What Being(s) Are "The Elite" Offering Blood and Lives To?

Time for a little provocation.

This is a thought exercise for people who feel that human sacrifice is a truth and it is a ritual practice of the global controllers/hidden hands that some mistakenly call 'the elite'. That is, believe it is a practice of 'them' and is being done in current times. Others can skip this exercise or continue.

What being are these people offering their victims blood to? Satan?

Where in the books, 'scripture', does Satan ask for blood? Which book gives the clearest look at the relationship between Jehovah and Satan? Answer is, the Book of Job.

How do these two get along and where is the setting for them as Satan torments Job? Answer is, heaven.

Lucifer, means 'bringer of light' or 'morning star'. Satan means 'adversary'. How did the two get conflated? Answer is, Lucifer is depicted as Satan before his fall.

Again, where in 'scripture' does Satan demand blood offerings?

Does Jehovah demand blood offerings? Yes, blood flowed through special channels to handle the copious blood produced daily at the temple in Jerusalem.

Did Jehovah ask for human sacrifice? Yes, of Abraham but, calls it off at the last moment and declares it a test of faith. Koran says it was Ishmael instead of Isaac.

Any other instances?

Was Jesus human or, in a human body? Did that human body bleed and die?

Again, where in scripture does Lucifer/Satan demand blood?

Who, what being, are the hidden hands offering blood to?

I saw a sheep being killed in the traditional Mongolian way. A small incision made in the solar plexus and the hand reaches in and separates the heart, leaving it in the body. To them blood is sacred and should not be spilled on the ground. The narrator who made comment on it, and was holding the legs, said he felt very little struggle.

Myself, I have no time for the Chinese whispers of Santa and Lucy. I don't feel it actually matters to try to recognise these archetypes with words and stories, I recognise that there is more chance of, or the odds are greater, of being caught up in a whole lot of bunk, and that what is true and what is good shall show itself regardless of the colour of a flag or such.
To me, stories of worshipping and sacrificing by elites can be whatever people want to believe. Maybe one single certainty would be that they are caught up in the story be it true or embellished, I don't have any inquisitive urgency to seek from them, answers, for I don't respect they even know anything.

Sacrifice, we make many. But not of blood. Hmm, or do we?
Though, I don't feel I have explained that view very well haha

*oh this should be moved too moderators, ta*

But I will add, I don't know who the elite think they are, worshipping. But I think I know who others think the elite think they are worshipping.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nothing

I saw a sheep being killed in the traditional Mongolian way. A small incision made in the solar plexus and the hand reaches in and separates the heart, leaving it in the body. To them blood is sacred and should not be spilled on the ground. The narrator who made comment on it, and was holding the legs, said he felt very little struggle.

Myself, I have no time for the Chinese whispers of Santa and Lucy. I don't feel it actually matters to try to recognise these archetypes with words and stories, I recognise that there is more chance of, or the odds are greater, of being caught up in a whole lot of bunk, and that what is true and what is good shall show itself regardless of the colour of a flag or such.
To me, stories of worshipping and sacrificing by elites can be whatever people want to believe. Maybe one single certainty would be that they are caught up in the story be it true or embellished, I don't have any inquisitive urgency to seek from them, answers, for I don't respect they even know anything.

Sacrifice, we make many. But not of blood. Hmm, or do we?
Though, I don't feel I have explained that view very well haha

*oh this should be moved too moderators, ta*

---

In many ways, this thread has its inspiration from the 'Q' discussions on a certain 24/7 live stream. That is why it is in the conspiracy category. However, it could serve as a colonic for some minds. A little gnostic humor and mischief.:eyebrows:.

I think I know which one you mean, as I heard all the religious attachment in the one time I listened to it. And Q is into product placement to get the bible belt to support his pants.

But lets pretend I don't so I can insert my one liner....


"Who, comic-con? Debating over which superhero was the most badass?"

Interestingly, some non-Christian 'spiritual walkers' say Sophia is an angel, not a goddess.

"Spiderman would totally waste Batman".
"Batman doesn't even have any superpowers, how can he be called a superhero anyway, just a vigilante"
"Yeah but he's got his undies on the outside like Superman, and looks mean in black".

