Contents:
- Section 1: Effective Sacrifice for Mental Transformation Is Non-Harmful
- Section 2: Pictures of ram caught by its horns powerlessly in bush
- Section 3: Bible verses of the Sacrifice of Isaac/Bush-Caught Ram
- Section 4: Why the mind tries to violate its lower thinking
- Section 5: Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harm = Literalism = Failure
Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics
Experiencing the block universe rock (per Eternalism) — and in the same state, seeing the source of thoughts — sacrifices the illusion of having the power to steer among branching possibilities (per Possibilism), and transforms thinking about control and time, all at once.
The mind’s self-control system in the loose cognitive state is like a ram caught by its own struggling power become powerless, in a branching mushroom thicket.
Upon realizing this situation, the higher mind is transformed and is satisfied of having reached coherent thinking about the source of control.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10551125c/f12.item.zoom
Section 1: Effective Sacrifice for Mental Transformation Is Non-Harmful
The word ‘you’, in my writing, pretty much always means “the mind in the peak altered state”; I don’t mean me, or any reader.
The word ‘you’ is shorthand for “the mind in the peak altered state”.
General decoding key:
o Abraham is you.
o Isaac is you.
o The bush is you.
o The sacrificial knife is you.
o The rock altar for sacrifice is you.
o The ram is you.
Hope this helps.
The Paranoid Ruler: How Testing the Mind’s Defense Against the Control-Source Leads to Seizure and Transformation and Mercy and Blessedness and Regeneration
Defense-probing leads to self-violation seizure and simultaneously then to:
mental transformation and
understanding of isomorphic analogies in religious myth, and
clearing sin, and
being released and announced as among the elect.
Breaking out of egoic control thinking might include various thoughts of self-violation.
It’s not about harm, so much as, the mind’s control system checking and probing itself, checking is there some “inability to control”?
The higher controller, uncontrollable source of thoughts: there can be no defense against that.
The mind is at the mercy of the higher source of control-thoughts. Realizing this IS the sacrifice, IS Zeus reluctantly zapping Semele to smithereens, IS comprehension of isomorphism of the mind’s control-seizure, ram caught in bush, king fastened helplessly to tree.
That is how you force the egoic thinking to finally “die” and stop reasserting its mode: by receiving self-testing, self-disproving thoughts.
Not by doing any physical action — no breaking of a physical bow, or burning of a ram, or killing of king, will do it.
Only thinking, of self-control violation defense indefensibility against God the source of all control thoughts.
When I write “you” only i mean that as a figure of speech; I’m discussing how the mind works in the peak state.
You end up in a battle against god but when you do, at the same time, as soon as you find your self in that situation, your sin is thereby cleared; your mind is thereby transformed, no harm is done, and you are free to go, get baptised in the ram.
Recieving command-like thoughts of self-violation, is the shock that drives mental model transformation; that’s the blade of sacrifice.
Thoughts of self-violation, and especially, realizing the mind’s fundamental lack of defense against receiving such thoughts from the ever-hidden thought-source, is, to be reborn, to learn the fear of God.
That’s confirmd by mystic and mythic descriptions;
{blade} = receiving thoughts of self-violation vulnerability
The source of thoughts, the {blade} of enlightenment, transformation, and sacrifice of delusion, drives the mind to test its vulnerability.
{The king fears being overthrown}, crown usurped by his son, so the paranoid king checks and tests his defenses, then he tests them more, now he’s caught in a bush, attacking himself to test his defenses against himself, inexorably escalating into a cybernetic control seizure.
To check your defense, you attack yourself, the army of soldiers turns on each other.
{message from angel of the Lord}; ultimate-controller-conformant thought that preserves well-being:
“Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God. A ram caught in a thicket by his horns offer up in the stead.”
Effective Sacrifice Requires/Involves Not Harming, But Acknowledging & Revising
Understanding the isomorphism of cybernetic seizure = {bush-caught ram, king fastened to cross} produces the desired mental transformation; harming self-control prevents the desired mental transformation.
