Why Satanism (and Christianity) is a lie.

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

I've been away for a couple of years. Now I'm back.

Anyway, there are a few threads here talking about Satanism and the usual Satanic conspiracy theories thing.

So, I'll explain to you why Satanism is a joke and why Satanists are simply just another bunch of ordinary evil people.

(I wrote the following on another thread but since I decided to dedicate a thread to the subject, I'll paste it here)

Christianity is all wrong about their conceptual image of Satan and Hell...It's a joke.

They copied their concept of hell entirely from Tartarus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus) (Greek mythology).

The Christian version of Satan is completely bollocks as well. It's a result of the deliberate distorted interpretation of Judaic scriptures. As you can see here (http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-2566/the-jewish-view-of-satan/?p=2566), the original conceptual Satan has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity's copied Satan. The Judaic version of Satan, which is the original one, isn't even considered evil, let alone has horns and looks like a goat...It isn't even an entity on its own.

Talking about horns and goats, by the way, the looks of Christianity's demons are also entirely copied from the Greek as well, most specially Pan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_(god)). Here (http://www.theoi.com/Bestiary.html) are other Greek mythical creatures which inspired the designs of the Christian demons.

Even the Ten Commandments were stolen from the Egyptians and their Book of the Dead, as you can see here (http://dwij.org/forum/amarna/2_cmndmts_book_of_the_dead.html).

And don't get me started with the flood thing...It was stolen from the Sumerians and their Epic of Gilgamesh, as you can see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth).

To sum up, forget this Satanism stuff. It has absolutely zero substance. It's all made up.

Christianity was crafted from the begining to be the ONE religion. It's a big mess of syncretized concepts with absolutely zero legitimate theological originality, let alone spiritual legitimacy. It made it easier for people from different religions to assimilate it, though, because it contains elements from literally all major religions of the time.

There's no Satan. There are no Demons. There's no Hell. These things aren't even myths. They're distorted and corrupted shadows of myths deliberately crafted to frighten people, thus making them easier to control.

If people started to read what the serious Theologians and Religion Historians have to say about Christianity and its concepts, there wouldn't be a single church left in this planet. It's all a lie, all of it, including Satan.

That's it. If Christianity is a complete farce, then any kind of Satanism based on its concept is also consequently a farce.

Of course, there's much more to talk about this subject. I just summed up the basics to make it easier for people to understand.

Religion is nonsense and Satan, in the traditional Christian sense, is just an overdeveloped version of the boogieman, deliberately created for the same purpose: To control your behavior through fear.

Get over it, the sooner the better. Civilization is going south quickly and there are much more important things to think about concerning this specific moment in time.

Raf.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

You raise wonderful points but I cannot get over the absolutist, almost tyrannical tone of the post.

[RMorgan]

You raise wonderful points but I cannot get over the absolutist, almost tyrannical tone of the post.

Part of this impression may be caused by my objective writing style and the other part is probably because, as you know, English is not my first language. It's not easy to express yourself fluently and naturally trough a language which is very different, conceptually speaking, from your own. Too much is lost in the translation.

Rest assured, though: These are not my intentions.

I'm a peaceful man.

Raf.

[Shezbeth]

<slow, deep breath exhaling in a very contented sigh> It's good to see you again dude. ^_^

Yes, yes,... yes; thank you for posting this thread. I find your conclusions to be 100% supported by the evidence, and I appreciate you providing source links (I'm WAY too lazy for such things). There is fruit and comprehension that can come of studying the Christian Chimera, but that is a testament to the quality of the original source(s) and not to the contemporary organization. I've (and others have) posted it before, but Dr. Phil Valentine does a lovely job of historically analyzing the Jesus myth in the following video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYgyXFqkZyA

P.S. Assertiveness is often demonized as 'tyrannical' in the absence of rational counter-point,....

[Wind]

There are no Demons.

I would love this to be true! However, there are many things occupying this reality with us and there are many different names for them. The shadow beings occupying the astral plane have been very real to me and I guess some people would choose to call them demons. I never asked for their visitations, but then again they didn't even bother to ask. Then there are the angelic beings from the angelic realms, which have been very real too. The overseers.

They're like the polar opposites, ones are vile and nasty and the others are beautiful and loving beyond this mortal human comprehension. For most people however these things are not part of their reality and good for them, I suppose. Then again, ignorance can make you vulnerable to control. For me it has been a struggle to be a person who has one foot in the other world and one in this world. I am only capable of talking about these things online, in real world I world I would quite fast get labeled as insane. Then again, to me, the real world seems insane when ever I look at the news.

If you have encountered the shadow beings, then you know what I'm talking about. Some people of course talk about djinns (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/djinn) (In the Koran and Muslim tradition, a spirit often capable of assuming human or animal form and exercising supernatural influence over people.) too.

"The words daemon and daimon are Latinized spellings of the Greek δαίμων (daimôn), a reference to the daemons of Ancient Greek religion and mythology, Hellenistic religion and philosophy.

Daemons are good or benevolent "supernatural beings between mortals and gods, such as inferior divinities and ghosts of dead heroes" (see Plato's Symposium), and differ from the Judeo-Christian usage of demon, a malignant spirit that can seduce, afflict, or possess humans.

In this sense, a demon is solely a bad spirit. Daemons, on the other hand, are good. Note that the terms are from different religious backgrounds, and so they would not "coexist" in the same context. For most people, however, daemon is just a computer term."

[RMorgan]

Yes, yes,... yes; thank you for posting this thread. I find your conclusions to be 100% supported by the evidence, and I appreciate you providing source links (I'm WAY too lazy for such things). There is fruit and comprehension that can come of studying the Christian Chimera, but that is a testament to the quality of the original source(s) and not to the contemporary organization. I've (and others have) posted it before, but Dr. Phil Valentine does a lovely job of historically analyzing the Jesus myth in the following video.


Thank you my friend,

I just raised some important points which are largely accepted by the majority of reputable History of Religion and Theology scholars.

Of course, it's almost a crime to reduce such a complex and fascinating subject to just a few paragraphs, but it's all backed up by solid historical evidence. Christianity is nothing but a crude collage of other ancient myths and religions.

As for the life of Jesus himself, very very little is known about him, historically speaking. As you know, none of the gospels was actually written by actual disciples. They've been written from 70 to 350 years after the alleged crucifixion, and extensively modified at will by the Roman Catholic Church in the following centuries. The Bible itself was intensively modified for about 1600 years.

As a matter of fact, there's no direct eye-witness account of Jesus's life. This is considered very intriguing by Historians and Theologians, since other much less important historical characters were largely documented by scribes, priests, philosophers and historians of the time. So, if he was so important, why there's literally nothing written about him by the very people who allegedly lived in the same historical period? It's like, historically, he didn't even exist.

That's why there's growing current of thought called Mythicism, which, in respect to this subject, studies the possibility of not only Christianity being a complete fabrication, but the character of Jesus himself being a total farce as well.

In this line, I reccomend the work of Robert M. Price (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price), which currently is one of the most prominent mythicists.

For a more conventional approach to the historical Jesus, I recommend the works of Bart D. Ehrman (http://www.bartdehrman.com/).

Both authors have written very notable books. Very dense reading, though. Not for everyone, specially Robert M. Price.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

True modern science supports a model including all possibilities,
not a model excluding all competition.


https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god

That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind.

But what if one refuses to accept this conclusion, and maintains that only physical entities exist and that all observers and their minds are entirely describable by the equations of physics? Then the quantum probabilities remain in limbo, not 0 and 100% (in general) but hovering somewhere in between. They never get resolved into unique and definite outcomes, but somehow all possibilities remain always in play. One would thus be forced into what is called the “Many Worlds Interpretation” (MWI) of quantum mechanics.



Many people think of the universe as a dumb thing without a mind,
and that we amoebas are the grand total pinnacle of all those light-years of potential.

Personally, as a lover of science who includes the possibility of the supernatural, I cannot say that the universe is a mindless thing.


Whether or not Lucifer/Satan is a bad thing is a totally different argument than whether or not the Setian intelligence exists.

Also many religions are distorted and misinterpreted beyond recognition.
Hence the warning, that the messengers brought us not peace, but a sword.

[Shezbeth]

There are no Demons.

I would love this to be true! However, there are many things occupying this reality with us and there are many different names for them. The shadow beings occupying the astral plane have been very real to me and I guess some people would choose to call them demons. I never asked for their visitations, but then again they didn't even bother to ask. Then there are the angelic beings from the angelic realms, which have been very real too. The overseers.

They're like the polar opposites, ones are vile and nasty and the others are beautiful and loving beyond this mortal human comprehension. For most people however these things are not part of their reality and good for them, I suppose. Then again, ignorance can make you vulnerable to control. For me it has been a struggle to be a person who has one foot in the other world and one in this world. I am only capable of talking about these things online, in real world I world I would quite fast get labeled as insane. Then again, to me, the real world seems insane when ever I look at the news.

If you have encountered the shadow beings, then you know what I'm talking about. Some people of course talk about djinns (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/djinn) (In the Koran and Muslim tradition, a spirit often capable of assuming human or animal form and exercising supernatural influence over people.) too.

"The words daemon and daimon are Latinized spellings of the Greek δαίμων (daimôn), a reference to the daemons of Ancient Greek religion and mythology, Hellenistic religion and philosophy.

Daemons are good or benevolent "supernatural beings between mortals and gods, such as inferior divinities and ghosts of dead heroes" (see Plato's Symposium), and differ from the Judeo-Christian usage of demon, a malignant spirit that can seduce, afflict, or possess humans.

In this sense, a demon is solely a bad spirit. Daemons, on the other hand, are good. Note that the terms are from different religious backgrounds, and so they would not "coexist" in the same context. For most people, however, daemon is just a computer term."

Thank you for that concise illustration of the difference between Demon and Daemon. I'm stealing that for later use BTW.

May I suggest that the "... you know what I'm talking about" is not an effective method of reference, as one is relying on the experiences of another person (which may have little/nothing to do with what one means) to validate their own claims?

Personally, I have had numerous experiences with numerous types of "shadow beings" which had very different natures and and methods of operation. The term 'shadow' is (IMO) near as unspecific as the term 'Demon', as it can be applied to any number of phenomena and experience.

[RMorgan]

Many people think of the universe as a dumb thing without a mind,
and that we amoebas are the grand total pinnacle of all those light-years of potential.

Personally, as a lover of science who includes the possibility of the supernatural, I cannot say that the universe is a mindless thing.


Whether or not Lucifer/Satan is a bad thing is a totally different argument than whether or not the Setian intelligence exists.

Also many religions are distorted and misinterpreted beyond recognition.
Hence the warning, that the messengers brought us not peace, but a sword.

I haven't made up my mind about a possible Deistic or Pantheistic origin of the universe as well. Although the Intelligent Design hypothesis seems to be gradually losing its foundations, both philosophically and scientifically, in my opinion.

However, Theism is out of the table. Definitively. In that sense, I'm more of a Anti-Theist than an Atheist...Or better yet: I'm just me. No labels.

I've recently read a Lawrence M. Krauss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss)'s book, called A Universe From Nothing, and I must say he's got superb arguments. I highly recommend this one as well.

[Zampano]

Demons and angels-heaven and hell. Good or bad. Sweet or sour.
It is a construct in our heads. The Absolute does not care.
Even though we cannot view the lives of Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha and Abraham ;-)
and many people in between and what was before and after ;-)
These are all words to describe a (one) consciousness. Religion distorted it.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Hi RMorgan,

here is a different idea possibly,

what about a universe whose intelligence is co-created, co-developed, along with ours?

it can neither wholly dictate or wholly follow, being as it is a part of us all,
due to quantum physics.

to stand alone regardless of the price is an age-old dilemma common to most religions. this could be due to the fact that nature itself hates a void, it strives to connect and permeate all things,

just like the light St John talked about...
we have the light within us, we can see the light,
but we can't take complete credit for it.

edit: due to our darkness

[Gaia]

There are no Demons.

I would love this to be true! However, there are many things occupying this reality with us and there are many different names for them. The shadow beings occupying the astral plane have been very real to me and I guess some people would choose to call them demons. I never asked for their visitations, but then again they didn't even bother to ask. Then there are the angelic beings from the angelic realms, which have been very real too. The overseers.

They're like the polar opposites, ones are vile and nasty and the others are beautiful and loving beyond this mortal human comprehension. For most people however these things are not part of their reality and good for them, I suppose. Then again, ignorance can make you vulnerable to control. For me it has been a struggle to be a person who has one foot in the other world and one in this world. I am only capable of talking about these things online, in real world I world I would quite fast get labeled as insane. Then again, to me, the real world seems insane when ever I look at the news.

If you have encountered the shadow beings, then you know what I'm talking about. Some people of course talk about djinns (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/djinn) (In the Koran and Muslim tradition, a spirit often capable of assuming human or animal form and exercising supernatural influence over people.) too.

"The words daemon and daimon are Latinized spellings of the Greek δαίμων (daimôn), a reference to the daemons of Ancient Greek religion and mythology, Hellenistic religion and philosophy.

Daemons are good or benevolent "supernatural beings between mortals and gods, such as inferior divinities and ghosts of dead heroes" (see Plato's Symposium), and differ from the Judeo-Christian usage of demon, a malignant spirit that can seduce, afflict, or possess humans.

