one to stop and think and ask why and
sincerely seek.

This guy was Eastern Orthodox, then, not seeing the obvious
point that being Orthodox by being recognized by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate or some church in communion with them, means
that that person's or church's doctrine has been checked and
approved, ends up going vagante. That means he got a consecration
as a bishop from someone with an Apostolic Succession, but
outside any recognized Orthodox organization. While this is not
entirely outside the pale in terms of legitimacy if you go back to
basics and the earliest days, since "wandering bishops," those
who are not assigned to a specific diocese, were prohibited by
a later council because of disorders they caused, it is reason to
raise an eyebrow, though the succession he was in is one that
goes back as far as primary consecrators are concerned, if the
online information is correct, to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Exactly how that lineage went out of Russian Orthodoxy is
another matter of no importance here, but the lineage though it
includes Vilatte lineages as secondary consecrators, and Villatte
had his consecration from a monophysite source, is not primarily
of that. So if heretical successions from an Apostle are tainted,
this one is clear. (Villatte's ordination to the priesthood,
however, was RC legitimate.)

By this time, he has imbibed ormus which he figured tends to
exaggerate the users characteristics, good and bad. I would
guess this led to his further problems.

the EO is infested with rejection of the idea of God's justice
right now, so it must have been some other reason that he
went vagante. By this time, his bishop is involved in
astrology according to one source, and himself has shown
evidence of more acquaintance with books of demon
conjuring than should be the case, and a deplorable willingness
to publish demon sigils, arguing these reflect some kind of
wierd physics and not spirits. (the two issues might overlap.
that doesn't make the sigils or what they represent any less

A major problem I suspect with this genius, is pride. AND
while denouncing the scholastics, he is an overly systematic
thinker, a system builder, like Aquinas.

In God History and the Dialectic, a brilliant book I would
recommend to everyone, and most of it is available at google
books, he not only nails the source of Christological heresies,
he then goes on to tackle the filioque, and blames that for
all tripartite containing wacko ideas from Joachim of Flores
to Hegelian Dialectic and Marxism which derives in main
part from Hegel.

While there is a lot to be said for this, one main problem
remains. Filioque or no filioque, if you are going to start
trying to draw tripartite conclusions in the physical world
from The Holy Trinity's existence, other than noticing that
threes may be a hint from The Trinity about Themself, or
a case of the artist putting something about himself in his
art, or both, you are going to get some strange results.

The system building mentality builds houses of cards,
complex houses. Or domino houses. these houses are not
entirely dependent in all cases on their components so that
if you pull one or even two out the whole thing falls, but
it will certainly, ah, restructure. Perhaps that restructured
form is like what it should have been, or perhaps it will
be a whole new error.

Systems Analysis, by the way, is NOT the same thing as
system building type thinking, mechanical, rigid, building
logically one thing on another.

There are two ways a syllogism can fail, an unexamined
wrong premise, and an unexamined non sequitur ("it does
not follow").  A flaw in either place will ruin the whole,
or most of it.

Farrell has both. Now, he is onto something with the wierd
physics. but he assumes that all the pagan pantheons,
especially those of people connected with megalith etc.
building like the Egyptians, were disguised mathematical
relationships. This may to some extent be true, but that
doesn't make them any less pagan demons and believed in
bullshit etc.

At some point he noticed that often there was some connection
between economics and priesthoods, and has drawn conclusions
and stated generalities that I don't have the time or resources to
check on.

But he points out that there is a correllation between a closed
system physics and money as monetized debt, and an open
system physics and real money (dismissed as funny money by
proponents of gold standard and central banks alike) which is
much more flexible, is based on the actual production of the
people and so forth. Adjust this a tad more, and add barter and
agreed acceptance of something easy for anyone to get ahold
of like beads and cowrie shells as mediums of exchange, and
you would solve the world's financial problems in general, and
the USA and Europe's financial problems in particular.

but now he argues that all sacrificial religious systems (blood
sacrifice, human or animal) and that of the Atonement by
Christ, is the same, which is to pay a debt. And further you
never get it paid off.

This is patently false for two reasons.

(1) all the sacrificial systems are looking to FEED A
VAMPIRE. a false god may be appeased by the pleasure
of being fed, but it is not a justice stand in for the offender.