Old time voice over "Meanwhile, back in Timbuktu..."

Stories help motivate. People identify with characters. Tell a marvellous story about water, and then attach a tale to it where the water is made by a superhero. Surrogacy?

gee it is frustrating being disconnected from the internet every 3-5 mins

As I've already explained a couple of times, the name Lucifer stems from a mistranslation of the Bible into English. The word "lucifer" is Latin, and it is not a proper name. It means "bearer of light". It was used in a sarcastic letter from Isaiah to the then-king of Babylon — and thus, a mortal man — to depict said king as someone who had fallen from grace and was spreading "false light".

It deserves to be noted that only the King James translation interprets the word "lucifer" as a proper name — other Bible translations have simply translated the word from Latin into its equivalent meaning in the new language — but that the Roman Catholic Church as a whole would later on come to adopt the notion that Lucifer was the proper name of an angel who fell from grace and became the devil.

This narrative was then even further embellished by the claim that Lucifer was the first of all angels, and that he had been their leader until his rebellion against God, after which he was cast down from Heaven by Michael, the second angel. And in Islam, the Shaítan is not even a fallen angel, but rather a jinni named Iblis. Islam states that angels were made of light and do not have Free Will, while jinn were made of fire and have Free Will.

The Old Testament only refers to the Satan — properly prefixed with the article "the", because it is a title, not a name — in the Book of Job, in which the Satan is described as a celestial being who resides in Heaven, and who acts as a kind of prosecutor of mankind before Yahweh in a courtroom-style gathering. It is however Yahweh himself who puts Job through all of his ordeals in order to make his point before the Satan.

Furthermore, if the Satan was a celestial being, then he would have been an angel, and according to that same Old Testament, angels are not true beings in the sense that they have neither an individual soul nor Free Will. The Old Testament repeatedly insinuates that angels are merely emanations of Yahweh, whereby the "identity" of the angel is meant to represent a specific aspect of Yahweh's personality — e.g. Raphael as the healer, Gabriel as the messenger and Michael as the leader of Heaven's army. It therefore follows that whatever evil is ascribed to the Satan/Lucifer must actually be coming from Yahweh himself.

Another aspect is also that in the Book of Genesis of the Old Testament, the snake in the Garden of Eden was never described as being an angel — fallen or otherwise — but was instead simply a animal. And while the traditional Judeo-Christian lore depicts the temptation of Eve by the snake as an act of evil, John Lamb Lash's interpretation of the Sophianic narrative states that the snake was temporarily "possessed" by the spirit of Sophia, and that the temptation of Eve was Sophia's rebellion against Yaldaboath because he was willfully keeping humans ignorant and subservient.

Now, the Book of Genesis is of course one big metaphor, and I myself am not a Gnostic, but it has so far been my experience that whatever this creature is that people refer to as God, or Yahweh/JeHoVa, or Allah, or Yaldaboath, it is actually evil enough in and of itself to not require the existence of an external malefactor.

:headspin:

It be the water, blood fluid water be as such sacred to oneself, the sacrifice as such needs a death or soul leaving timeline connection, imo most if not all, do not work for tptW nowadays. Within the Ringing Cedars Series is a secret let loose, of truth imo, of nine lords of time as such, who transfer themselves to usually their son life time after lifetime, imo thez be the ones once bowed to, served, etc, once again imo they changed sides some years ago ten maybe and busy creating forbackwards now.

Ps imo them be the ones who tapped Donalds shoulder.

https://lh6.ggpht.com/_9F9_RUESS2E/S...lood-cells.jpg

Red blood cells. I guess the twin slot theory can still say it looks like something entirely different to this.

But it almost looks like a torus, to me.

Those nine lords were once many, time used, corupts the body, weakens remembering, imo sometimes these lords lose lifetimes of memories, during transfer, so lackeys are needed and huge trust issues do those lords have, Mars is singing loudly atm imo, enough for the lords to know the asteroid belt was no fluke, in its silence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nothing

https://lh6.ggpht.com/_9F9_RUESS2E/S...lood-cells.jpg

Red blood cells. I guess the twin slot theory can still say it looks like something entirely different to this.

