Blood and the God of life

originally posted by: DISRAELI
We don’t know the exact meaning of YHWH, because we’ve lost all knowledge of what the vowels were

The letters and numbers of the Tree of Life (Kabbalah; Bahir, Sefer Yetzirah etc) are arranged according to the ancient art of sword fighting-- «He arranged them as in order of battle for warfare» ~Sefer Yetzirah.

YHVH is a basic sword kata. The tree of life is really the sword; Yod is the sword's position in the belt, by your left thigh. First basic defence is Heh (most likely defence, since most are right handed and would attack the left shoulder), likeways, first basic offence is in from left, also Heh or Vav. Vav and Heh are the two basic defence/offence moves in this system. Officers could build formations and shout out words and phrases and what must have sounded like gibberish to change his teams' tactics. Keeping that in mind and reading Psalms and Revelation about the Son of Man, things suddenly fall into place, the Word of God is a way to remote control soldiers:

....from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. [ESV] Revelation 1:16


The red soldier in the pic above is in Vav position (see pic below).

a reply to: Shahada

I totally agree...

a reply to: DISRAELI

At least he owns it, so he's not stealing his own property.

Very good DISRAELI.

This should be blood and the god of death, because that's how the Bible portrays God, as a serial killer.

It's not a book I would want my kids reading with the rapes and incest, genocide, infanticide and mass murder for petty offenses.

"The Good Book" is one of the most ironic statements about the Bible as it has the Messiah being killed and his message ignored for a false prophet.

God is nothing like the myths of Jewish literature and is not bloodthirsty or vindictive like the Bible portrays him.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I am pretty sure YHWH originally meant Father, Mother, Son, Daughter.

Elohim is also plural and masculine feminine.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Rare steaks are fine, what the Bible means by not eating meat with the blood still in it is it not being drained from the animal. You'll never be able to remove every cell of blood from the muscles. It simply means slit the throat of the animal and drain the blood, eat your steak in peace.

What are you the expert on Biblical dietary laws?

Truthfully the first Nazarenes like James and probably Jesus didn't even eat meat but didn't mandate vegetarianism but it was considered righteous to avoid consuming living beings because they are living beings, and still is as far as I'm concerned.

If sacrificing animals is done away with because it's cruel then it follows eating meat is wrong too when you can live on plant life.

originally posted by: Shahada

I believe Paul called people who scrutinize and obsess about dietary laws spiritually weak.

I happen to disagree and think he was making an issue out of James lax attitude about it.

1. Don't eat meat that has been sacrificed to Idols.

2. Don't eat the blood (raw meat, cook it).

3. Don't eat stangled animals or naturally dead animals (carrion).

4. Refrain from fornication (not chastity, get married first).


Animal sacrifice is stupid and a practice of barbarians not something a real God would require because what gain is it? It is unnecessary and cruel.

And no real God would even once order human sacrifice, barbarians write too. Heathens. Sacrificing first born children.

Especially his alleged son.


Thank God it's only mythological but people still do both today, human and animal. They are hopefully always a small percentage of the population but it still happens today.

He was calling James teachings, that came from the Holy Spirit, weak, and I also side with James.

Paul is the main reason I became Muslim, I know he was a liar.

originally posted by: Shahada
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I definitely get why you WANT that to be true but it's not. The people's first born and first born of a flock are two different things and seperate issues.

In the instance I provided there exists no reason for assuming something that is clearly not what is being communicated (it is so obviously not animals).

So you mentioning the 8th day and weening animals is puzzling. Are you just learning this about your "god"?

I would probably try and word my way around it too at first. Then I would come to my senses and stop rationalizing. Show me the word animals, it isn't there. Show me how an animal becomes a person's first born, doesn't.

You are addicted to assumptions and misinterpretations I have noticed.

it's referring to the rule of first used to define perfection.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I am pretty sure YHWH originally meant Father, Mother, Son, Daughter.

Elohim is also plural and masculine feminine.

What a bunch of bollocks. JHVH is kicking ass in sword fighting. Elohim (probably originally Elayim) is the (pair of) celestial parents. Heaven and Earth, Void and Darkness.

a reply to: DISRAELI

the Hebrew word for blood, "dam" (Strongs 1818) is similar to "Adam" (Strongs 119) which can also mean "to show blood in the face".

Blood is also likened to life itself.

do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. (Deut 12:23)

a reply to: firefromabove
Yes, indeed, that was my case in the OP.
Blood is the location of life, symbolically, and represents life, so talking about blood is a way of talking about life.
Thank you for that contribution.

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: DISRAELI

the Hebrew word for blood, "dam" (Strongs 1818) is similar to "Adam" (Strongs 119) which can also mean "to show blood in the face".

Blood is also likened to life itself.

do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh. (Deut 12:23)

You may think it means to only eat an animal who's blood is "drained"....but I see it as, DON'T eat animals. They have LIFE IN THEIR FLESH.
Christians are so out of touch with the mercy that Jesus taught, it's ridiculous. An animal is a sentient being, with feelings very similar to yours. So, while you feast on that "medium to rare" steak...you've completely forgotten that it USED to be living, sentient, being...and it felt pain, fear, and anguish, as it was slaughtered.
It sickens me. You are not of the truth even it came up and bit you in the butt.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

While many religions permit the consumption of animal meat, none of them teach that its okay to keep craving animal meat. On the contrary, many religions place great value on fasting, abstinence and simple living. A man who thinks he is pious but is constantly craving those delicious steaks and meats, (or any other food) serves his appetite more than God.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
The Biblical God has very clearly given permission to eat; "Every living thing that lives shall be food for you" (Genesis ch9 v3). Either you take seriously what he says, or you don't. There is no point in seizing on one part of it and ignoring another.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The Biblical God has very clearly given permission to eat; "Every living thing that lives shall be food for you"

yet he seemed to change his mind... there was unclean meat

But then there wasn't

a reply to: Akragon
Then perhaps the distinction was part of the human contribution to the Old Testament.
It did have useful temporary value. It helped to get them trained up into the habit of distinguishing good from bad, and it set up a metaphor which helped Peter to understand why the Gentiles were no longer to be excluded (Acts ch10 v15).

a reply to: DISRAELI

Damnit!!

Quit doin that..

its said he never changes... though

a reply to: Akragon
If a person decides, in advance, to spend half an hour doing physical exercise and half an hour reading, the fact that he switches from exercise to reading halfway through the hour does not constitute a genuine change in his intentions.
We cannot say that God has "changed" just because we see him moving from one phase of his original plan to another.

a reply to: DISRAELI

We cannot say that God has "changed" just because we see him moving from one phase of his original plan to another.

isn't that change by definition?

something that is bad.. is suddenly ok?

or at least accepted?

originally posted by: Akragon
isn't that change by definition?

It is not the kind of "change" that is meant when it is written that God does not change.
"God does not change" is intended as a statement about his character.
The plan of moving from A to B to C, and the character that lies behind that plan, has not changed.