The Angel’s Announcement
The high angel-thought comes to the mind and says:
_____
“Announcement:
“This mind has been made to realize that its malformed child-esque thinking about control has gotten it into a cybernetic seizure, like a ram that got himself helplessly caught in a bush.
“Your thinking has now been made coherent, and conformant with the higher controller, the true source of control.”
“CONGRATULATIONS!! YOU ARE AMONG THE ELECT!!
“You have been officially regenerated. You are free to go, completely unharmed, yet completely enlightened and made coherent.
“Go get baptised in the ram provided for you by God, not as magic efficacy of vicarious harm, but rather, as celebration and acknowledgement that your sin has been healed; that your thinking has been officially converted from Possibilism to Eternalism and you are blessed by high thinking, given from above.”
In Defense of the Ram
November 23, 2020: I note and realize that the angel never tells Abraham to harm the (mythic) ram. And God never explicitly says that he’s pleased about Abraham “having done this thing” as if “the thing” refers to burning the ram after the close call with the blade.
I maintain, God was not pleased by burning the ram (that would be magic thinking, which is, I argue, ineffective for mental transformation) but rather, by Abraham’s act of being made willing to “sacrifice his child” — that’s what Abraham “obeyed”, not the harming of the ram.
Another page of the psalter shows the angel pointing to the ram. The passage never says that God was pleased because Abraham burned the ram.
God was pleased because Abraham mentally “obeyed him” in the act of willing to blade the child-thinking; ie, God was satisfied that Abraham grasped that God is in control of his control-thoughts.
God and the angel never said anything at all about the poor ram. After toasting the ram, God says “because you have done this thing , and hast not withheld thy son…”
Does “done this thing” refer to a magical violent action of burning the ram? No, it must mean, the thing = willing to violate self-control, an act of willing (or, passively: being made by God to will) which burned up the child-thinking.
“The thing” that pleases god is not burning the ram, but rather, being made willing to violate child-esque thinking; being willing to, mythically speaking, {sacrifice his child}.
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
_____
No rams were burned; the king is alive; and burning rams or killing kings is missing the point and failing to mentally transform.
To satisfy theologians (John MacArthur) who want it both ways: we are ultimately responsible AND God rules all:
When we say:
Your mind has been officially converted from Possibilism to Eternalism.
we mean:
Your mind has been officially converted from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking.
Qualified-Possibilism-thinking is freewill-semi-reifying thinking; virtual ultimate moral responsibility.
The transformed mind still uses child-esque freewill thinking, but no longer believes in it, metaphysically.
Section 2: Pictures of ram caught by its horns powerlessly in bush
Image Search
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=a+ram+caught+in+a+thicket+by+his+horns+Genesis
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ram%20caught%20thicket%20horns%20Genesis
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ram%20caught%20thicket%20horns
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+22%3A8-18&version=NIV;KJV
{rock altar of sacrifice} (block universe)
{sacrifice} (forcefully finally shaking off habitual erroneous incoherent self-contradictory thinking, Possibilism-thinking)
Section 3: Bible verses of the Sacrifice of Isaac/Bush-Caught Ram
The Bible Verses – The Angel/Ram Verses Only
Genesis 22:12-13 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s bush-caught ram — the angel/ram verses only:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22%3A12-13&version=KJV;NIV
KJV
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
NIV
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Footnotes
- [a] Genesis 22:13 Many manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text a ram behind him
The Bible Verses – The Main Act Within the Chapter
Bible verses: the sacrifice of {Isaac}; childhood-suited Naive-Possibilism -thinking:
Genesis 22:8-18 — The Sacrifice of Isaac’s bush-caught ram
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022%3A8-18&version=KJV;NIV
KJV
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.
15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
NIV
8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram[a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.”
15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring[b] all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because you have obeyed me.”
