You don’t attract. You pull fate in.

Swamigalkodi Astrology©NAVAGRA – A FREE VEDIC HOROSCOPE READING PLACE

astrological attractionastrology for lovespiritual magnetismfated relationships karmic connection

You don’t attract. You don’t seek. You wait, and they come. Something in you pulls them. Not your words. Not your eyes. Something beneath that. A soft gravity. A current they can’t see. It moves through your stillness. It hums in your silence. They notice you before you speak. Especially then. You don’t attract. You pull fate in.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Magnetism – lonely (intense connections, but not always reciprocated or understood) and complex (the nature of these connections; both nurturing or challenging, reflecting different aspects of ourselves) to define our own identity as a person, and for others to grasp, appreciate, and understand. None-the-less, magnetism compares to how fire entices insects to fly into the flames.

Fate: Personal Destiny in a persons life walk-path. Events, relationships, and experiences astrological influences shaped through personal choices within Life’s Big Picture. Attraction – like basic instincts in animals vs. Pulling, a far more profound connection – like family which speaks to the soul. Less a physical allure, it compliments long standing emotional memories. Presence: your design shaped by your astrological chart and life experiences; and Stillness – a quiet, a grounded confidence: ‘safe space’ for others. It does not require words for it to express this ‘safe space’ sweet smelling perfume. Echoes and Memory, refers to something like your future born children. Energies we share can leave a legacy, shaping not only our lives but also the lives of those who come after us. Energy Exchange, a dynamic interaction between individuals. A healthy sharing relationship with trusted friends.

Astrology and Chinese Taoist thought work in harmony with meditation. Which contrasts the in-haled breath with the exhaled breath. Zen Buddhism refers to the ‘3rd Eye’ as a reference to a focused awareness of the 5 senses “seen” (so to speak) between the eyes during the duration of the inhaled breath. Meditation “feels” the chi expressed within the external reality of living during the duration of the exhaled breath. This meditation seeks to achieve a conscious Mind awareness both internally felt and externally experienced. Hence Taoism has the 5 breath “souls”, in conjuction with the 5 designated feelings – and they all align with the 5 elements of the Universe.

Unlike Astrology, both Chinese and Japanese healing makes its central focus – awareness of precise meridian points and lines rather that Planets and Stars shining in the Heavens above. The shared common denominator which unites the two contrasting disciplines — meditation. Both disciplines which lack meditation compare to positive and negative Torah commandments which have no tohor time-oriented commandment potential to elevate secondary commandments and halachot unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah.

For example: The so-called daughter religions of Xtianity and Islam – both remain Av tuma avoda zarah examples of the 2nd Sinai Commandment. These religions employ their own separate but unique ‘replacement theologies’, which supplants T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim and Siddur – along with the power of Astrology of Planets and Stars – with Creed based belief systems. Such as belief in some pie in the sky Universal God monotheism! This theology employed to supplant T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur.

For example: The Apostle Paul declared Torah commandments like circumcision archaic and invalid. Reform Judaism pulled a similar rabbit out of its hat of magik. The Pauline rhetoric declared that Goyim “not under the Law”; an utterly absurd statement because all societies and civilization require the Order of law and government. Furthermore, the Pauline propaganda, much like Obamo’s 2008 political “CHANGE” declarations made no distinction between T’NaCH & Talmudic judicial common law Legislative Review, which has over-view of all laws passed by Legislatures or Kings; from legal statute law – decrees, issued from some Roman Senate or a Caesar bureaucratic regulatory dictatorship.

Jewish common law depends upon lateral common law courtrooms rather than Greek political rhetoric which promotes ‘Democracy’. Democracy has no place in T’NaCH and Talmudic lateral common law courtrooms. The people pay for ‘Legal Insurance’ which maintains these common law Courts – when not actively engaged in any legal dispute heard before these common law Courtrooms. The Torah refers to vertical courtrooms as bribery; a Torah abomination for the State to pay the salary of Court Justices and prosecuting attorneys.

Following the corruption made by the British Star-Courts which legalized British navel impressment of American sailors seized from American ships in High Seas ‘international waters’. The Founding Fathers attempted to address the issue of Judicial bribery by and through the State. They established the lateral jury system. But the otherwise vertical courtrooms, where the State pays the salaries of the Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys, American judicial law bi-passed the lateral jury court revolutionary approach, by imposing strict terms which limit the scope of how the jury weighs introduced legal evidence/precedents by the opposing lawyers briefs.

Lawyers do not present their legal briefs to the Jury. Rather, the vertical courts restrict presentation of these opposing legal briefs, which only the State paid judges can review. Hence while the Founding Fathers attempted to establish lateral courtrooms, later generations corrupted the revolutionary lateral jury judicial system. And replaced it with just another vertical court having bribed Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys.

Zwinglius Redivivus

Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com·19h ago

Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker

Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

Theological Complicity in State Violence

Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).

At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.

This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”

Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.

Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.

Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.

Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”

Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.

Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.

Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.

Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.

In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.