In this sense, a demon is solely a bad spirit. Daemons, on the other hand, are good. Note that the terms are from different religious backgrounds, and so they would not "coexist" in the same context. For most people, however, daemon is just a computer term."

Thank you for that concise illustration of the difference between Demon and Daemon. I'm stealing that for later use BTW.

May I suggest that the "... you know what I'm talking about" is not an effective method of reference, as one is relying on the experiences of another person (which may have little/nothing to do with what one means) to validate their own claims?

Personally, I have had numerous experiences with numerous types of "shadow beings" which had very different natures and and methods of operation. The term 'shadow' is (IMO) near as unspecific as the term 'Demon', as it can be applied to any number of phenomena and experience.

The tragedy of the boycott is that it's based on an utter lie.

Sjl2unvyl48

[Wind]

May I suggest that the "... you know what I'm talking about" is not an effective method of reference, as one is relying on the experiences of another person (which may have little/nothing to do with what one means) to validate their own claims?

Personally, I have had numerous experiences with numerous types of "shadow beings" which had very different natures and and methods of operation. The term 'shadow' is (IMO) near as unspecific as the term 'Demon', as it can be applied to any number of phenomena and experience.

I know that although it doesn't matter to me that much if someone believes me or not, afterall I could be talking nonsense, but I know I'm not. The testimonies out there speak for themselves anyways. Terms and names can be limiting, one could call those beings just "otherworldly" creatures, whatever they may be. Some of their intentions are quite clear, others not so much. Usually it's fairly easy to sense what they're about by just observing how you feel in their presence. "Shadow" anything usually doesn't mean a good encounter, then again the light beings are far more unwilling to show their forms, but maybe that has just been the case with me.

The few experiences I have had have been strange, to put it mildly. To me they have just proved that this reality is far more complex than we would like to admit, and we still know very little about it. Experiences are experiences, I guess it's for the best not to put any labels on them. Oh and that quote was not written by me, I just copied it. ;)

[Mike]

this little bit brings it all comedically together, explaining the...er...derivative nature of christianity...

4lLiRr_mT24

if you havent already seen it, i think you'd absolutely love this documentary Raf.

good to have you back by the way...

Wind's post is particularly interesting, because it raises some questions that need to be addressed before certain conclusions can be reached. like, whats a demon? i mean, exactly what is a demon? i cant conclusively say they do or dont exist until i know what they are. of course, theres the biblical version; theres the shadow people, or djinn; some have even referred to various ufo races, like the so-called greys, as demons.

so, we use these labels to tag and categorize but they can often end up confusing us. and why are we so confused? well, all the disinformation and double talk for one. christianity and satanism mean different things to different people; this is because we're all individuals filtering info thru imperfect lens', but also because of all the subterfuge and deliberately misleading information. so to declare christianity and satanism an absolute lie, we'd have to sift thru some language first, and come to a consensus as to what both of those things are...and that, of course, will never happen.

there are bits of truth in christianity. satanism too, id venture. as belief systems they are inherently flawed, as Raf points out. fraudulent. ive never subscribed to biblical versions of heaven and hell, god and satan etc, but id be lying if i said certain books didnt prompt me to update my thinking, books like 'the demonologist', which documents the life's work of ed and lorraine warren. call it whatever you want, but after reading such a document i find it impossible to deny the existence of what most would call "demons". also, i cant answer why, if jesus was purely a fictional creation, these demons respond to his name with such disdain; or why they recoil from holy water; or why the catholic church seems so successful at driving these entities out of people. a simple mind might conclude that, since all these things appear to be true, jesus is indeed the jesus of the bible and christianity is indeed the world's one legitimate religion. of course, if youve been in this game for a while you realize things just arent that simple. its too simple to declare these things outright lies and its too simple to declare them outright truths. the answer, as usual, winds up somewhere in the middle.

RAf is absolutely correct regarding the derivative nature of christianity and its central figure, jesus. its my opinion, however, that certain stories have been attributed to jesus in order to discredit him, like the stories of his origin and the shockingly similar stories he shares with the so called gods that preceded him. this is purely conjecture, i have no data to back this up, but its something i feel to be true. i reject the idea of a satan figure, but i believe unequivocally that forces of evil exist in this universe that we cannot even begin to comprehend...be they "demons" or djinn or whatever. so i think its the language at times, the semantics, that cause division among us. christianity and satanism are indeed largely shams, but id encourage us not to throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say. no matter how flawed, both contain valuable truths

[Deega]

Hey Raf, welcome back, great to have you in! From the less I know, religions are human made, surely influenced by some ETs sometimes.

On the devil side, IMO, there are energies swirling around us constantly. As we know, energy has both polarities (positive/negative). At times we may be easily influenced by one or the other! And since our mind/emotion have different responsiveness in time, we may easily recognize influences we like to call "devil". My 2 cents.

One thing is sure, we are more than we accept ourselves to be!

The best to you!

[RMorgan]

Wind's post is particularly interesting, because it raises some questions that need to be addressed before certain conclusions can be reached. like, whats a demon? i mean, exactly what is a demon? i cant conclusively say they do or dont exist until i know what they are. of course, theres the biblical version; theres the shadow people, or djinn; some have even referred to various ufo races, like the so-called greys, as demons...

...but i believe unequivocally that forces of evil exist in this universe that we cannot even begin to comprehend...be they "demons" or djinn or whatever. so i think its the language at times, the semantics, that cause division among us. christianity and satanism are indeed largely shams, but id encourage us not to throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say. no matter how flawed, both contain valuable truths

Hey mate,

First...Thanks! It's good to be back.

I've watched this doc. Bill Maher is awesome. :)

Well, my main point with this thread is to tell people that the Satanists-Sodomites-Nazi-Communists-Anarchists are not coming to get them. I was surprised to see this kind of redneck christian right-wing propaganda around here. This kind of stuff doesn't belong to places like this. Leave it to Alex Jones.

Anyway, I don't have anything to say about good and evil. This is a subject that transcends complexity. I wont even start...I don't even know if ultimately there's any difference between good and evil in the first place...What's good for me might be bad to you...What's good to you might be bad for me...Is there something totally good or totally evil?

If there are indeed things such as evil forces, are they evil in relation to what? To whom? Let's suppose an ET race comes down here and turn us into livestock. Does it make them evil? What if they are lovely parents to their kids? They could share a fat fried human leg watching baseball and having a good time! They could take their kids to hunt humans on holidays! Would it make them more evil than we are?

Is there any way to be sure that we're the good guys, in the first place? Well, generally, our behavior as a race is quite demonic, biblically speaking...

I really laugh out loud when people say that there are evil forces fighting for our souls and stuff like that. Evil? I assure you that, from the perspective of a cow in a slaughterhouse we're as evil as it gets.

But I digress...The thing is, it's impossible to say words like Satan, Hell, God or Demon without automatically bringing their inlaid traditional meaning with them. Do you know what I mean?

Their traditional, popular meaning is completely bollocks. Satan, as described by Christianity doesn't exist. The same goes to the words Hell, God and Demon. These things don't exist in the traditional christian sense. It's all made up.

Now, think about this: We're all exposed to these concepts since we're kids, for countless generations. They are part of our culture. Gods, Angels, Demons, Hell and all this crap...Independently of where you live...These concepts are an inseparable part of our civilization...This goes beyond brainwashing...It's like collective unconscious washing.

The hard question is, do you honestly think we're able to accurately interpret anything spiritual/philosophical/theological out of this box?

Do you think our mindset is adequate to analytically judge anything, any phenomenon which is external to our existential platform?

Ah...It's complicated...There are so many colors between and beyond black and white.

Raf.

[Rozzy]

it is real easy to say there are no such things as demons, Christ, God, principalities of evil, etc. Denial offers up no safety from the reality of these, when you have first hand experience with these there is no denying them even if I wanted to. Sure religions are corrupt, about everything man puts his hand to gets corrupted so no surprise there. Let me put something forward here 99.9% of people have never heard of and know absolutely nothing about yet it is very real. "Demonflesh", if you go look on the web it will have all kinds of misleading stupidity about Demonflesh. What it really is, is when two demons use two human hosts to talk audibly back and forth to one another. If you ever witness this you will likely piss yourself and then burn rubber out of there. There is a lot you do not know, because you don't know it does not mean it does not exist.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Wind's post is particularly interesting, because it raises some questions that need to be addressed before certain conclusions can be reached. like, whats a demon? i mean, exactly what is a demon? i cant conclusively say they do or dont exist until i know what they are. of course, theres the biblical version; theres the shadow people, or djinn; some have even referred to various ufo races, like the so-called greys, as demons...

...but i believe unequivocally that forces of evil exist in this universe that we cannot even begin to comprehend...be they "demons" or djinn or whatever. so i think its the language at times, the semantics, that cause division among us. christianity and satanism are indeed largely shams, but id encourage us not to throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say. no matter how flawed, both contain valuable truths

Hey mate,

First...Thanks! It's good to be back.

I've watched this doc. Bill Maher is awesome. :)

Well, my main point with this thread is to tell people that the Satanists-Sodomites-Nazi-Communists-Anarchists are not coming to get them. I was surprised to see this kind of redneck christian right-wing propaganda around here. This kind of stuff doesn't belong to places like this. Leave it to Alex Jones.



^

This appears to be another post fashioned to dictate what people think here.

Those of us who choose to spend our time researching Nazism in modern day life are completely justified in doing so.
Despite your choice of words, this hobby does not reflect a lack of education, nor does it suggest a specific affiliation with some belief system or other.
What a strange assumption that was.

Were you aware of the fact that one of the first things Hitler tried to do when he rose to power was abolish the variety of faiths native to Germany at the time?
He treated Christians like foreigners, the very people who had built pre-modern Germany, and of course we all know what he did to Jewish folks, another group who had worked hard to make a living in Germany.

It's also strange that you threw all those labels together (Nazism and Communism in the same label, really now?) like a patchwork quilt and expect the thinkers here to thank you for the education.



the Satanists-Sodomites-Nazi-Communists-Anarchists are not coming to get them
Are you keeping up with this week's news at all? Just saying.


surprised to see this kind of redneck christian right-wing propaganda around here
I'm surprised to see you too.


The "main point" of your thread appears to be simple crap stirring.
Based on the portions quoted.



P.s. Chew on this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117093/Secret-files-reveal-9-000-Nazi-war-criminals-fled-South-America-WWII.html

Secret files reveal 9,000 Nazi war criminals fled to South America after WWII
As many as 5,000 Nazis went to Argentina
Between 1,500 and 2,000 ended up in Brazil
Around 500 to 1,000 settled in Chile
The rest started new lives in Paraguay and Uruguay



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/19/article-2117093-0CB06414000005DC-531_224x355.jpg

[Rozzy]

The "main point" of your thread appears to be simple crap stirring.
Based on the portions quoted.

I was thinking about the same thing.

[RUSirius]

Being born into christianity, totally bored most the time until I was "all grown up." The boredom turned into an interest, turned into a serious "want" to believe, but never could. My experience as I assume most others, is one of indoctrination through a highly controlled "education." Breaking away from the multitude of traps and relearning life, continuously, and acknowledging that we know religions are a small contained box of a story, with similar goals. Its hard to break away from the emotional ties and wants of religions, but if you can, things can expand greatly, there should be no limitations on our ability to explore our mind in a productive manner. But whats productive to one may not be productive to another.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Being born into christianity, totally bored most the time until I was "all grown up." The boredom turned into an interest, turned into a serious "want" to believe, but never could. My experience as I assume most others, is one of indoctrination through a highly controlled "education." Breaking away from the multitude of traps and relearning life, continuously, and acknowledging that we know religions are a small contained box of a story, with similar goals. Its hard to break away from the emotional ties and wants of religions, but if you can, things can expand greatly, there should be no limitations on our ability to explore our mind in a productive manner. But whats productive to me may not be productive to you.

I don't want to sound rude,
but boredom isn't a good reason to abandon faith.
That's like saying, "without stress to make me appreciate my religion, my religion has no worth"...

This type of thinking explains why a time of plenty is accompanied by the abandonment of reason,
the abandonment of values (!), and soon turns into a time of desperation.

I.e. 20's into the 30's.

we are permitted to, in effect, create hell on earth.
p.s. I guess a lot of non religious folk assume that all Christians believe in Hell.
lolz

[awakeningmom]

I'm confused about the original post's point. Even if the entity known as Satan is a fabrication (or a mish-mash of other pre-Christian beings or mythological entities), the fact is the "satanists" do exist. There are tens of thousands (or more) of practicing satanists in the United States alone. Whether these satanists are able to summon actual negative beings or simply engage in sacrificial rituals they believe serve this mythological creature seems to be largely besides the point. Real atrocities are still committed in the name of this "religion" and, the evidence suggests (at least according to researchers like David icke and Michael Tsarion) that a large proportion of the elite are part of this satanic/luciferian belief system, so why isn't there a need for concern simply because their religion's "god" might be fake? I don't think many people on this forum are afraid of the entity known as "satan" so much as concerned about the people who allegedly or genuinely believe in such a being and commit horrendous acts in his/its name. I also think it's strange to lump nazis in the "bogeyman" camp, when there is so much evidence that project paperclip was real and far more extensive than originally imagined. And for the record, I do think child sacrifice is pure evil and that there is such a thing as objective good and objective evil, even if there are times when it's all about perspective.