(2) a. YHWHism almost alone makes it clear, that the God
being worshipped, the true God, does not need anything,
does not need to feed, and that the issue is substitution
of the animal for the offender who is then to lead an
exemplary life, and that also there is the matter of showing
gratitude by giving to God of what God has given to you,
not being selfish and prideful and thinking you did it all
yourself, or "mother nature" did it or whatever. God made
and directs "mother nature."

    b. Whenever did a "bankster" (banker as gangster, and
yes that is a legitimate concept) pay off the debt of the
debtor for him and extend infinite credit on top of that as
St. John Chrysostom described it? YHWH does not act
like a bankster in the Atonement.

The debt to God in part is based on our very existence, but
that is God's pleasure as well as ours. He loves His creatures.
He supports us and give us, human and animal alike, all we
need to live, though it is up to us to make do and work on it.
human sin has marred all this. It is not really DEBT in a sense
we borrowed and can pay back, but rather, all we have and all
good we are, we owe to God.

Pride of course doesn't like this. Lucifer fell in love with his
own beauty, prized himself above God and decided to place
his throne above YHWH's but was cast down instead.

but the debt of sin, is another matter. That was incurred. God
tried to prevent it but we didn't listen. HOWEVER, it is not
as simple as debt of sin or appease the honor of an agrieved

St. Athanasius made it clear in The Divine Dilemma in
On The Incarnation, that God had the following choices. Either
let His creation go on dithering off into destruction, which would
be unfitting and better He had not created anything almost, OR
He could violate His own integrity and take back His word that
rebellion would result in death.

OR, He could take on human flesh, suffer the condemnation He
laid on us, and have His cake and eat it too as a result. This is
what He did.

(He also pulled off the greatest chess move in history. Being king
as well as God of Israel, but knowing they would eventually want
a human king, He allowed Himself to be kicked upstairs so to speak,
being God but not king anymore.

After the first king selected was a failure, He made a covenant with
the second and better king, David, and even before this, had said
through prophets that the kingship would always reside in Judah
UNTIL Shiloh, He Who Shall Rule or something like that, shall
come. In Jesus' time alone was Judah under a non Judaean king.
An Idumaean in stead. Herod and his successors.

Now, God (the Second Person of God The Trinity) Incarnates in
the royal lineage. The covenant with David had David's descendants
not just any Judaean on the throne forever.

So now, God in the Person of Jesus Christ, is King again as well
as God, and will be so forever, the Second Coming being to fulfill
the kingly role of the Messiah (Christ is Greek for Messiah, both
mean "anointed").

Now, the Atonement is the greatest act of love ever. Somehow
the devil and his all too eager workers among men, see it as an
act of hate and evil.

Remember that ALL the Trinity not just The Father was upset.
And Christ received the sacrifice of Himself just as much as did
The Father, as the AD 1156 Blachernae Constantinople Council
made clear, often MISQUOTED by EO who oppose atonement.

What it said was, that you must not only say that Christ made
the Sacrifice to The Father but to Himself also, that BOTH He
and The Father received His sacrifice for us.

It is from The Wrath of The Lamb as well as from that of The
Father that we are saved, and there was never any ransom PAID
to the devil. Redemption as one linguist pointed out, in Hebrew
conception can mean not only buying a slave's freedom, paying
a ransom to a conqueror or a kidnapper, but also can mean just
barging in and taking the captive back. The latter is what is
indicated by Christ's redemption of us, it is payment to Himself
and The Father to free us from the Wrath, and it is barging in
and taking us from the devil who Christ crippled.

EO and RC argue that the devil is bound now. That is patently
false or there would be no office of exorcist, sure the devil is
crippled, BUT Revelation speaks of him being bound for 1,000
years unable to tempt the nations. Even now, though weakened
severely, he misleads the unbelievers, "the nations," and the
believers when he can.

So the Atonement is an act of love not hate.

c. YHWH inveighed against human sacrifice, especially of infants,
and against usury meaning ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST
WHATSOEVER. It was the Venetians and Calvin who got
the RC and the Prots to decide that usury was "excessive"
interest, instead of ANY interest.

In the good old days, the way you got gain from making a loan,
was to use the land it was loaned against, or animals or machines
or tools until the debt, interest free, was paid off, or to become
a part owner in the business, and getting some of its profits, until
the debt, interest free, was paid off.

(this is still the way with Arab lenders, which makes their
money so attractive.)

SO, how exactly does YHWH pan out as a bankster?

On a Byte Show, the Aztec legends that blame the institution
of human sacrifice on one Yaotl was hawked. I got a copy of
the book that is their legends. Sure, Yaotl was the name of the
sorceror who, with Tezcatlipoca, started this evil. BUT HE

that writer just jumped on the Yao part of the name as
showing this was YHWH disguised or an emissary thereof.

Which is patent nonsense.

No comments:

Post a Comment