Footnotes
- [a] Genesis 22:13 Many manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text a ram behind him
- [b] Genesis 22:18 Or seed
- [c] Genesis 22:18 Or and all nations on earth will use the name of your offspring in blessings (see 48:20)
Section 4: Why the mind tries to violate its lower thinking
Why the mind wants to “break” its lower thinking and needs a harmless sacrifice to finally, forcefully, permanently cast off delusion (which, frustratingly, keeps returning, re-asserting itself) without any harm
Central question of this analysis: concisely explain these 2 or 3 points
I got the full traction needed for success, in this section, below.
Now, all that remains is to rewrite the same points 3 times, to get it down to 200 characters.
1) Why does the mind need “frenzied” demonstration of nullity of egoic control power?
Answer: The mind needs sufficient understanding of Possibilism and Eternalism in order to switch over.
2) How does that relate to sacrifice? {sacrifice} is: forceful repudiation and abandonment and detachment and removal of the ever-reentrenching-itself confused egoic control thinking premised on Possibilism, to gain Eternalism.
Answer: To comprehend, is to repudiate and sacrifice. It’s all the same thing.
Eternalism is the TREASURE we most desire: Eternalism; the treasure prize of great price, snatched from the guarding dragon, God’s guarding angel of death:
switching from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking
3) How does that relate to the isomorphic, health-preserving, substitute sacrifice of the {ram caught powerlessly in bush by its own power}, or the {king fastened powerlessly to the debranched tree}?
Answer: Understanding isomorphism of … you just gotta be given full comprehension by God, without physical harm/activity.
The harm, Zeus reveals his power and zaps Semele to smithereens, the harm that is needed, the shock that drives mental transformation, IS the comprehension, is the message, is the sacrifice, is the isomorphism, is the comprehension of the isomorphism (of: cyb-seizure = ram caught in bush = king fastend to tree).
Looking for the harmful demonstration, to shock and cause perm transformation so egoic thinking stops returning, one finds precisely that very “harmful demonstration”, not by physical harm, but by being made to will anything — at which point, the sacrifice is already done; regeneration has already occurred, repudiation is already finished; mental transformation has completed, already.
The “act” that God requires, is a mental act of willing, self-counter-willing, a willing that God makes the mind do, by making the mind want to violate itself — at which point, the angel message is received, the mind is scourged by the gods who demand honor (Villa of the Mysteries fresco), the mind is then transformed and it is satisfied and fulfilled, completed, the child-thinking is gone.
As soon as you (the mind’s cybernetic control system) are made willing to self-violate, at the selfsame time, you are given comprehension, transformation, clearing sin, regeneration, comprehension of isomorphism with ram/bush & king/tree.
THE ANSWER: overall for 1-3: which seemed to solve all together; when I give answer for 1, or 2, or 3, it’s the same answer. “violent shocking” demonstration (to prevent full return of egoic thinking) = the sacrifice and repudiation and transformation and the comprehension of isomorphism.
When the mind understands the isomorphism, of cybernetic seizure based on incoherncy of freewil-based thinking; ram/bush, & king/tree —
THAT understanding is the “blast”, the shock, the “shocking demonstration” that’s needed and efficacious, to secure and grasp Eternalism-thinking fully, at last, such as to prevent regressive, frustrating rebirth back into egoic feewill thinking; naive Possibilism.
Write-up, toward clear, concise explanations/wordings of the above 3 points
“the act of sacrifice” really means, the effectual mental grasp of the IDEA of ‘sacrifice’ as repudiation of mental structure; no rams or kings were harmed in the writing of this mind-transforming post.
And in fact any harm, is an indicator that the mind failed to transform and get the point. The only valid sacrifice is in the mind. Any physical sacrifice or harm is beside the point and most likely a substitute, indicating a failure of mental transformation.
I’m out of time and hate to write out text work-up here, but, THIS STUFF IS OF CRUCIAL TOPMOST IMPORTANCE in mystic-state experiencing.
We cannot claim to know, have figured out, and have mapped out safely, this area of human experiencing (mental transformation in the peak intense mystic altered state) without this type of write-up.
I’m a cartographer frontier explorer, in the zone labelled HERE BE DRAGONS, and I’m in there mapping out our dragons.