[voices of silence]

You should seriously research Satanism before posting about it. Their are many branches of Satanism and NO the Satan isn't stolen from the Chirstian religion. Some branches have nothing to do with Satan at all. The witchcraft branch uses all kinds of gods has ONLY symbols they do NOT worship them. Useing symbols in witchcraft gives people a focues point so its easier to concentrate while doing a ritual or casting a spell.

[Mike]

Being born into christianity, totally bored most the time until I was "all grown up." The boredom turned into an interest, turned into a serious "want" to believe, but never could. My experience as I assume most others, is one of indoctrination through a highly controlled "education." Breaking away from the multitude of traps and relearning life, continuously, and acknowledging that we know religions are a small contained box of a story, with similar goals. Its hard to break away from the emotional ties and wants of religions, but if you can, things can expand greatly, there should be no limitations on our ability to explore our mind in a productive manner. But whats productive to me may not be productive to you.

I don't want to sound rude,
but boredom isn't a good reason to abandon faith.
That's like saying, "without stress to make me appreciate my religion, my religion has no worth"...

This type of thinking explains why a time of plenty is accompanied by the abandonment of reason,
the abandonment of values (!), and soon turns into a time of desperation.

I.e. 20's into the 30's.

we are permitted to, in effect, create hell on earth.
p.s. I guess a lot of non religious folk assume that all Christians believe in Hell.
lolz


i dont think theres a better reason to abandon faith than boredom. if sin exists, i think boredom is one of the greatest sins of all. clearly you have never been to my church:). a typical mass involves endless rounds of sitting and standing and kneeling and chanting, the eventual consumption of stale wafers...with it all culminating in the dispensation of faint-inducing frankincense coming from a smoky brass object that vaguely resembles a cow bell. no variation. if a little boredom caused one to leave a faith i might regard that person as flaky, but when its boring *all the time*...

question: how can one call oneself a Christian and not believe in hell? its at the very foundation of the religion, wouldnt you say?

i like researching Nazi stuff too. i find it endlessly fascinating. i wont dispute any of your facts, but the point of Raf's comment, i think, is that theyre all dead now;). no worries. the lumping together of the nazi-communist etc etc was meant to be sort of sarcastic. some of the info here regarding evil influences has legs, but much of it is a response, imho, to the existential crisis plaguing all of us, inspired by boredom no doubt (ie we want to feel important or special because our lives lack action...or theyre drowning is despair).

Raf is rigidly, if not dogmatically scientific. i find this viewpoint refreshing not because i agree with it all the time but because i find it to be the perfect antidote to the tide of irrationality we often confront here. now, if we had 5000 Rafs here id likely find our channeling enthusiasts refreshing:p. its about balance.

sh!t stirring? i like a little sh!t stirring now n again (see my comments on boredom). and this isnt an all together foreign concept to you Tesla:) in fact, i find it to be one of your more endearing characteristics. i admire that about you.

the point is that the origins of christianity, (and by extension satanism) is kind of bullsh!t. a little bit of research will reveal this to be true. i know this to be conceptually true, but ill admit here that when im struggling in life i often drive to the local church and sit on the curb, directly below a jesus statue. i find it comforting. i dont know exactly how i juggle this juxtaposition...but i do. logically its absurd, but the divine doesnt always lend itself to my version of logic..

[Omni]

I don't think raf is intentionally stirring people's emotions. However I agree he has some things wrong, as well as some things right in his OP.

Satanists do not worship a Satan from what I understand. Certainly not the christian idea of Satan. It isn't a christian breakaway. If you want to learn about real satanism check Mark Passio's work.

Here's one of his:
fTSpkffdBnI

Some of the main tenets of Satanism:
Moral Relativism
Social Darwinism

I find Satanism fascinating. And the concepts of it are pretty potent. I wouldn't be surprised if the leaders of the world(at least some) were actual satanists.

[ghostrider]

Religion is one of the main reasons ET's hide themselves and do not interact with Earth humans ... they did once long ago and religion was brought back to their world and it caused so much War , a decision was made that any ship that landed on Earth with technical problems would be offered NO assistance from the extended community , hence the Tunguska event ... a ship from the peoples Union of Bardan with a crew of 4387 souls , was damaged and they fashioned a bomb out of their engine lifted it as high as they could and let it fall back to Earth and explode ... They knew help was not coming ... all over religion ... Earth humans always want to set a power over themselves , so as not to bare responsibility for their thoughts, actions , and feelings ...

[RUSirius]

Being born into christianity, totally bored most the time until I was "all grown up." The boredom turned into an interest, turned into a serious "want" to believe, but never could. My experience as I assume most others, is one of indoctrination through a highly controlled "education." Breaking away from the multitude of traps and relearning life, continuously, and acknowledging that we know religions are a small contained box of a story, with similar goals. Its hard to break away from the emotional ties and wants of religions, but if you can, things can expand greatly, there should be no limitations on our ability to explore our mind in a productive manner. But whats productive to me may not be productive to you.

I don't want to sound rude,
but boredom isn't a good reason to abandon faith.
That's like saying, "without stress to make me appreciate my religion, my religion has no worth"...

This type of thinking explains why a time of plenty is accompanied by the abandonment of reason,
the abandonment of values (!), and soon turns into a time of desperation.

I.e. 20's into the 30's.

we are permitted to, in effect, create hell on earth.
p.s. I guess a lot of non religious folk assume that all Christians believe in Hell.
lolz

Sorry, I'm kind of poor with specificity. What I should have said instead of boredom, was lack of thought provoking material as a child. However it was not due to boredom as an adult that I left and never looked back, it was because I didn't want to make a multi manipulated story what I used as a foundation or basis of me trying to figure it all out. It felt like to much shaky ground to build a good case. I went with what I thought was right and still do.

[KiwiElf]

Welcome back Raf :)
The article/thread you refer to came from Before It's News by Lisa Haven - a regular poster on that site who seems to have nothing better to do than frequently promote Bible-banging fear mongering. Check it out for yourselves...

http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2015/02/the-endgame-has-arrived-and-its-not-the-nwo-the-dragon-has-loosed-something-frightening-that-will-terrify-even-the-none-believer-life-altering-video-you-wont-forget-2467054.html

[RMorgan]

I'm confused about the original post's point. Even if the entity known as Satan is a fabrication (or a mish-mash of other pre-Christian beings or mythological entities), the fact is the "satanists" do exist. There are tens of thousands (or more) of practicing satanists in the United States alone. Whether these satanists are able to summon actual negative beings or simply engage in sacrificial rituals they believe serve this mythological creature seems to be largely besides the point. Real atrocities are still committed in the name of this "religion" and, the evidence suggests (at least according to researchers like David icke and Michael Tsarion) that a large proportion of the elite are part of this satanic/luciferian belief system, so why isn't there a need for concern simply because their religion's "god" might be fake? I don't think many people on this forum are afraid of the entity known as "satan" so much as concerned about the people who allegedly or genuinely believe in such a being and commit horrendous acts in his/its name. I also think it's strange to lump nazis in the "bogeyman" camp, when there is so much evidence that project paperclip was real and far more extensive than originally imagined. And for the record, I do think child sacrifice is pure evil and that there is such a thing as objective good and objective evil, even if there are times when it's all about perspective.

I have no doubt about that, my friend.

Beliefs can cause real harm. I'm sure we're all aware of that. People can go the extremes when they really believe something.

However, it's important to notice that these satanists are just a regular bunch of evil people. There's nothing powerful about them. Nothing special. People give them way more credits than they deserve.

Even in the traditional lunatic sense, you don't need to fear them. Much more people are killed, tortured and abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.

Now, regarding other people's posts, not yours.

Yes, I know there are many lines of Satanism. Some are more about philosophy than religion and see Satan in the Judaic sense, as a necessary balancing energy.

However, I was most specifically talking about the literalist Satanists. I'm sure that those who know how to properly interpret texts (without distorting it at will) are aware of that.

About the Satanists-Sodomites-Nazi-Communists-Anarchists, all I can do is laugh. It was supposed to be a joke, but unfortunately a lot of guys in the alternative media say stuff like that very seriously.

First of all, you can't be a Nazi, Communist and Anarchist simultaneously. They are diametrically opposed ideologies, although Anarchy has Socialist (not Communist) roots.

This is the classic example of right-wing fear propaganda. The kind of "pack every word that strikes fear in one sentence" thing. It is ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing with people which either can't interpret texts or distort them deliberately. There's a context to every text and, in order to discuss it, anyone must respect the boundaries of this context. Otherwise, forums like this wouldn't be possible because a person would have to write a PhD thesis instead of an objective and synthetic forum post, you know, for every objective paragraph you write you have to write ten more of excerpts, references and clarifications.

Proper communication isn't possible if there isn't a mutual effort to understand each other, if one doesn't put his contextual, synthetic and analytic skills to good use.

So, I'm truly glad to exchange ideas with people who read what I write and are honest enough to reason about it in context. You can be sure that I'll also read what you write with the same attention, honesty and care.

However, those who enjoy to deliberately distort things in order to argue for the sake of arguing can pretend I do not exist because I do not enjoy these little silly games, I will not participate in them and you'll be wasting your time.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Napping]

Really impressive OP Raf. Great links.

Back to your thoughts on Jesus. Do you personally believe the most prayed to entity in modern history is completely fabricated? The nag Hammadi scrolls certainly refer to Jesus, albeit a very different version of the man. Your thoughts on them and how are these texts regarded by respected investigators from your readings?

One more question, do you believe in the spirit realm and the influence of so called archons, angels, etc on the 3d world we live in and potentially where we he as to next?

These last couple may be too personal to divulge, but I've always enjoyed your sceptical/logic mind and am interested in its boundaries.

Cheers,

Matt

[RMorgan]

Really impressive OP Raf. Great links.

Back to your thoughts on Jesus. Do you personally believe the most prayed to entity in modern history is completely fabricated? The nag Hammadi scrolls certainly refer to Jesus, albeit a very different version of the man. Your thoughts on them and how are these texts regarded by respected investigators from your readings?

One more question, do you believe in the spirit realm and the influence of so called archons, angels, etc on the 3d world we live in and potentially where we he as to next?

These last couple may be too personal to divulge, but I've always enjoyed your sceptical/logic mind and am interested in its boundaries.

Cheers,

Matt

Hey Matt,

I wouldn't have means to know if Jesus is a fabrication in it's entirety. It's impossible to achieve such conclusion simply because there isn't enough evidence.

Even Robert M. Price, who's one of the most credible Mythicism proponents, writes, at the conclusion of his book called Deconstructing Jesus: "There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure"

However, if there was indeed a historical Jesus, it's almost unanimous among scholars that he underwent deification through apotheosis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis), which means that Jesus, as a divine figure, is most certainly a fabrication.

I wouldn't know about the existence of a possible spiritual realm. When you trace the history of such kind of belief to its roots, you invariably find its origin on fabricated stories developed to fill the gaps left by the unknown. Most of these gaps no longer exist, which means those questions have already been answered, but the beliefs themselves remained because they've been assimilated by cultural tradition.

...And we can't underestimate the strength of tradition and its relevance for our civilization. Rituals like Christmas and its symbols have been celebrated since the begining of organized society and, although most people aren't aware of its pagan origins, people still place gifts under Christmas trees.

Animism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism) is as ancient as it can get but, although we no longer have honest reasons to believe in it, it's still a persistent part of our culture, just like Christmas.

Agentism, which is the attribution of intentional agent roles to ordinary natural phenomena like wind or fire, is also as ancient as it gets. Although we have no logical reasons to believe that fire or wind are intelligent agents anymore, we still carry this feeling as part of who we are. Some people still interpret natural occurring phenomena such as simple shadows or unusual noises as intentional agents.

So, to summarize, it's hard to know what kind of beliefs are simply the result of reinvented and syncretized ancient traditions or are actually based on the accurate interpretation of the facts.

Certainly, a big part of what people traditionally call of spiritual phenomena has its roots entirely tangled in perfectly explainable anthropological assimilation of ancient traditions and superstitions.

Of course, it doesn't mean that there aren't mysteries. The unexplained is still there, although it's hard to know if there are indeed any mystical attributes to it or if it's just our mind filling the gaps, as it's undeniably conditioned to do, replacing the unknown with any already familiar concept which most of the times end up as an explanation which doesn't make any logical sense...

In the remote past, when we heard a suspicious noise at night, it might very well be nothing or it might very well be a predator that's about to eat you for dinner. So, in case of doubt, it's better to interpret the noise as a predator because, in case you're wrong in your interpretation, you don't lose anything. However, if you had interpreted the noise as simply the wind, in case you're wrong, you're dead. So, from the evolutionary point of view, people with tendency to imagining things and attributing meaning to meaningless situations were more successful in passing their genes on to the next generations.

Pareidolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia) is a similar by-product of a once useful genetic feature. It's certainly better to see a lion were there isn't any than the contrary, evolutionary speaking.

That's how the mind works; It's not "wired" to be accurate, but to keep us alive. Biologically, we're still cavemen. We still carry these genetic characteristics, even though there are no practical use for them anymore. We haven't biologically evolved to live in such a developed world. Obviously, this is one of the major reasons that make us so contradictory as a race. At one hand, we've got unbelievable technology that most people wouldn't even dare to imagine just a hundred years ago. At the other, we have people killing and torturing based on primitive bronze-age morals.

