These two go together first:

Then these:


Finally these:

Reconciling with the feminine will be experienced as letting go of the feminine.

“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13)
^Add this quote with the last group

I tried to put these in order from top to bottom even within the same grouping. It’s difficult/impossible to know where you are in the story, but if you can imagine and feel the feelings described in the quotes, then it should be useful. I had none of this and was able to navigate through the story, so anything of value extracted from anything I post is going to be better off. Of course, this is far from comprehensive.

Always remember Sophia the Bride:

Sophia is the virgin princess trapped in the dragon’s lair that the hero has to save. She is the call to adventure. She is meaning in its full and enduring form. She is the honeymoon stage of a romantic relationship. She is the feminine ideal.

The strongman digs in his heels and stays rooted to his premise.
The smartman thinks this is a pretty convenient answer to get out of literally any criticism.

You just aren't good at interpreting Word Salad.

To make salad from words is to feast on the soul of wit and creativity. Its nourishment is what leads to spiritual flourishing. To decline the word salad is but to reject the nourishment. Remember the story of Oliver Twist, and how he asked for more? The wise always ask for more words, more nourishment, and they masticate as though tasting the very soul of their muse.

Nothing surprises me anymore with art and the inevitability of the story:

https://youtu.be/7SsrVGHJvaA

The innocent man burning in Hell + Sophia the Bride

First Adam vs Second Adam

There is a significant difference between peace time and war time. Superficial or shallow sensibilities must become less relevant during war time.

The first Adam is feminine and an autopilot sleepwalker. He clings to Eve and her world. He lives the lie of peace. The second Adam is the one who repents, grows up, and accepts the truth of the war.

The warrior enters the house of the innocent man through the front door, kills his wife, and frames him for the murder.

How can the innocent man reconcile with this story and take ownership over it without the opportunity for redemption afforded by war? The constraints of peace would never allow it. How can the witness command the innocent man to bear this burden, to live this story, without the callousness associated with war? The witness betrays the innocent man who is his twin brother.

The lie of peace denies the story from unfolding. There is no trust in the author of the story. Trust is gradually earned. The desire for mercy can sense the truth of the story. The one who desires mercy can surrender to this truth. The one who despairs can desire mercy. The one who stands firm against the lie of peace can despair.

Even the first Adam hears Sophia’s call, but it’s no wonder that when he takes a bite from the forbidden fruit and consumes the story quoted, he immediately turns his back on Sophia. He kills the ideal (Abel) and retreats back into Eve’s counterfeit paradise.

The second Adam transcends the first Adam and puts his faith in the truth wherever it takes him. The second Adam has the stomach for Sophia’s forbidden fruit. He has the strength to be able to reconcile with the man who destroyed the only world he has ever known.

You are propounding profound profundity. A feast of fascinating, fabulous facts.

The trolling that is happening in this thread is sour grapes. It’s the bitterness of the losing player. It’s the resentment of the first Adam.

The grapes of wrath are sweetest when taken with a grain of salt. Therein lies the mystery and the paradox of the losing player (who is, in reality, the winning player).

addendum: This is fun!

There is a lot more to be said, but I’m not going to do it on this forum. Consider this thread and my participation on this forum as a boot camp of sorts. If you were able to suffer me, then you will be better off for it in the future. If you didn’t find me insufferable, then you are further along than most people.

I have one final test to pass, and once I am done, then I will step forward again in a more public way.

What is sourness if not maturity? Do not the grapes become sour as they ascend to wine and vinegar? Does the vinegar not then flavour younger food and add nuance to the nourishment? To resent the sourness is to resent the ascent to enlightenment itself. The sweetness of ignorance is not to be proud of. Sweetness is easily found. All grapes are sweet. Few grapes earn the right to be sour.

No doubt some will cry out "Why hath though put their sourness upon my sweetness?" without ever seeing that the sweet and sour sauce is something far greater. To call sourness on wisdom is to be the dry chicken ball, clinging to the batter, shielding itself from wisdom. And yet, when the sourness drenches its armour, bastes it in flavour of knowledge, only then does the chicken ball become worthy of ascension to the next phase of existence.

I’m an apologist?

Abraxas is the image of the Son of Man but not the SoM himself, who remains concealed except to those who have been chosen and endured until the end.

We can know the spirit of the SoM and identify with him through the spirit. Through identification we can bring him into being.

Those who truly know the SoM, through his spirit, will not be afraid to engage Abraxas even when they fear him.

The SoM is the logos which prunes, strips, shapes, purifies, clothes and prepares the individual. To engage Abraxas (the image of the SoM) is to engage the logos.

It's just a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo from one of the countless brands of religion. If it's something besides that, make the case of why it isn't just a religion.