Expansion of that programme, of working up a CONCISE explanation of the above 3, most-ultimate points:
Here is the explanandum; concisely and directly explain / relate these 3 points:
Crucial Point 1 of 3 to re-word in 200 characters: why “break” egoic thinking?
1. Why do ancient Greeks report being led to desire and seek a horrific crazy frenzied “demonstration” of nullity of control power?
The gods drive all this; it’s innate in the mind, in the altered state, or by utilizing the altered state to achieve what the mind (even in the OSC) wants. that is:
{The gods demand to be honored and fed their sacrifice}. that is:
God-mode, God-conformant thinking is desired by the mind — not that the altered state is desired, but that the integrity so coveted and promised, is seen as achievable through utilizing loosecog.
The mind wants to hunt down and capture and sacrifice the {sacrificial youth} (youthful child-esque thinking) and force it to end
(to be precise: you must retain deluded thinking but no longer deluded; per Ken Wilber, “dis-identify but retain the lower, earlier cognitive/ psycho-spiritual develomental structures”
Don’t annihilate Possibilism-thinking, that would be regression, achieving worse than nothing, opposite of progress. change from Naive-Possibilism to Qualified-Possibilism.
CAN I RE-DEFINE ‘Eternalism’ TO INCLUDE, DISTINCTLY, qualified-Possibilism ? Doubtful.
As two opposed models of time in Philosophy of Physics, Possibilism and Eternalism are mutually exclusive.
It is so important to emphasize that
THE MIND DEFINITELY MUST RETAIN DELUDED Possibilism-THINKING FULLY INTACT UNHARMED — BUT CUT OFF THE DELUSION PART OF THE “DELUDED-THROUGH-AND-THROUGH” THINKING.
[problem with the wording “Modified-Possibilism”: it’s true, but, too neutral. we want to say, “reduced”, “lessened”.)
Restricted-Possibilism… the term ‘Qualified’ seems about right, although these technical terms are all so vague. ).
Unfortunately, because it is so important to protect Possibilism-thinking, I’m afraid I’m going to have to define keyboard abbreviation macros and I always have to say these super-long terms:
“switching from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking“
fkking awkward! There is no shorter,sufficiently clear way to say it. So here is the abbrv shorter insufficiently clear way:
“switching from Possibilism to Eternalism”
TERM-USAGE DEFINITION/CLARIFICATION:
When we say:
switching from Possibilism to Eternalism
we really mean:
switching from Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking
we MUST have a short phrase, yet on the other hand, it is CRUCIAL that Possibilism-thinking is retained, completely un-harmed, in the peak-state sacrificial mental demonstration of egoic control-nullity.
continuing listing points 1/2/3 to concisely phrase:
and it is important to understand you DO NOT ELIMINATE or DESTROY Possibilism-thinking;
you PRESERVE, RETAIN, UNHARMED, now, QUALIFIED Possibilism-thinking.
This alas, is of TOP-MOST CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE for safety and well-being to not be harmed.
MUST. NOT. HARM.
But, must “destroy” childish delusion, without destroying the child.
Destroy the child’s delusion – do not destroy or harm in any way the child. How to have both gnosis and no harm.
How to harmlessly {sacrifice child} (child-esque thinking — but retain that cognitive structure and suffer no harm at all in any frenzied “demonstration” that forces-away the childish delusion.
Naive-Possibilism-thinking, to Eternalism-thinking together with Qualified-Possibilism-thinking“
wtf is that (ie the desired “forceful permanent demonstration”) about?
Crucial Point 2 of 3 to re-word in 200 characters: The nature of sacrifice/repudiation
(above, later, I made 75% success progress; merely need to condense, now)
2) How does that (ie point 1 of 3: the mind needs a way to forcefully disprove and break away from child-esque thinking about control) relate to sacrifice?
{sacrifice} is: forceful repudiation and abandonment and detachment and removal of the ever-reentrenching-itself confused egoic control thinking premised on Possibilism
(ie Possibilism taken naively as if it’s metaphysically true and gives one the power to steer among branching possibilities), to finally lock-onto transcendent thinking).