Anyway, when we face something unknown, our minds automatically attribute meaning to it based on familiar concepts. As an example, an atheist and a christian hypothetically facing the same previously unknown phenomena will naturally achieve different conclusions. The mind is like water, it always takes the path of least resistance. If a primitive man of an isolated tribe sees an airplane or a helicopter, he'll certainly interpret is as a big monstrous kind of bird, while we, modern man, know better. The same analogy might very well be applicable to what people call spiritual realm.

The matter of fact is, we're genetically wired to see patterns were there aren't any, to attribute intention and meaning to meaningless natural occurring phenomena, and to replace knowledge gaps with totally inaccurate but familiar concepts. It's impossible to escape this condition.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/11/19/amazon460x276.jpg

Look at these guys. We're genetically identical to them. They're pointing their bows and arrows to the helicopter. What's the helicopter to them? A monstrous bird? A "hellish" creature? A Demon? Well, their interpretation will depend on their traditions, mythology and experience. Independently of how their minds make connections to explain the helicopter phenomena, their explanations will never really reflect what a helicopter really is.

Fascinating, right? When people talk about spirituality, gods, angels, demons, hell, Satan and similar concepts, they're doing exactly what these guys are doing. Filling the gaps of the unknown with familiar concepts and providing mystical meaning to something that, from the correct perspective, might be as boring and mundane as a helicopter is from ours. That's why I don't believe any of these things.

Of course, there's so much we don't know. So much to explain. However, I'm quite positive that people aren't able to label new phenomena using familiar concepts, specially if these concepts are thousands of years old. You can't give meaning to the unprecedentedly new by recurring to the expired old. You need new data to give meaning to new things, if you're interested in accuracy.

In face of an unknown phenomena, we are much more likely to interpret it with some accuracy trough the use of modern tools than with ancient, primitive, mystic symbology.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Zampano]

So I came to the conclusion, that the worlds biggest religion have one common core.
You find it in the mystic traditions like Sufism, Christian Mystic, Kabbalah, Buddhism.

You cannot define or describe god, so actually any describing coming from the mind will not be accurate.
Logical thinking can help you to approach this subject, but experiencing is the key.

All of them say:

God resides in the heart.

Deny yourself (mind) to let god happen.
Rumi (Sufism): How do we find awareness? Lets renounce wisdom. (wisdom=thought, word, mind)
Master Eckehart (Christian Mystics): Everything you can say about god, he/she is not.
Buddha (Buddhism ;-): The mind is the source of all confusion.
Adi Shankara (Hinduism-Advaita Vedanta): There is no ignorance outside the mind. The mind alone is ignorance.

The power of Mantras to clear the mind:
Allahu Akbar, Om, reciting the rosary or other "holy" texts, I AM, constant body movements (Wailing Wall).
The "Goal" of this exercise is to see what is left after the mind disolves.

Karma and Reincarnation:
Is described in most religions, but not found by word in Christian Mystic.
There is a vague indication in Jacobs letter in the bible-I try to translate from German:
Bad words can spark a fire, but the arsonist have to come back to clear it.

And probably much more similarities...

I know Raf, you are looking for facts, but how can I provide facts to something which cannot be described in words? ;-)
But there are clear indications, that they all speak about the same.

I am not a specialist whatsoever in religions, but when you crossread the mystic traditions-one common core.

And I see this figures like Jesus, Buddha and the whole gang more like a state of consciousness-not necessarily historical persons.


And Satan is just the antagonist in the game-he is needed in the learning process. And I think God and Satan are a team-Satan helps you through "not pleasant" experiences closer to get closer to god. Love and Compassion.

[donk]

I watched a movie last night called Big Fish, a whimsical 2003 Tim Burton flick which excellently portrayed the core “value” that I believe is underlying the discussion here (or in other words: is triggering the emotional reactions to it).

It is the story of man who wants to find out “the real truth” of his father’s life, a dude who’s life is a bunch of “fish stories” that endear him to everyone he comes in to contact with (a recurring theme in the movie is “one thing you can say about Ed Bloom, he’s a social person”). His entire life was fantastic stories (lies) he repeated enough that it was not only his accepted identity, it was the reason everyone “loved”…him (?)….it was disquieting to me, knowing this a message, a story, that those who rate movies on amazon prime recommend this at 4.5 outa 5 stars. But I realized, this is how our existence is, and it was summed in the conclusion (spoiler alert), where the son realizes that everyone prefers the grandious stories and the larger-than-life appearance his father created…so on his deathbed he created the denoument, affirming that this was the best thing, a great story was of more value than the actual reality of his life….and the film ended with this truth:

That was my father's final joke I guess. A man tells his stories so many times he becomes the stories. They live on after him. And in that way, he becomes immortal

That’s the reality I find myself in, the existence I see us as a species creating.

And so as I watch this thread unfold, I take what I have learned of “rmorgan”, and am amused at the stories we are telling himself about him, despite the actual words he chose. I examine my perception of what he was doing with the OP, and wonder how it so easily seems to get completely twisted.

Especially the “white” of the Mike’s portrayal of him as “dogmatically scientific”, and the “black” of him being sh!t-stirrer.

I personally see a subtle difference between the idea of “science dogma” and his presentation of evidence he finds credible with responsibly worded explanation of why he believes it (and wants you to). And as far “sh!t stirring” goes, I see a bucket of sh!t in my space, I am going to stir it around to see if there’s anything of value in there, and if not find a way to transform the “sh!t” into something useful, and if that’s impossible…dispose of it. Which is a not so subtle difference than the idea of being “rebellious” for the sake of it…in other words setting off emotional triggers to deflect those too immature to deal with their emotional attachments to ideas from “Truth”.


And what I mean be “Truth”, is what rmorgan had come to symbolize in our community in his previous presence: the stuff that seems most likely that most of us would agree upon, based on seemingly “concrete” experience that most of have shared.

Maybe this seems off topic, maybe my perspective seems invalid to you…this is just what I see. So raf, my friend, when you said “This kind of stuff doesn't belong to places like this” I took it to mean that you would like this place to be one where we can remove our emotional attachments from our beliefs, and compare the experiences that we feel are valid in order to come up with an agreed upon reality where we can function as the creative beings that we seem to be, free of the beliefs that disempower us from experiencing what we seem to want as individuals coexisting in this actual existence.

….or something like that, that’s the role I’ve taken on lately, the purpose of my presence…good seeing you bro, love, phil

[Shezbeth]

There's a context to every text and, in order to discuss it, anyone must respect the boundaries of this context. Otherwise, forums like this wouldn't be possible because a person would have to write a PhD thesis instead of an objective and synthetic forum post, you know, for every objective paragraph you write you have to write ten more of excerpts, references and clarifications.

Proper communication isn't possible if there isn't a mutual effort to understand each other, if one doesn't put his contextual, synthetic and analytic skills to good use.

Slightly off topic, but you've just nutshell-summarized the 'why' behind my entire purpose of all-but not posting (here OR elsewhere).


So raf, my friend, when you said “This kind of stuff doesn't belong to places like this” I took it to mean that you would like this place to be one where we can remove our emotional attachments from our beliefs, and compare the experiences that we feel are valid in order to come up with an agreed upon reality where we can function as the creative beings that we seem to be, free of the beliefs that disempower us from experiencing what we seem to want as individuals coexisting in this actual existence.

I agree with your interpretation, as well as the statement its self. I can certainly understand the want to misinterpret the message of the OP, but it is not about dictation or prescription. There is a hint of exasperation, but I don't find that to be unwarranted given the subject matter.

Beyond the literally written OP, this thread seems to speak to the use of critical thinking and analysis of evidence as opposed to developing/maintaining biased perspectives (that I suggest could be traced back to someone selling something) that - though gratifying in a certain sense - are not conducive either to the individual or the group/mass.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

RE: boredom in church, I totally relate to what you are saying.
I personally saw a pre-mega-church get co-opted, practically bankrupted, and practically destroyed because of corporatism in US religions.

As a child, I'd look through the drawers on the back of the pews, for pencils and paper. I'd try to find ways to occupy myself.

I never did get the point, at that age, that stillness and peace have a value. Church was a place people could go and not be abused (generally speaking) due to its public nature.

Later in life, as I realized that public schools were at least as boring as church, not even gonna talk about college (!), it dawned on me that there is a transcending issue in the United States, which is the love of money.

The American dream is rooted too deeply in the pursuit of material enrichment these days, for folks to regard religion as a good thing. In a world of stock manipulation and subterfuge, being gracious and generous doesn't get you anywhere but bankruptcy court.



p.s. I can't help but notice a huge fixation/association of church with faith.
Can you tell me, when the prophets hid in caves and were fed by wild birds in the wilderness, what denomination did they belong to, and were they bored in church?

i just don't buy that crud lol, the whole "boredom killed my faith" thing.
the more i look at the natural world the more i am in awe of the organizing factors behind it.


p.p.s. there is nothng wrong with being a christian agnostic btw.
what do u think ozzy is? lmao

[donk]

There's nothing "wrong" with being satanist (or capitalist, or scientist, or believer of an American dream, or any other belief) either, as long you recognize your existence seems to revolve around stories someone else told you

[RMorgan]

There's nothing "wrong" with being satanist (or capitalist, or scientist, or believer of an American dream, or any other belief) either, as long you recognize your existence seems to revolve around stories someone else told you

Excellent remark, my friend!

:rockon:

Maybe except for the scientist part...Of all beliefs, science is the only one which actually works, and, despite not being perfect, it's still by far the best tool we have to analyze and describe reality.

So, science, despite also being a belief philosophically speaking, is as factual as it gets.

Cheers,

Raf.

[donk]

There's an institution of "science" that is every bit as "religious" as Jesus Christ...and almost as much of it is faith-based, as is anything in the reality which I experience...

[RMorgan]

There's an institution of "science" that is every bit as "religious" as Jesus Christ...and almost as much of it is faith-based, as is anything in the reality which I experience...

Yes. Absolutely.

I don't care about scientific institutions or scientists themselves either.

However, the scientific method itself is simply outstanding.

There's no other analytic tool out there which gets even close of the accuracy and reliability of the scientific methodology...Not even close.

:)

[donk]

Seems to me that science is the religion that claims ownership of that which the collective consciousness likes to believe we truly understand

[RMorgan]

Seems to me that science is the religion that claims ownership of that which the collective consciousness likes to believe we truly understand

I don't see it that way.

Listen, your computer is working, right? You car works, right? How about your refrigerator, does it work? Your lightbulbs? Your cellphone? When you have headache and take an aspirin it works, right?

That's it, man. I'm not up to discuss the merit of how much real reality really is.

However, science is completely opposed to religion because, well...It works.

Religion is strictly about beliefs, science not.

Things created through science, like those I've cited in the second sentence of this post, they keep working independently if you believe them or not.

Religion, though, is just the opposite. Mohamed exists as a god just for the Muslims...Christ is only real for Christians....But an ipod exists for everyone, independently if you believe in ipods or not.

There might be some people out there who worship science as it's some kind of god. These people, in fact, are anti-science.

Science is about questioning everything, specially science itself.

[Billy]

It is great to have you return Raf.




Of course, it's almost a crime to reduce such a complex and fascinating subject to just a few paragraphs, but it's all backed up by solid historical evidence. Christianity is nothing but a crude collage of other ancient myths and religions.

I agree that what we call Christianity also has connections to previous myths. And i add that Christianity as we know it has nothing to do with the Christ Jesus but is a great distraction from the true teachings of the Christ.



As for the life of Jesus himself, very very little is known about him, historically speaking. As you know, none of the gospels was actually written by actual disciples. They've been written from 70 to 350 years after the alleged crucifixion, and extensively modified at will by the Roman Catholic Church in the following centuries. The Bible itself was intensively modified for about 1600 years.

As a matter of fact, there's no direct eye-witness account of Jesus's life. This is considered very intriguing by Historians and Theologians, since other much less important historical characters were largely documented by scribes, priests, philosophers and historians of the time. So, if he was so important, why there's literally nothing written about him by the very people who allegedly lived in the same historical period? It's like, historically, he didn't even exist.

That's why there's growing current of thought called Mythicism, which, in respect to this subject, studies the possibility of not only Christianity being a complete fabrication, but the character of Jesus himself being a total farce as well.

Cheers,

Raf.

If we are only referring to the Gospels here then there is truth in what you say otherwise this is not a fact. There exists first hand eye witness documentation with the Hindu Brahmins in India and the Buddhist in Tibet that Jesus/Issa existed.

Nicolas Notovitch's account of being shown the documentation in 1894
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

I recommend this book which i purchased in India.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Lived-India-Unknown-Crucifixion/dp/1852305509

There is much much more information kicking around if one takes time to research. There are radio interviews of folks in our times having seen and been allowed access to the Documentation that exists in the Hemis Monastery near Ladakh, Himalayas. I can find the links if anyone asks.

As far as Demons or negative entities are concerned. For me the horrific history and behaviour of humanity in the name of so called religions and gods is demonic enough. If we can deal with that one first we may make some progress. . Splinters in eyes and all that stuff sometimes makes sense :wink:


However, science is completely opposed to religion because, well...It works.

Religion is strictly about beliefs, science not.

The Hindu Brahmins would very much disagree with you here. For they say their way is a science.

As we say in Scotland Raf. Go Canny Laddy. :pleasantry:

[RMorgan]

If we are only referring to the Gospels here then there is truth in what you say otherwise this is not a fact. There exists first hand eye witness documentation with the Hindu Brahmins in India and the Buddhist in Tibet that Jesus/Issa existed.