But it almost looks like a torus, to me.

---

They look that way to me also.

I'm heading in the direction of Aragorn's conclusion. The God of the OT/NT may not be such a 'good guy'.

I don't know the origins of blood sacrifice but it seems to go way back. I'm inclined to believe it's an invention of man rather than a demand of the Gods. And there may be plenty of hungry entities ready to enjoy and benefit from these sacrifices and the energy they offer/produce. The mass, mob mentality of people is big energy.

There are myriad rules about blood, handling blood, blood libel, and I don't even know what all in jewish traditions. It may be possible to find some understanding studying their practices regarding blood. I don't know.

What I do know is that I've never found any story or explanation that makes it OK to me. A god who loves us simply isn't going to demand it. Man would, however, based on fear and desire for either power or blessing or social order.

I think it's mostly a thing of man.


On a blog called Emerging Truths a fellow talks about God liking the smell and taste of cooked meat, instructing how to cook it, and consuming it. Mauro Biglio talks about the angels and how they also ate food and had other human needs. I've read elsewhere about God liking the smell of cooked/burned meat. Who is this god?

Sacrifice of various sorts seems to go way back in our history.

I've had blood pudding in Scotland and it fueled the body well for long walks in the cold and wet. Just as they said it would.

Just as much, I am often intrigued to know who these folks are who have for instance, casual conversations with these various gods in which into the conversation pops, "You know, I quite like the smell and taste of cooked meat". Could happen.
Odd. But could happen eh?
But also could just be some madness. Maybe a hallucination arrived at from eating animals. The toxins released into the blood stream by animals when they are stressed, considered by a few cultures to make the meat toxic, their protection maybe, make the people mad.
Surely the workings of the universe are viewable without these go between chess pieces that have likely been carved from different periods of our consciousness. It baffles me people keep wanting to turn to the chess pieces and debate the colourings or whatever it all about. All around is evidence of the existence of the board game. So surely you can just be your own piece in the set and make your own moves.

Like another odd book I read, speaking of pre Atlantean beings of Earth, being semi solid, semi etherical. And that the time of Atlantis co-incided with a different cosmic ray anchoring itself to the experience, and a change of the colours of things and the ways of things.
Said that these beings had begun already to become more solid, that they first reproduced by just their intent and will. Then they began to reproduce via the sharing of the breath. They had teeth like feathers and iris's like fish scales. As they became more anchored to the Earth, they became more physical. As they became more physical, they began to mix with the animals, eat them and become them.

That's a brief paraphrase of sections of the book anyway. To illustrate a consideration regards transitions between physicalities.
Worshipping blood. A 3rd dimensional anchor? Yet if blood is a torus, that is a window between dimensions is it not?

It may well be a few things are correct, and it depends on how you choose to frame it. And these gods with names are options for frames for people to try on and then they debate whether the frame makes the picture black or white.. seemingly forgetting to just look at the picture and make their own frame they can trust, the 'good god' will be on that side by default.
Choosing not to follow, but to lead the self and then have the result desired from following?

The power of blood, used under the auspices of a magical ritual, should not be underestimated. That said, those who appeal to beings who demand the life and suffering of a child are a far cry from a root doctor who uses the blood and entrails of a chicken to make something or learn something. The universe is a scary place for the unprepared, and likewise there are areas of caution for even the highest mages of ancient times.

Blood is a conduit of life force, of energy, and of all the possible offerings to unseen forces, it carries the greatest amount of energy and likewise is the easiest for a spirit to consume. One should never use one's own blood for any ritual, as that gives a direct route for a spirit to bind/embed itself into your body, which is most likely an undesirable event.

As for Lucifer, I had read that the term became equated with Satan through its usage by Martin Luther. As I read it, Lucifer was actually the name of a rival theologian, one for whom Luther had a particular distaste, so in his writing he equated the name with the devil, thereby making a misnomer that has continued to this day.

To go back to the OP, there were ancient gods, such as Moloch, who demanded such sacrifice. It is my assessment that such practice was introduced as part of an invasion of sorts, to be loosely associated with the meme of alternate history, etc.