Crucial Point 3 of 3 to re-word in 200 characters: why idea of isomorphic subst sacrifice, when it certainly has to be mental-only; no rams were harmed, in successful mental transformation
Literal sacrifice proves it’s a failure. That’s why I hang onto the Swoon Theory, as a telling of the mythic Jesus figure’s life.
Section 5: Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harm = Literalism = Failure
Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harm = Literalism = Failure to Mentally Transform
Understanding the isomorphism of cybernetic seizure = {bush-caught ram, king fastened to cross} produces the desired mental transformation; harming self-control prevents the desired mental transformation.
That message is:
Understanding isomorphism enables mental transformation; in contrast, harming anything (in the name of eliminating egoic confused thinking) prevents mental transformation, and is incorrect and unjustified — indeed is (arguably) itself confused reasoning, incoherent, irrationality.
o Four Degrees of Literalism of Sacrificing: Harming Anything Indicates Literalism, Therefore Failure to Mentally Transform
When I preach avoiding harm and sacrificing a ram instead, I do not mean harming an actual ram; I mean do not harm {the child}, or the mind, or one’s body, or a ram, or anything!! Do No Harm; change your mental model, only.
What I Believe:
Any harm that’s done in {sacrifice}, indicates a failure to mentally transform.
The Sacrifice of Isaac is a fictional story. The ram didn’t exist, and in the story plot the way I wish it were written, Abraham only pretended to kill the ram. – this is a poor position, because then by the same argument, you have to complain about, that in the tale of Jesus, he’s harmed, even if he doesn’t die (on the cross). What next, am I going to cry out against violence in video games? The solution is to accept that Abraham harmed the ram, BUT, understand explicitly that it’s just a story of harming a ram; no actual ram was harmed in the writing or hearing of the story.
The story is a hurtful and literalist story, still, which could prevent mental transformation ; it says “hurting a ram is good for mental transformation”.
These mythic sacrifices always seem to assert that “harming something is the way to achieve mental transformation”.
So I have complaints about both the ram story and the king story.
Are they helpful instructional stories, or do they, rather, mis-instruct people with the false lesson that “harm causes mental transformation“?
In fact, harm PREVENTS mental transformation.
Even a story of harm (ram|king), risks preventing mental transformation.
The Sacrifice of Jesus is a fictional story. Jesus didn’t exist, and in the story plot, he only pretended to be dead when removed from the cross.
Given that I believe the latter “ahistoricity plus swoon theory”, I conclude that the story of Jesus gives superior mental transformation than the story of the Sacrifice of Isaac/Ram, because the story of Jesus if taken as fiction with a swoon plot, involves no…. well uh… less… harm… ok bad example. 
Myth is violent, fictionally. A fictional story about a guy being harmed but escaping the cross, = no ACTUAL harm.
The 4 Degrees of Literalism of Sacrifice of the Ram
As a mental-only advocate & do-no-harm advocate, I advocate a fictional Jesus who (in the story plot) was alive when removed from the cross.
For actual mental transformation, & sacrifice must be strictly mental, not physical.
1. Literal-Literal — The ram literally existed and Abraham literally killed the ram.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.
2. Literal-Figurative — The ram literally existed and Abraham just pretended to kill it.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.
3. Figurative-Literal — The ram figuratively existed in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, Abraham literally killed the ram.
— FAIL? Not established!
Literalistic replacement for mental transformation?
Yeah but myth is filled w/ sacrificial violence, do I disavow myth and say it prevents gnosis (though it conveys/describes gnosis) by advocating violence-in-fiction? Am I complaining about actual Greek sacrificial practices? They ate meat. Am I complaining about holoc-burnt offereings, yes.
The angel’s message points in the correct direction — away from self-harm, toward understanding isomorphism.