Nicolas Notovitch's account of being shown the documentation in 1894
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

I recommend this book which i purchased in India.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Lived-India-Unknown-Crucifixion/dp/1852305509

There is much much more information kicking around if one takes time to research. There are radio interviews of folks in our times having seen and been allowed access to the Documentation that exists in the Hemis Monastery near Ladakh, Himalayas. I can find the links if anyone asks.

As far as Demons or negative entities are concerned. For me the horrific history and behaviour of humanity in the name of so called religions and gods is demonic enough. If we can deal with that one first we may make some progress. . Splinters in eyes and all that stuff sometimes makes sense :wink:

As we say in Scotland Raf. Go Canny Laddy. :pleasantry:

Hello Billy,

Well, in the words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Notovitch) of Bart D. Erhman himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman), which is one of the most if not the most credible and respected contemporary scholars in this field:

"Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax"

So, Notovitch's story is far from being considered history. Some say he was a victim of a hoax. Some say he was a hoaxer himself.

There's a lot of consistent information about this case on the web. This (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/notovitch.htm) one seems to be very detailed and reliable. It's worth a read. It includes a transcript interview from 1896 with the Chief Lama of the Himis, who strongly denies Notovitch's story and the existence of any book or document about it.

Cheers,

Raf.

[seeker/reader]

Religion is one of the main reasons ET's hide themselves and do not interact with Earth humans ... they did once long ago and religion was brought back to their world and it caused so much War , a decision was made that any ship that landed on Earth with technical problems would be offered NO assistance from the extended community , hence the Tunguska event ... a ship from the peoples Union of Bardan with a crew of 4387 souls , was damaged and they fashioned a bomb out of their engine lifted it as high as they could and let it fall back to Earth and explode ... They knew help was not coming ... all over religion ... Earth humans always want to set a power over themselves , so as not to bare responsibility for their thoughts, actions , and feelings ...

From what I have researched it appears that many ETs have implanted religion here on Earth as a means to control humanity. They can appear as angels, a burning bush, a pillar of smoke/cloud to a "chosen prophet" and leave them with stone/emerald tablets, golden plates, holy books, etc.. to feed to the masses. Billions of religious followers currently exist on this planet.

Our own member, Truman Cash, has detailed his account of ETs manipulating himself and others to implant religion in society to control the people.

[Silo]

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zczn02.jpg

The action starts in modern America, specifically in a room at the Hyatt in St. Louis, where the angel who shepherds "Levi who is called Biff" has to put Christ's outrageous sidekick under de facto house arrest to get him to complete his task. Moore (Bloodsucking Fiends) gets style points for his wild imagination as Biff recalls his journey with Jesus dubbed Joshua here according to the Greek translation into and out of the clutches of Balthasar, then into a Buddhist monastery in China and finally off to India, where they dabble in the spiritual and erotic aspects of Hinduism.

--Amazon review

It's a fun read.....Just bought this one, haven't gotten to it yet...

http://i58.tinypic.com/wipxef.jpg

[RMorgan]

It's a fun read.....Just bought this one, haven't gotten to it yet...

http://i58.tinypic.com/wipxef.jpg

I've read this one.

Although I don't sympathize with the author, I enjoyed reading this book.

Bart D. Erhman books are much better, though, in my opinion. If you're interested in the historical Jesus theme, I highly recommend his books. Besides being a terrific scholar, he's also a great writer, which makes this kind of reading much easier.

[Silo]

Although I don't sympathize with the author.

What do you mean?

[RMorgan]

Although I don't sympathize with the author.

What do you mean?

Nothing special...I just think he's very arrogant as an individual.

It's got nothing to do with the quality of his work, though. He's quite respected in his field and this book was well received by the academic community. It's a well researched book and it's certainly worth a read.

[magnum]

another one of many Satanists speaks out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I11L71PD3Lw

John Ramirez was ranked the third highest devil worshiper in New York. He received his orders directly from Satan himself. But what was strong enough to rescue John? Who had enough light to shine into his darkness?

[RUSirius]

I think human language is very limited. "Science" to me is flawed, misleading and manipulated by scientists. However, how things are, are how things are, we can try to explain and understand through what we call science. But what ever it is that holds everything in place, the field we operate in is what it is, with or without human science. I think there is supreme science that explains all things at all levels effortlessly if one can understand, but earth science, public earth science more importantly, is just a small piece of supreme science, and limiting.

And to Tesla

"the more i look at the natural world the more i am in awe of the organizing factors behind it."

I think this is whats most important, no one can tell you what you see, just keep looking.

[Shezbeth]

another one of many Satanists speaks out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I11L71PD3Lw

John Ramirez was ranked the third highest devil worshiper in New York. He received his orders directly from Satan himself. But what was strong enough to rescue John? Who had enough light to shine into his darkness?

The combined prowesses of the human mind, body, and spirit are capable of remarkable feats of awareness, experience, and creation. I don't doubt that this individual is quite convinced that he was receiving his orders directly from Satan himself, nor do I doubt his conviction in having been 'saved' or whatever. The problem is, this is all subjective interpretation. One can conjure, elicit, or otherwise create - in their own mind and awareness (and thereby their experience) - all these things that you (and the guy) assert.

Sorry, but there is no credibility to either your statements or the video. This isn't a testimony, this is a well-edited (with numerous irrelevant anecdotes and cut-ins) sales pitch.

Edit: He has quite the (authoritarian) impression of his comprehension, abilities, and experience. I would go so far as to say that he spends a large portion of the video boasting,....

[RMorgan]

another one of many Satanists speaks out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I11L71PD3Lw

John Ramirez was ranked the third highest devil worshiper in New York. He received his orders directly from Satan himself. But what was strong enough to rescue John? Who had enough light to shine into his darkness?

The combined prowesses of the human mind, body, and spirit are capable of remarkable feats of awareness, experience, and creation. I don't doubt that this individual is quite convinced that he was receiving his orders directly from Satan himself, nor do I doubt his conviction in having been 'saved' or whatever. The problem is, this is all subjective interpretation. One can conjure, elicit, or otherwise create - in their own mind and awareness (and thereby their experience) - all these things that you (and the guy) assert.

You're completely right.

There's an evangelical church a few blocks from where I live, the bad kind, you know.

They do exorcisms every Friday there. I've been there a couple of times, just for fun.

The thing is utterly ridiculous, needless to say. People screaming, speaking in "tongues", convulsing....The whole thing, the complete package. Every single Friday there're at least two or three people to be "exorcised" there.

I think to myself, you know, if being religious was supposed to protect you from "the devil", it clearly isn't working. lol

Frankly, I've never seen an atheist possessed by "the devil", have you?

Besides, think about it: If "the devil" could posses Obama or Putin and start WWIII right away, why he would be wasting his time possessing a bunch of uninteresting, ignorant and broken evangelical people instead? lol

This is so fun...It's really a show. Better than most Hollywood movies. :)

What's most interesting is that the Pastor seems to be well aware that it's a total scam, a psycho-neurological phenomena perverted into something else...But he likes the money, he loves it. What a crook.

Anyway, moral of the story: People can convince themselves of whatever they want. It certainly will feel real for them, which obviously doesn't mean it will be real for everyone else. What's considered a possession for them is just an induced state of hypnotic trance, nothing more, nothing less.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Shezbeth]

What's most interesting is that the Pastor seems to be well aware that it's a total scam, a psycho-neurological phenomena perverted into something else...But he likes the money, he loves it. What a crook.

Anyway, moral of the story: People can convince themselves of whatever they want. It certainly will feel real for them, which obviously doesn't mean it will be real for everyone else. What's considered a possession for them is just an induced state of hypnotic trance, nothing more, nothing less.

I've had a similar experience. I sat in on a particular (distasteful IMO) Baptist service where a heavily-made up preacher proclaimed glory to the followers and unholy this, that, and the other thing for the non-believers (non-Baptists, not non-Christians mind you). The trouble was, halfway through the service he had invited a personal friend to co-'chair' the service; his friend was much slicker (better hair, better suit, neater make-up, better sales pitch) and I got to watch as the church's home pastor slinked to the back of the stage with an expression mixed with fear and insignificance.

To aid with the visual, this particular church (I've been to all kinds of denominations and faiths - its definitely good for a laugh, and sometimes there's food ^_~) but this particular church had dimmed lighting (as though it was night-time) their own rock band, and two giant flat-screen T.V.s displaying a laser-light-show type of graphic display during the entire ceremony (ritual would be more accurate). I'll let you do the math on that,....

Anyhow, like you describe there was whooping, random attendees jumping forth and pleading to be saved, others speaking in tongues (that particular church refers to this phenomenon as 'having/receiving the holy spirit'), and the occasional individual getting up out of their seat and running laps around the congregation, etc; it was anything but calm or rational.

But let's take this one step further shall we? Money is an obvious motivator,... but allow me to suggest that fame and - more specifically - loosh (for lack of better word; I'm referring to the tangible energetic phenomenon of adoration for, submission to, and absolute conviction toward an individual and/or ideology) that is a greater motivator,... and that is an impetus that reaches FAR more than just religious types.

With a quick review of the Alternative Media, Forums, Blogs, etc. (ad nauseum) one can readily discern a wealth of individuals who go to the N'th degree to 'capture' and maintain the belief systems and perceptions of the unwary and/or foolish. Avalon in particular has been subject to some of the tallest tales imaginable, and it defies credulity to observe the numbers that are taken in, invested, however one wants to look at it.

If I were lacking in class I would name names, but let us just say that there are several very close at hand (both the takers and the taken).

Mind, the 'experience of loosh' could as easily be a combination of neuro-chemicals brought about/induced by the experience of being perceived/received in a particular manner by a multitude. A politician may not consciously recognize the devotion and adoration in the faces of those who attend their speech, but the subconscious mind certainly does and it has a lovely concoction of brain-drugs to suit the mood,.... So whether its brain-drugs, or loosh, (or both/neither) there's a certain 'fix' that a person can get through any of the above examples; whether one is peddling or buying there's a 'high' to be had by all.

And like you say, the ones who are peddling are usually quite aware of it (and often quite psychotic, but one shouldn't hold their breath waiting for them to admit it!).

[RMorgan]

But let's take this one step further shall we? Money is an obvious motivator,... but allow me to suggest that fame and - more specifically - loosh (for lack of better word; I'm referring to the tangible energetic phenomenon of adoration for, submission to, and absolute conviction toward an individual and/or ideology) that is a greater motivator,... and that is an impetus that reaches FAR more than just religious types.


I absolutely agree with this, my friend.

Specially, when we realize that man have created god to his image, not the other way around, a god who demands prayer, submission, adoration and adulation reflects exactly the main motivational factors which led to the fabrication of religions and, subsequently, of the gods themselves.

[Billy]

Hello Billy,

Well, in the words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Notovitch) of Bart D. Erhman himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman), which is one of the most if not the most credible and respected contemporary scholars in this field:

"Today there is not a single recognized scholar on the planet who has any doubts about the matter. The entire story was invented by Notovitch, who earned a good deal of money and a substantial amount of notoriety for his hoax"

So, Notovitch's story is far from being considered history. Some say he was a victim of a hoax. Some say he was a hoaxer himself.

There's a lot of consistent information about this case on the web. This (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/notovitch.htm) one seems to be very detailed and reliable. It's worth a read. It includes a transcript interview from 1896 with the Chief Lama of the Himis, who strongly denies Notovitch's story and the existence of any book or document about it.

Cheers,

Raf.

Hi Raf and thanks for your reply, I must say i am surprised you used Wiki to try and disprove that the documentation does exist. Funny enough the Vatican used the same line of attempting to debunk Notovitch after they tried to bribe Notovitch to remain silent and hand over his documentation. To which he refused and went ahead and published only to disappear never to be seen again.

In the link you provided above it also mentions the sceptic Swami Abhedananda who travelled to Hemis to intentionally debunk the claim only to have the claim confirmed.
Quote from the link you provided.


Corroboration in India

Although Notovitch had been discredited in Europe, Swami Abhedananda, a contemporary and colleague of Swami Vivekananda, visited the Himis monastery in 1922 to confirm the reports of Notovich that he had heard the previous year in the USA. The lamas at the monastery confirmed to him that Notovich was indeed brought to the monastery with a broken leg and he was nursed there for a month and a half. They also told him that the manuscript on Jesus Christ was shown to Notovich and contents interpreted so that he could translate them into Russian.[15]

The original manuscript was said to be in Pali in the monastery of Marbour near Lhasa. The manuscript preserved at Himis was in Tibetan. Swami Abhedananda himself was shown the manuscript, which had 14 chapters containing 223 couplets (slokas). The Swami got some portions of the manuscript translated with the help of a lama, about 40 verses appearing in the Swami's travelogue.[16]

And again here. http://the-wanderling.com/hemis.html


In 1922 the noted Indian holy man, Swami Abhedananda, traveled to Hemis and requested he be allowed to see the original documents. The Swami writes in his book Journey into Kashmir and Tibet the following as to the result of that request:


"The lama who was acting as our guide took a manuscript from the shelf and showed it to the Swami. He said that it was an exact translation of the original manuscript which was lying in the monastery of Marbour near Lhasa. The original manuscript is in Pali, while the manuscript preserved in Himis is in Tibetan. It consists of fourteen chapters and two hundred twenty-four couplets (slokas). The Swami got some portion of the manuscript translated with the help of the lama attending on him."