The real message from the angel is correct: it is a message from on high of relenting, not of harming rams. If you think the point of the Isaac story is “salvation through harming rams”, you missed the point adn failed to mentally transform. The point is not “harm the ram”, the point is, “I iknow what you mean, you’re in a ccybernetic situation akin to a ram caught in a bush powerless; DO NO HARM.
The angel’s point is not “burn the ram, to become conformant with the control-source, and mentally coherent”.
The angel’s point is, relent from your testing, and consider yourself to be completely transformed and having become now coherent regarding control, by virtue of your having realized that your malformed thinking about control, got you into a situation that is like a ram that got himself helplessly caught in a bush.
“You have realized that your malformed child-esque thinking about control, has gotten you into a cybernetic seizure, like a ram that got himself helplessly caught in a bush.
“Your thinking is now coherent, and conformant with the higher controller, the true source of control.”
No rams were burned; and harming rams is missing the point and failing to mentally transform.
4. Figurative-Figurative — The ram figuratively existed, in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, Abraham just pretended to kill it.
— SUCCESS! Leads to mental transformation.
The other interps are literalistic thus replacemetns for mental transformation, preventing it.
Hardcore Pacifist/Figurativist when it comes to sacrifice and ceremony
I’m a hardcore pacifist when it comes to sacrifice and ceremony. I am against any harm; usually, harming anything in any way means, you failed to transform your thinking, you are still a literalist, magic thinking. I’m against all outward ritual… except to help UNDERSTANDING.
NO – MAGIC – THINKING – ALLOWED!!
I hate ancient Greeks and their religion, because they kill piglets (if they eat them, that’s different; that’s a justifiable end; holo-caust is not; harm-based sacrifice is a usually an indicator of “failure to get the point”; it is a substitute for actual mental transformation).
What use is harming a piglet, when the whole point is to change your mental model?
Literalism prevents changing your mental model; it’s a substitute for effective thinking-changing.
It’s magical thinking, which doesn’t work. I am against even the guy in the Canterbury image breaking his bow.
Why should a bow be harmed?
100% harmless, harming nothing, no ram, no king, no self-harm, is the only valid “sacrifice”.
Changing thinking, and harrming NOTHING, iss the only way to succeed.
Harm of anything or any animal or anyone = literalism = failure to change thinking.
There is only 1 effective sacrifice: it is in the mind, only; only chastening of Possibilism-thinking, to “qualify” it with no harm, other than doing away will illusion, taking illusion as real.
Physical harm proves failure to do away with illusion.
The 4 Degrees of Literalism of “Sacrifice of the King”
Label the 4 positions, from extreme literalism to extreme figurative:
1. Literal-Literal — Jesus literally existed, and literally died on the cross.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.
2. Literal-Figurative — Jesus literally existed and just pretended to die. (the literalist reading of the swoon theory)
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.
3. Figurative-Literal — Jesus figuratively existed in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, he literally died.
— FAIL. Literalistic replacement for mental transformation.
4. Figurative-Figurative — Jesus figuratively existed, ie in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, he just pretended to die.
— SUCCESS! Leads to mental transformation.
That’s the “ahistoricity plus swoon theory” position.
That’s the furthest you can get from literalism, which prevents actual mental transformation.
When literalists talk of the swoon theory, they assume Mr. Historical Jesus really existed; the historicist view, and they quibble about what actually happened to Mr. Jesus in reality — whether he was in reality, alive when he was really, literally removed from the cross.
But if the whole thing per Richard Carrier et al was a story, then I would argue with Richard whether or not in the story, Jesus was alive when decrossed — as a story plotline.
I would expect that Richard, who thinks the crucifixion is a story, would be consistent and agree that in the story, Jesus was alive when decrossed.
Be Consistent about things mythic. Knowing Hellenistic culture, I’m sure that they’d pick the full-on fictional tale of hidden mystery:
In the Hellenistic mystery-tale of the Crucifixion, Jesus was alive when removed from the cross.
That is consistent. Else, magic thinking, literalism, and — worst of all – failure to transform the mental model from Possibilism to Eternalism.
I have written about this before, about degrees of “swoon theory”, this is the first time I ever identified the 4 degrees.