The guide took "A manuscript" from the shelf and said that it was an exact translation of the original manuscript in the monastery of Marbour near Lhasa. "A manuscript" seems to indicate something less than two, being "A manuscript" rather than "the manuscripts," and most likely more closely resembling a book-like format than a scroll, and for sure, not being anything like scattered fragmentary notices.
The lama also said the manuscript he showed Abhedananda was an "exact translation" not that the manuscript was an exact visual duplicate of the original (i.e., that it did not necessarily look or resemble the original in outside build, shape, appearance or format but was fully accurate in the contents, that is, that Jesus visited India).


And here.

In 1939 a Swiss woman in her late thirties traveling in India with several female companions journeyed into Tibet, stopping at the Hemis lamasery for several days. During their stay the monastery librarian and two other monks approached the ladies carrying three objects wrapped in cloth. It has since been reported the objects were Buddhist books made of sheets of parchment sandwiched between two pieces of wood and wrapped in brocades — green and red and blue seeded with gold. The librarian reportedly unwrapped one of the books and told the ladies that the books say Jesus had been there (i.e., in Hemis).

Swedish professor and theologian Per Beskow, in his book STRANGE TALES ABOUT JESUS: A Survey of Unfamiliar Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), although not speaking of the the Swiss woman or her comments specifically, pretty much backs up her account of what Tibetan books look like:


"Tibetan books are neither scrolls nor bound in our way. They consist of oblong leaves, imitating palm leaves; they are kept loose between wooden plates, and the whole is kept wrapped in a piece of cloth."

Find out about the existence of palm leaves in my thread here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?64742-Naadi-Shastra-My-experience-with-Destiny.

More here.

In the late 1970s, one Janet Bock, in an interview with a disciple of Swami Abhedananda stated the following regarding the ancient documents:


"(His master, Swami Abhedananda) found the scrolls and he translated all the writings, all the life incidents of the Christ. He narrated those incidents in his book 'Kashmiri O Tibetti.' Years afterwards he inquired but they said the scrolls were no longer there. I also requested to see the scrolls, but there is nothing. There are no scrolls. They have been removed, by whom we do not know."



For a much more recent, contemporary account, in 2005 or so, world traveler Wayne Yoder stayed at the Hemis monastery. He reports basically the same thing Bock did in late 1970:


"Before coming to Ladakh, I had done some reading to give me some familiarity of the region and came across a book, Jesus Lived in India, written by a German scholar which states that Hemis monastery housed some very old manuscripts which gave evidence of Jesus spending time in the region studying with some of the masters. At one point, as a monk is showing me around the different temples, I mention this to him and he says that it is true but the manuscripts are no longer kept here. They have been moved to another location."


Again, as in the other cases above, it was not that the manuscripts did not exist, only that they were no longer kept at the monastery. Yoder, like the others, was told they had been moved to another location.

And now in another location in India. Puri. Where i have been. Even today, the Brahmins have no doubts whatsoever the Jesus stayed there. Different documentation same story. This would to refer to a previous temple structure to the Juggernaut Temple we have today.


Ravicz lived in Pacific Palisades practically on top of the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake-Shrine Temple. Some time after his 1975 visit to Hemis word of his knowledge regarding the manuscripts filtered down to Sri Daya Mata, the president of the Self-Realization Fellowship.

In 1959, Sri Daya Mata had traveled to India to meet and talk with people of note related to the Fellowship as well as visit some of the hallowed and sacred places from which the Fellowship sprang. During her travels she stopped to see Sri Bharati Krishna Tirtha (1884-1960), the Shankaracharya of Puri, who had visited the Self-Realization Center in California the year before. As reported in the article titled "Remembering Paramahansa Yogananda," appearing in Self-Realization Magazine, (Winter, 1992, p.16) the following transpired:


"In 1959 I discussed this (Jesus being in India during his so-called 'missing years' of the Bible) with one of India's great spiritual leaders, His Holiness Sri Bharati Krishna Tirtha, the Shankaracharya of Puri. I told him that Guruji (Paramahansa Yogananda) had often said to us that Christ spent some of his life in India, in association with her illumined sages."


His Holiness replied:


"That is true. I have studied ancient records in the Puri Jagannath Temple archives confirming these facts. He was known as 'Isha,' and during part of his time in India he stayed in the Jagannath Temple. When he returned to his part of the world, he expounded the teachings that are known today as Christianity."


So, not only the Hemis Manuscripts attest to Jesus visiting India, there are it seems, according to Bharati Krishna Tirtha, ancient records in the Jagannath Temple archives in Puri --- clear across the sub-continent from the Buddhist temples of the Himalayas to nearly on the coast Hindu temples.

In the Hemis Manuscripts it is stated that Issa spent six years in Jagannath (now Puri) and other holy cities of the Hindus, before going to live for a further six years in the Himalayas. In relation, Chapter V and VI translations are said to reveal the following:

CHAPTER V
5) He passed six years at Juggernaut (i.e., Puri), at Rajagriha, at Benares, and in the other holy cities. Everyone loved him, for Issa lived in peace with the Vaisyas and the Sudras, whom he instructed in the holy scriptures.

CHAPTER VI
2) But Issa, warned of his danger by the Sudras, left the neighborhood of Juggernaut by night, reached the mountain, and established himself in the country of Gautamides, the birthplace of the great Buddha Sakyamuni, in the midst of a people worshipping the one and sublime Brahma.

4) Six years after, Issa, whom the Buddha had elected to spread his holy word, had become a perfect expositor of the sacred writings.

5) Then he left Nepal and the Himalayan mountains, descended into the valley of Rajputana, and went towards the west, preaching to diverse peoples the supreme perfection of man.

And a different story.


The summer of the year 1925, after having left Europe for India, found my mentor getting off a boat in Bombay on his way to the Hemis monastery. Just before leaving Bombay he went to see the caves at Elephanta, and while there met a holy man named Swami Ramdas, a holy man he would meet again, many times.

Although much different in scope, like my mentor, Ramdas was on a spiritual pilgrimage throughout India, traveling the width and breadth of the country, top to bottom, side to side, a pilgrimage that started in 1922 and not ending until 1931. In the process of his travels, one of the many holy places Ramdas sought out and stayed was a small cave in Himalayas overlooking the upper reaches of the Ganges River called Arundhati's Cave, also called 'the Jesus Cave' because through legend it is said Jesus of Nazareth stayed there for a time in meditation during his so called 'missing years of the Bible.' In the book, In The Vision of God, by Ramdas, the following is found:

An interview with Paul Davids, Maker of the Film Jesus in India.
http://jesusofeastandwest.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/interview-of-paul-davids-on.html

Christ of the Kashmiris. By Anand Krishna.
http://www.christofkashmiris.com/

So in concluding Raf. There are many more who have seen the manuscripts other than Notovitch. He was just one westerner who published his findings, much to the Vatican's rage.

I am also surprised that you choose to go down this road Raf. I always respected your scientific research.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Hi, All: I have the Notovich book here, if it's of interest:

http://projectavalon.net/The_Unknown_Life_of_Jesus_Christ_Nicolas_Notovich_1890.pdf

http://projectavalon.net/The_Unknown_Life_of_Jesus_Christ_by_Nicolas_Notovich_cover.jpg

My own position on this (and then I'll gently withdraw from the excellent discussion here!) is that the message may be that sometimes it doesn't matter if a book is a strictly truthful account or not.

And whether this IS accurate or not, I feel I cannot say; but I've personally been to see what's known and accepted by all the locals as Jesus' tomb in Srinagar... for them it's a case of "Yes, of course it's the Great Master. It's obvious. And yes, he was here, for sure."

If a book teaches and inspires, that may be much more important than being historically 100% accurate. Many Victorian writers used to invent (or exaggerate) stories simply to be inspirational and thought-provoking. For instance, some of the Victorian Hollow Earth tales almost certainly fall into that category.

The book is a marvelous read... I do recommend it. Then you can make up your own mind.

:)

:focus:

[RMorgan]

Hi Raf and thanks for your reply, I must say i am surprised you used Wiki to try and disprove that the documentation does exist.

Sincerely, If you guys keep trying to distort and twist everything I say I'm not staying here for very long.

As the creator of this thread, all I'm trying to do is to keep its focus on the main subject, which is the context of the opening post.

Of course, the historical Jesus subject is fascinating but it's such a controversial and demanding subject that I do not expect resolve it in a forum thread.

The Issa hypothesis is not accepted by the Religious Historian community. Period. Does it mean it's false? Absolutely not. Does it mean the scholars are trying to sabotage this hypothesis? Absolutely not. Does it mean there's a big possibility of it being false. Yes, there is.

The matter of fact is that, History, fraudulent documents and elaborate hoaxes walk hand in hand. This is an undeniable fact.

I must remember that "the establishment is suppressing the truth" card might as well be applicable to this case or not. Although there's genuine track of people and theories being suppressed by the establishment, it's also the most common excuse used by charlatans to try to boost the credibility of their material.

Anyway, no. I didn't resource to wiki as some sort of lazy research attitude. I did it because for me, despite being a fascinating subject, I do not intend to focus on the historical Jesus subject on this thread. Maybe on another one in the future.

You're a moderator, Billy. Is it so inconceivable to you that someone may want to keep his own thread on the track instead of delving into discussion branches which would most certainly derail it?

Please, lets all act as grown ups and try to honestly understand each other without deliberately twisting everything .

If there's one thing I've noticed after a couple of years of absence from this forum is that people now are way more cynical, manipulative and impolite.

The second post in this thread is about someone calling me a tyrant. Then someone said that I was spreading **** or something like that. Then someone else accuses me of being lazy.

What's going on here? Did you folks lose all sense of dialogue? Did you actually forgot how to communicate? Do you have any idea about how dialectics is supposed to work?

Do you want to get somewhere or are you actually here to argue for the sake of arguing?

What am I doing here, actually? I came back to have interesting conversations with interesting people and now I'm already wasting my time responding people who seemingly are unable to keep a conversation in context.

I could very well be investing this time in more productive things, like playing guitar or reading a book.

I'm starting to regret to be back. Honestly.

[Billy]

You do not have to be upset Raf. I was responding to your claim below to which i disagree, personally I was quite enjoying the debate. Whatever.




As a matter of fact, there's no direct eye-witness account of Jesus's life. This is considered very intriguing by Historians and Theologians, since other much less important historical characters were largely documented by scribes, priests, philosophers and historians of the time. So, if he was so important, why there's literally nothing written about him by the very people who allegedly lived in the same historical period? It's like, historically, he didn't even exist.

That's why there's growing current of thought called Mythicism, which, in respect to this subject, studies the possibility of not only Christianity being a complete fabrication, but the character of Jesus himself being a total farce as well.


Cheers,

Raf.

[RMorgan]

You do not have to be upset Raf. I was responding to your claim below to which i disagree, personally I was quite enjoying the debate. Whatever.




As a matter of fact, there's no direct eye-witness account of Jesus's life. This is considered very intriguing by Historians and Theologians, since other much less important historical characters were largely documented by scribes, priests, philosophers and historians of the time. So, if he was so important, why there's literally nothing written about him by the very people who allegedly lived in the same historical period? It's like, historically, he didn't even exist.

That's why there's growing current of thought called Mythicism, which, in respect to this subject, studies the possibility of not only Christianity being a complete fabrication, but the character of Jesus himself being a total farce as well.


Cheers,

Raf.

Well Billy, as far as History goes, I'm completely correct in my statement.

There isn't a single serious scholar in this field who would agree with the Issa hypothesis...And as far as History goes, there really isn't any document accepted as a legitimate eye-witness report of Jesus's life.

Have you accepted it just because you read it in a book?

If so, I'd rather trust the Historians community, since they use much better criteria and investigative methodologies than that.

Obviously, since we all don't have time to really dive deeply into so many subjects which fascinate us, we have to resort to trust based on criteria such as reputation, credibility, etc...

Now, if you want to assume that the hypothesis is being suppressed for some reason, it's ok, but it would be nothing more than that; an assumption.

In fact, I don't see any logical reason to suppress such hypothesis, since it would actually give credence to the historical Jesus research field, specially now that it's gradually but steadily losing its ground to the mythicists.

If the church is interested in suppressing someone, it might as well be suppressing the mythicists, since they are a much bigger threat to their status quo.

I'm not aware of any mythicist being suppressed. I'm also not aware of any scholar who addresses Jesus as a completely ordinary man (and they are by far the majority), which would also undermine the supremacy of the church, being suppressed.

So, unless I'm missing something, I don't any reason to suppress the Issa hypothesis. In fact, I believe it would even be impossible to suppress it if it is indeed genuine, since it's such a large field with so many competent professionals working for the most ideologically diverse institutions.

[giovonni]

If there's one thing I've noticed after a couple of years of absence from this forum is that people now are way more cynical, manipulative and impolite.



:amen:

To that Brother !

[donk]

What I see more than anything is the projecting of argumentative/manipulative behavior on to others, whenever folks disagree or are upset by something that's said. A defense mechanism...it takes patience to constantly clarify your point among the emotional attachments they have to their own ideas you more often than not are not even discussing at the time.