Literal sacrifice proves it’s a failure. That’s why I hang onto the Swoon Theory, as a telling of the mythic Jesus figure’s life.
The way the fictional tale should go is, per gospel verse, Jesus was still alive when decrossed. According to the Gospel, KJV.
That’s the real Bible story according to God’s original Bible he wrote himself with his own hand, the KJV: God wrote that Jesus was still alive when decrossed. But levels of literalism: even a layer of literalism within a purely fictional story.
In Defense of the Figurative-Figurative View: Reject Magic Thinking, Which Prevents (Substitutes for, Futilely) Actual Mental Transformation
The red bow-man in Canterbury image didn’t actually break his bow, it was a 3-piece disassemblable bow.
No bows were harmed in the writing of this blog post about mental transformation.
My anti-literalism position on sacrifice, against deluded literalistic thinking, NO HARM WAS DONE IN REALITY, IT WAS REAL IN MY MIND, ONLY —
else you are guilty of the sin of literalism and you are not mentally transformed;
you are setting up your throne against God’s throne unless you agree that it’s all in the mind, that salvation is not a matter of any literal harm but is purely mental:
Jesus figuratively existed, ie in a fictional work, and in that fictional tale, he just pretended to die.
That’s the “ahistoricity plus swoon theory” position.
The Case for Fiction/Fiction is, mental transformation and sacrifice is 100% in the mind, no physical harm of self, of ram, or of a king.
Where is the KJV verse that God wrote? Swoon theory:
John 19:33-37
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019%3A33-37&version=NIV;KJV
KJV:
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
NIV:
33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c]37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swoon+theory+blood+flowed+jesus+alive
3) how does that relate to a health-preserving, substitute isomorphic equivalent sacrificing a bush-caught helpless, powerless ram?
The youths and maidens are sent into the monocoursal labyrinth, as a sacrifice, the Minotaur devours them. Ariadne, daughter of the architect, who knows how to escape the maze, is married by Dionysus.
That is the idea-development research program. Write up those 3 points in 200 chacters. Whew! over the hump at last, having pinpointed that set of 3 points.
Not done anywhere in this post yet: work-up concise explanations, write-ups, of those 3 points together.
Sequence within my idea-development posts:
I often write down and down below, vertically, and then bubble-up key points to the top of the post, as done above. So, out of sequence.
_________________
It has taken me 25 years (1995) to clearly express this thought, to get at the right angle: why desire to break egoic control thinking?
It is hard to connect — clearly, directly, simply, the following sort of write-up to the {ram caught in a thicket} — the king’s power wielded harder and harder, more forcefully (egoic control power) just ends up fastened helplessly to spacetime, ridiculed by the parade watchers heckling the line of initiates passing along.
To end up at the sacrifice of egoic control thinking, the fully satisfying, permanent, fulfilling demonstration that makes the mind finally get it, that egoic control power is null, illusion-based, invalid, impotent.
Sacrifice is a mental act, reaching that point of proving to itself the powerlessness of the egoic control system.
I’ve written to some extent about this (my readers have read it, but I have forgotten what I wrote). Check main article at my website, Egodeath site, about why try shake off childhood thinking? What 2006 phrasing did I use?
It needs to be routine to elegantly and concisely articulate the frenzied-state, “too-clear-thinking” idea.
I need to be able to express the direct idea succinctly, what’s it about, the desire to break the existing personal control system as it has been? The Atman project (Ken Wilber): we do substitute revolutions instead of the real revolution; the mind wants to revolt against egoic control thinking, to force the switch to the mature state.
Spiritual emergence, emergency (Stan Grof).
The young form — Possibilism-thinking; egoic control thinking — is shaken off and vigorously cast off, in order to grow into the mature form – transcendent thinking; Eternalism-thinking.