Couple that with the fact that everyone feels like they "know" you and rarely allow for your growth or changing positions, and it does become discouraging. However know that there's more and more awareness, and up to people like you to continue to help expand it...I think it's part of the program--seems as we all grow together, whatever's been holding us back ups the resistance...I'm hopeful it's an indicator that we're getting somewhere...and it's worth it

[RMorgan]

What I see more than anything is the projecting of argumentative/manipulative behavior on to others, whenever folks disagree or are upset by something that's said. A defense mechanism...it takes patience to constantly clarify your point among the emotional attachments they have to their own ideas you more often than not are not even discussing at the time.

Couple that with the fact that everyone feels like they "know" you and rarely allow for your growth or changing positions, and it does become discouraging. However know that there's more and more awareness, and up to people like you to continue to help expand it...I think it's part of the program--seems as we all grow together, whatever's been holding us back ups the resistance...I'm hopeful it's an indicator that we're getting somewhere...and it's worth it

Just today I read a story about a guy who was invited as a guest in a talk show. Michael Shermer is his name.

There was another guest, an alleged psychic, doing the usual psychic act.

However, Michael happened to be a cold reading specialist and debunked the "psychic" right there.

He showed the audience all techniques so accurately that the psychic started crying and left the stage, feeling humiliated.

The thing is, half of the audience got really mad at Michael. They didn't get mad at the charlatan, you know, the man who was scamming them. They've got mad at the man who was trying to help them instead!

Unbelievable, right?

Do you know what was their point?

They accused him of "shattering their illusions". lol

I guess I don't need to say what the "moral" of the story is, right?

[Wind]

I can understand your points about the dangers of beliefs, Raf. People are scammed all the time because of man's greed and it's wrong. Humans can be fooled quite easily unless one has a really discerning mind, but that also can lead to cynicism (which I'm guilty of at times) I'm not part of any religion (although I was baptised as a Christian when I was a baby), and I much moree agree with the eastern philosophies. However, belief in something greater than me has always given me hope. Maybe that belief is not rational and I aknowledge that.

Then again, there is the inner knowing, like you know something to be true. Since it's still a subjective thing, it can't be seen as scientific. Although it is very real to you as the invidiual with the knowingness. Like the "historical" figure of Jesus, many don't know what to think about him. To many he was a saviour, the son of god. Some believe that he didn't exist at all.

To me he just represents a teacher and I know that he existed, a man, who had realized something greater in himself. Because those were still very primitive times, he was of course seen as a magical person with all that he did and said. Many didn't even understand what he meant with his parables, but he knew that those who would understand would understand it. I don't think that it was his intention ever to invent the Christian religion. He was teached by the essenes and got also most of his understanding from Egypt and India.

There are also some good source claiming that he was never even crucified. I was just thinking about the objectivity of science and subjective beliefs. I think that it is crucial to combine science with spiritual understanding since everything here on Earth is spirit. Maybe this is a bit offtopic, if so, I beg your pardon.

This discussion is from one good tv-series (a bit too grim for me though). Some funny points about the actors in the series... Matthew McConaughey is actually a Christian and Woody Harrelson is 9/11 truth & environmental activist and an anarchist.

_RfUj09pWfM

[RMorgan]

This discussion is from one good tv-series (a bit too grim for me though). Some funny points about the actors in the series... Matthew McConaughey is actually a Christian and Woody Harrelson is 9/11 truth & environmental activist and an anarchist.


Hey Wind,

I really enjoyed this series.

Anyway, regarding this specific scene:

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, according to analysis of scores of scientific studies stretching back over decades (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html)


...According to the study entitled, 'The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations', published in the 'Personality and Social Psychology Review', even during early years the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion.

In old age above average intelligence people are less likely to believe, the researchers also found.

One of the studies used in Zuckerman's paper was a life-long analysis of the beliefs of 1,500 gifted children with with IQs over 135.

The study began in 1921 and continues today. Even in extreme old age the subjects had much lower levels of religious belief than the average population.

The review, which is the first systematic meta-analysis of the 63 studies conducted in between 1928 and 2012, showed that of the 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one...

Link for the scientific paper itself:

http://nuweb9.neu.edu/socialinteractionlab/wp-content/uploads/Miron-meta-final.pdf

So yeah, Matthew's character is very likely correct about his statement.
:)

[Magenta]

Interesting discussion.

Ultimately, we need to sort out these issues for ourselves. You can debate the reality of Satan and demons all you want, but to me, it comes down to personal experience and how you choose to interpret what you experience. Sure, you can look to books and other research; I do it all the time. But for every book that says there are no demons, there's one that says they're real. IMHO, it comes down to spiritual discernment and that can't be researched or backed up with facts.

Also, with each new experience, your views will most likely change. I know mine have changed dramatically from where I was at 20 years ago - and I'm sure they'll continue to change as part of my own spiritual evolution.

[Mike]

What I see more than anything is the projecting of argumentative/manipulative behavior on to others, whenever folks disagree or are upset by something that's said. A defense mechanism...it takes patience to constantly clarify your point among the emotional attachments they have to their own ideas you more often than not are not even discussing at the time.

Couple that with the fact that everyone feels like they "know" you and rarely allow for your growth or changing positions, and it does become discouraging. However know that there's more and more awareness, and up to people like you to continue to help expand it...I think it's part of the program--seems as we all grow together, whatever's been holding us back ups the resistance...I'm hopeful it's an indicator that we're getting somewhere...and it's worth it

Just today I read a story about a guy who was invited as a guest in a talk show. Michael Shermer is his name.

There was another guest, an alleged psychic, doing the usual psychic act.

However, Michael happened to be a cold reading specialist and debunked the "psychic" right there.

He showed the audience all techniques so accurately that the psychic started crying and left the stage, feeling humiliated.

The thing is, half of the audience got really mad at Michael. They didn't get mad at the charlatan, you know, the man who was scamming them. They've got mad at the man who was trying to help them instead!

Unbelievable, right?

Do you know what was their point?

They accused him of "shattering their illusions". lol

I guess I don't need to say what the "moral" of the story is, right?



good story, Raf. but I think the problem some people are having is, you have attached yourself so strongly to the role of "illusion shatterer" that it can at times come off as arrogant. in a way, you are falling victim to the tunnel vision that you are suggesting others snap out of. you are willing to listen up to a point, but beyond that it seems you've convinced yourself youre right about nearly everything. your strong reaction earlier surprised me. it seems to be saying: if you all don't shape up and agree with me quick, im gone...the implication being youre doing us all an enormous favor by simply being here. I truly hope im totally misinterpreting you, but to me it comes off as wildly arrogant. and look, this is coming from one of your biggest fans. im thrilled your back participating on the forum.

I don't say this to engender some flip response from you. I hope you don't view it as an attack. its not. if I didn't admire you like I do I wouldn't have even bothered writing this. just some food for thought.

[RMorgan]

I truly hope im totally misinterpreting you

Yes, you are, Chinaski.

I don't know. Maybe my English is not as good as I think it is...

...Or maybe I somehow leave too much space between the lines.

All I know is that, for some reason, people keep putting words in my mouth and assuming that I've said things which I've never said.

Anyway, I believe this forum has become a hostile and toxic environment. Not really my cup of tea, sincerely speaking. I may be wrong, though.

Actually what I perceive is that this is a terrible platform of discussion.

Internet forums are great to discuss technical and straightforward subjects like "Hey, I want to change my Strat's pickups, what would be the best options to achieve a Jimi Hendrix kind of clean tone?" or "What's the best way to paint a wall without making a mess?", but are a disaster to discuss complex subjects.

I've been away for two years and it appears to be stuck in the same place where I left it. It didn't evolve as a community at all, in my opinion. So, I honestly don't believe people are getting anywhere close to any truth or will be able to find any solution to actually help saving the world on internet forums. This platform is simply very limited.

...Or maybe I'm the one who changed too much. I've been writing a lot and debating big issues with people who actually earn a living debating big issues, so I'm certainly way more objective than I used to be.

I've also grown accustomed to follow certain dialectic codes which are simply essential in order to develop a fruitful discussion and not a pointless argumentation, like avoiding assumptions and trying to be as objective and focused as possible.

But I digress, my friend. Anyway, I feel like people are much more focused on attacking me than actually reading what I write?

I've just written a big post about very cool concepts and clarifying a lot of things on page #2 and apparently nobody's interested in it?

It appears that people are most interested in talking about me than the things I actually write.

Is this what this forum has become? Like a big virtual group therapy room where people come to vent and project their personal issues on one another?

If this is it, I'm not interested. Honestly.

I like you too, man, by the way. Always enjoyed your style and intellectual honesty.

Raf.

[awakeningmom]

Going back to the original post (i.e, Satan is a myth), and I hope this makes sense. I've considered myself "agnostic" for over 25 years. Raised marginally Catholic (i.e., we were a mass on Christmas and Easter family, but since "mass" was in Latin, it didn't do much for me anyway), I've steered clear of all organized religions ever since college and my first Comparative Religion class. But it was finally realizing 9-11 was a lie (12 years after the fact) that made me start to question my non-belief (or indifference) to the spiritual realm. This is not to say that 9-11 made me suddenly believe in "Jesus" or a personal OT God or Satan, but it did lead me down a very peculiar metaphysical rabbit hole. That is, in trying to connect the dots behind all the false flags, world wars, fiat debt-slavery banking system, etc. and in trying to understand how it could all have been allowed to happen, I became much more open --albeit still very reluctantly -- to the possibility of a Dark Force (whatever it is called) being real.

It's still very hard for me to wrap my mind around some of the things Icke and others say about the people who supposedly control our planet and who/what they worship or who/what controls them (ET's, demons, archons, whatever). It could very well be all just a big (human elite) psy-op to keep the masses terrified and controlled. And as someone who has never knowingly encountered an ET, UFO, demon, angel, etc... I'm still very much grounded in the material world. (although that doesn't mean I discount others' experiences with these entities either, since this "real" world has gotten a whole lot weirder to me in the last two years). But I guess in trying to understand who the PTB is/are and why they are the ones (allowed to be?) in power, I'm starting to wonder if there's something to the suggestion that a Dark Force (whether it goes by Satan or some other name) really exists beyond just ordinary human evil. And if that's true, then in this world of duality, mustn't there be a corresponding Light Force (by whatever name it is known by)? I don't have any conclusions or even strong opinions yet, but I am curious about what the OP thinks about this. In your opinion, is all evil mundane/of human origins? Is the Dark/Light metaphysical battle a big psy-op on a completely materialistic world?

[RMorgan]

Going back to the original post (i.e, Satan is a myth), and I hope this makes sense. I've considered myself "agnostic" for over 25 years. Raised marginally Catholic (i.e., we were a mass on Christmas and Easter family, but since "mass" was in Latin, it didn't do much for me anyway), I've steered clear of all organized religions ever since college and my first Comparative Religion class. But it was finally realizing 9-11 was a lie (12 years after the fact) that made me start to question my non-belief (or indifference) to the spiritual realm. This is not to say that 9-11 made me suddenly believe in "Jesus" or a personal OT God or Satan, but it did lead me down a very peculiar metaphysical rabbit hole. That is, in trying to connect the dots behind all the false flags, world wars, fiat debt-slavery banking system, etc. and in trying to understand how it could all have been allowed to happen, I became much more open --albeit still very reluctantly -- to the possibility of a Dark Force (whatever it is called) being real.

It's still very hard for me to wrap my mind around some of the things Icke and others say about the people who supposedly control our planet and who/what they worship or who/what controls them (ET's, demons, archons, whatever). It could very well be all just a big (human elite) psy-op to keep the masses terrified and controlled. And as someone who has never knowingly encountered an ET, UFO, demon, angel, etc... I'm still very much grounded in the material world. (although that doesn't mean I discount others' experiences with these entities either, since this "real" world has gotten a whole lot weirder to me in the last two years). But I guess in trying to understand who the PTB is/are and why they are the ones (allowed to be?) in power, I'm starting to wonder if there's something to the suggestion that a Dark Force (whether it goes by Satan or some other name) really exists beyond just ordinary human evil. And if that's true, then in this world of duality, mustn't there be a corresponding Light Force (by whatever name it is known by)? I don't have any conclusions or even strong opinions yet, but I am curious about what the OP thinks about this. In your opinion, is all evil mundane/of human origins? Is the Dark/Light metaphysical battle a big psy-op on a completely materialistic world?


Thank you!

Yes, you've certainly understood that I was referring to the biblical satanic concept and how it was stolen from Judaism and then perverted into something else in order to keep people under control through fear.

About the possible existence of so called evil forces, I've written my opinion on page #2. Here's the link (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79619-Why-Satanism--and-Christianity--is-a-lie.&p=930036&viewfull=1#post930036) to make it easier.

Basically, I believe it's all about projection. There's certainly a lot of things unknown and people naturally tend to interpret the unknown using known familiar concepts, at least until a better explanation is found. Like the amazon lost tribe's guys pointing their bows and arrows to the helicopter, as better described in the above cited post.

So, something good happens and we can't explain: It's god!

Something bad happens that we can't explain: It's the devil!

That's how our mind works. It's worth remember that we're genetically identical to the guys who used to think sun and the moon were gods that used to kill each other every day and night. This is how reliable our mind is to judge unknown phenomena.

Obviously, the folks in charge are quite aware of this "soft spot" and have been taking advantage over it for ages.

The point is, to this date, every time we've used the known as an attempt to explain the unknown, we've been dead wrong. Why believe it would be different now?