1. The young form — egoic control thinking (1988 phrase); Possibilism-thinking (2013/2020 phrase)
2. “violent” shaking-free, shaking-off, transformation demonstration that drives, a forcing function, to force transformation and not relapse into child-esque thinking. shaken off and vigorously cast off, in order to grow into
3. Reach and secure the mature form – transcendent thinking; Eternalism-thinking.
___
1. starting state: egoic control thinking; Naive-Possibilism-thinking
2. ending state: transcendent control thinking: Eternalism + Modified-Possibilism thinking
How to cross over and stop slipping back, stop regressing into egoic thinking that keeps forcefully reasserting itself? (per Ken Wilber’s maybe 2nd or 3rd book – Spectrum of Consciousness, or The Atman Project)
How to defend against the assertive re-assertion of egoic control thinking, to make it back off?
What demonstration can be done to firmly, finally disprove egoic control thinking, like driving-off retard Letcher Hatsis for once and for all and PROVE mushrooms in Christianity? and FORCE the issue with definitive finality?
The mentality / motiviation / situation is: “Stop reasserting yourself, this is mandatory, I have to get egoic thinking to stop reasserting itself”. It’s not that transcendent thinking wants to harm and bully and break egoic thinking; it’s a defensive operation.
Make egoic thinking stop, finally, reasserting itself, re-entrenching.
How can one do a demonstration that stops the regressive rebirth into egoic thinking?
Our minds are designed as if to avoid thinking squarely straight-on about this, directly and straightforwardly.
It’s as if it is key taboo to egoic control thinking, to think this thought and clearly articulate it.
Why desire a shocking vivid demonstration of the nullity of egoic control power? Because egoic control thinking keeps habitually reentrenching, even though it’s incoherent.
The frustrated mind has an innate intense desire to learn the new way of thinking and stop being buried in the old way of thinking.
The mind that is intent on gaining coherence, coherent thinking about personal control power, by the method of using a series of loose cognitive sessions, desires to force egoic control thinking to end and be replaced by transcendent thinking.
Within the loose cognitive sessions, to achieve that goal of finally and permanently shaking-off egoic control thinking that keeps taking-over thinking again, the mind looks for a strategy of doing some vivid, unforgettable, memorable, vivid demonstration.
The effective demonstration is all in the mind: the mind tests itself in escalating degrees, testing its defenses, until self-violation thoughts.
The mind battles against each itself like an army against itself, and that is the very demonstration that is needed, to drive the change from Possibilism to Eternalism-thinking, and release the seizure.
God is wrathful and rapidly merciful when God gives the mind the transforming demonstration.
The mind wants a way to shove Medusa’s worldline-snake face at egoic control thinking, to make egoic control thinking “die” and stop reasserting its child-esque, confused thinking.
“What can I do to make the mind break out of egoic-control thinking, to get the prize, transcendent thinking?”
Personal control power that is premised on the power to steer among branching possibilities, gets itself caught helplessly and powerlessly in the spacetime block.
Condensed {message from angel of the Lord} = ultimate-controller-conformant thought that preserves well-being; thinking that is rational, true, coherent, & consistent, that simultaneously preserves viable control, life, & well-being, that is fulfilling and satisfying to the mind desiring to demonstrate truth about control power and the ultimate source of control-thoughts.
The loose-cognitive mind desires to demonstrate cybernetic truth, because the mind desires to fully shake off and break away from incorrect thinking.
The mind desires to fully shake off and break away from incorrect, incoherent thinking.
The mind desires to fully shake off and break away from incorrect, incoherent default thinking, Possibilism; Naive-Possibilism-thinking.
Thinking that is rational, true, coherent, & consistent.
Thinking that preserves viable control, life, & well-being.
Fulfilling and satisfying to the mind desiring to demonstrate truth about control power and the ultimate source of control-thoughts.
The mind desires to demonstrate truth about control power and the ultimate source of control-thoughts, to shake off and detach from incoherent thinking.
{rock} (block universe)
{rock altar of sacrifice} (block universe) (permanently eliminating incoherent thinking)
{sacrifice} (forcefully finally shaking off habitual erroneous incoherent self-contradictory thinking, Possibilism-thinking)
The Egodeath theory 