It's only possible to explain unknown phenomena through new conceptual models.

So, if there are evil or good "forces" interacting with us, I really don't know. But I truly believe that this primitive conceptualization isn't even close to reality.

All I know is that I've seen evil in men and, honestly, I can't imagine how a "demon" could be worse. I've seen good in men as well, and I also don't think an angel could do much better.

I simply don't see any reason to either blame "the devil" or credit "god" for our bad and good deeds. We're perfectly capable of both.

Raf.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

I came back here to see 4 pages and an assertion by the OP,
that "religious people are proven to be less intelligent than atheists".

A person COULD get angry, but it's more effective to point out what is offensive.

:painkiller: :smow: :biggrin1:

There is a huge difference between tolerating stupidity and tolerating diversity of beliefs.

Any "study" claiming to prove that people espousing total atheism somehow outperform, out-think, or are in any way superior to/more intelligent than people of faith is dubious at best and hate speech at worst.

[Jake]

Anyway, I believe this forum has become a hostile and toxic environment. Not really my cup of tea, sincerely speaking. I may be wrong, though.

Nearly spit out mee coffee laughing.. I respond to folks whos opinion is the exact opposite,, and complain about too much warm fluffy.. Hostile and toxic? U crackin me up, partner. I am reading and admiring all aspects of this conversation. The quoted bit is absolutely ridiculous.

Part of what we do here is to create a platform where folks DO feel safe to move forward, knowing that they are getting equall support and respect...

On one hand you criticize for toxic hostility,, whilst at the same time criticizing the respect and support????

Perhaps this conversation never really had a chance from the start..

Be well, raf.
Jake

[RMorgan]

Be well, raf.
Jake

Why don't you simply count how many posts in this thread are personal attacks and completely unrelated to the OP's topic?

It's as simple as that.

But you're right. Being called a Tyrant right on the second post isn't really a good start, is it?

How could anyone be a Tyrant on an internet forum, anyway?


I came back here to see 4 pages and an assertion by the OP,
that "religious people are proven to be less intelligent than atheists".


It's not my fault. I didn't write a single word of that paper or add anything to the highlighted article title.

The paper is pretty conclusive, if you take your time to read it, but I don't agree with the Independent's article title as well. Very provocative and unnecessary.

It should have been versed as something like "The more intelligent a person is, the less likely he's to be religious"...Or something like that.

The paper itself is titled as "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"...So, the authors can't be blamed for the journalist's bad taste either.

[RMorgan]

Everyone:

I'm much more interested on having a productive discussion here.

So, if I have offended you. I'm sorry ok? I swear it was not my intention.

Can we stop fighting each other? Maybe think twice before posting something nonconstructive?

Why waste precious time arguing for the sake of arguing?

Who knows, maybe even point flaws in the OP instead of calling me names?

Please?

Thank you!

[Rozzy]

Everyone:

I'm much more interested on having a productive discussion here.

So, if I have offended you. I'm sorry ok? I swear it was not my intention.

Can we stop fighting each other? Maybe think twice before posting something nonconstructive?

Why waste precious time arguing for the sake of arguing?

Who knows, maybe even point flaws in the OP instead of calling me names?

Please?

Thank you!

Your joking right??
Look at the title of the thread and then look at your first post, you offended multitudes of people and it looks intentional, what would you expect??

[Apteka]

Get over it, the sooner the better. Civilization is going south quickly and there are much more important things to think about concerning this specific moment in time.

Raf.

Sigh.

Where do I begin...

[ZooLife]

RE: Why Satanism (and Christianity) is a lie.

Chalk this up to the looooong list of lies.

Some truths that one may still believe in have yet to transition to the list of lies.

The biggest lie cannot be written because it would contradict the very one who would write it.

[Robin]

Hey Raf,

After a little reluctance, I thought that I'd jump in and offer my thoughts, perceptions, and opinions. You bring up a lot of great points and this is an important topic. :)

Firstly, Anarchism simply means etymologically "no rulers or masters," but does not mean "no rules." It means understanding that one is a sovereign being who owns oneself and therefore can decide how one's body and mind functions without dictates from any other being. Depending on one's moral code, a self-proclaimed Anarchist could harm others and disobey any form of rules, or they can adopt the non-aggression principle and abide by rules that protect the sovereign state of all beings. Anarchism and civil disobedience are two completely different things, and one is a potential product of the other.

Secondly, Satanists also vary, depending on their flavor of Satanism. Satanism as a whole is based entirely off of the worship of one's ego above everything else, and doing whatever it takes to be on top. Satanism always leads to hierarchy, because it is based off of a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. Therefore, most Satanists are Statists whether they believe it or not, and not Anarchists.

Mark Passio, an ex-Satanist, summarizes the ideology of Satanism better than anybody I've ever met. I've known about Satanic ideology before meeting him, but his gift of oratory can express it better than I ever could, so I choose to follow the work he does out of a respect for his gift. I would recommend to you to check out his work when you get a chance, especially his Natural Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E) seminar. If people of all religions and ideologies knew about Natural Law, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.

I can't speak for all Satanists, but I think that my understanding is very accurate based off of my experiences and interactions with them. Concerning Christians, there are some who are Bible-loving, Jesus-worshiping, miracle-believing, subservient, devil-fearing, ignorant nutcases, but there are also others who call themselves Christians because they simply appreciate the teachings of Jesus without all the dogma. It is the same with Satanism, but there are far less of them who believe in an actual devil character. Most of them simply take Satanism as an ideology that is based upon worshiping the ego above all else and exerting one's will onto others for their own personal gain. The word Satan stems from its Hebrew etymology which means "adversary, or opponent."

Many Satanists take up the role of "adversary" with dignity, truly believing that they are serving the best interests of the universe, because they help to push and challenge people to higher morals. This, of course, comes with an air of superiority. But nonetheless, most Satanists do not believe in a devil character. Most Satanists are even aware of the laws of the universe and how the human psyche works, but they proclaim their own values above it all. Compared to most Christians, Satanists as a whole are extremely cunning, intelligent, courageous, and full of self-respect. But this does not mean that I agree with their ideals, because their will to harm others is deplorable.

Anyway, I don't wish to get too deep into that realm. But I do want to share my background a bit. I've been an atheist for over a decade now. As soon as I was confirmed in my Catholic Church, I declared myself an atheist with passion and eagerness as I shed my layers of indoctrination. To me, the scientific method is the best way to gain an accurate understanding of the universe, and coupled with intuition and empathy, we could also better understand ourselves. Though I still consider myself an atheist, I acknowledge that atheism simply means "without a god." One could still be spiritual and believe in ghosts, demons, jinn, elementals, and "angels" without believing in a god.

As an atheist, I simply reject the notion that there is a superior force above everything else. I think that we are all emanations of a Source that splintered itself and condensed denser and denser into deeper realms. I don't care what people even call Source, whether they call it "God" or the "Big Bang." My spiritualism is a balance between science and religion, and is reminiscent of Theosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy)or Anthroposophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy), though I dislike labels. But as an atheist, or one who doesn't believe in a god, I think that that whatever the Creator is, it placed certain laws in the universe that guide a soul (a splinter of the Source) up through the levels of Densities as it achieves a high enough vibration to merge with the oneness of the Source of the universe. It's as if we are all splinters of the Source being dragged back into oneness at our own pace based upon our free will to decide how fast or in what way we progress. I can still take up these notions while still labeling myself an atheist.

That being said, I also reject any notion of "believing" anything. Those assumptions I made about the universe and our place in it are based off of research and intuition guided by experience. These are perceptions, and for all I know they me be completely wrong! But what separates me (and many other people) from others who have their thoughts and opinions about how the universe works is that I am not afraid to admit that I am wrong. Everybody is entitled to their perceptions of reality, but some are more aligned with the Truth than others, and it is our duty as sentient beings to change our patterns of thinking if we sway far off the mark. This is why I appreciate the Dalai Lama when he says:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

Unfortunately, most people of both religious and scientific belief systems refuse to sway from their current thought patterns as new information emerges. As far as Christianity goes, yes, I believe most Christians are so deluded beyond repair. I care not what somebody chooses to believe, a long as their belief system does not harm another sentient being and they do not indoctrinate others with their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether or not Jesus was a historical figure in the grand scheme of things, because it is his message that matters. I do see it as a problem that most Christians truly believe that they can be spiritually saved by the acts of another being. I don't care what religion somebody is or if they base their lives entirely around science, but it is folly for any human being to believe that one's consciousness will ever advance by the sole acts of others.

As far as the existence of demons go, I'd encourage you to reconsider this. ;) Again, atheism does not mean rejecting any notion of inter-dimensional beings. Research in quantum physics is showing more and more the existence of dimensions, parallel universes, and multiple realities. Since, scientifically, the entire universe is composed entirely of vibrations that resonate at different levels of frequency, the existence of entities that we cannot see is very convincing. Our eyes can only see a very small bandwidth of light and are tuned into this reality. I would argue that this is so at our current density our souls can learn certain lessons before gaining a higher vibration as we progress to a higher density.

But putting that aside, we are only tuned to see what we see, but that does not mean there are different layers of universal dimensions. Just like with a radio, there are different stations that have different frequencies. In order for the radio to function properly, it must be tuned to only one station. When you raise the station to a higher frequency, you can hear another station. In between the stations there is static. How is this any different to the human body connected to this current dimension? Our eyes are tuned to a certain frequency so we can properly function in this reality. Spiritualists may say this function is for our souls to learn lessons, and non-spiritualists may say that it is pure evolution.

Either way, the static between radio stations can also be applied to our reality. Why cannot demons or jinn be the "static" between two layers of universal densities? In Eastern traditions, especially Islam, they are adamant that there are jinn who are inter-dimensional beings that are caught between two realities. Jinn are the Eastern equivalent to Western Demons. Why cannot ghosts, demons, and jinn all be a reference to beings that are caught between two layers of universal densities? Theoretically, it is perfectly aligned with the realm of quantum physics.

Anyway, my tolerance for people of any religion is very low, and that includes the dogmatic belief in authority and money. Though we all have perceptions, there is one universal Truth. Personally, I choose to follow the Truth wherever it goes, and I continue to adjust my path every single day to come to as accurate of an understanding of our reality as I possibly can. This path has nothing to do with Darwinism, as Christians are falsely taught. In addition to being empathetic, I choose to be a moral person and not harm sentient beings because I understand that those actions will come back around and I will accumulate Karma in one way or the other. Isn't the Law of Karma written somewhere in the laws of physics? Oh yes, it's called Newton's Third Law. :)

[Jake]

I just read the entire thread and not a single person called you names,, and every post is within topical boundaries..

Tesla used the word absolutist, which is nof name calling,, but an appropriate us of the word when dealing with someone who insists their opinion is fact...

I DID count several wide sweeping, direct attacks on Avalon, and this community.. And None of them justified.

Even though (just counting here) several warm welcomes...

I agree with much of what your OPINION is... please stop with the strangely inappropriate attacks on this forum..

Back to topic...
Jake

[RMorgan]

Your joking right??
Look at the title of the thread and then look at your first post, you offended multitudes of people and it looks intentional, what would you expect??

Since when a well substantiated critique can be considered an offense?

Is religion something special which should somehow be placed above critique?

You probably aren't aware of that but what I've said on the OP is pretty much a summary of what every single credible Historian and Theologian agree about Christianity: It's nothing more than a collage of "pagan" religions.

I didn't invent any of these concepts. Have you ever thought about questioning the Bible? If you want to keep being a Christian, you'd better don't even start, because there's no coming back. Historically speaking, if you remove all inconsistencies from it, you'll be left with no more than a handful of pages.

If you feel offended by the truth, then are you a real truth seeker?

[ZooLife]

In specified realm(s), Satanism (and Christianity) is a not a lie any more then anything else. An exit from said realm(s) tells a different story....

Once a person begins labeling things as true of false (lies) in the absolute sense, where does one draw the line? Where one draws those lines defines a person in a temporal sense.

[Apteka]

Jesus => St John => St Polycarp => St Irenaeus

I suggest starting with St Irenaeus' magnum opus, Against the Heresies.

[Apteka]

Artistic depictions of demons is only symbolic and should not be taken as a reference to what these beings actually are. Since they are incorporeal beings, they have no "appearance" per se. The sacred artists saught to teach their disordered and corrupt nature by depicting them as grotesque mixtures of species.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1050.htm#article1

The Medievals understood this very well.

Pax et bonum

[Hervé]

Very rational and plausible OP since, in the end it could indeed be a horrific joke and horrendous lie.

So, let's assume an equally rational and plausible origin for satanism and religion:


"The Men Who Stared at Goats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats)"


Hopefully, by the end of this post, the use of the above reference will be self-explanatory.

Hypnosis/hypnotism could be the clue and key to all of it!

For example, it's just standard political operating procedure to use dis-incarnated proxies to do one's biding:


Body in pawn: Occasionally you'll run into a place where they're holding a body in pawn. That is, a body is held here, and it is hypnotized or knocked out and the person is told that he belongs here but must go over there and live. You know, a guy in Afghanistan is hypnotized and they say: "Now you live in Bremerton, Washington" and he'd go to Bremerton, Washington; he's under compulsion. A hypnotist will hypnotize somebody and make him travel or astral walk. Hypnotists know about this. Well, they didn't realize you could do it with magnitude, and you can. You can almost move the whole individual out.

[...]

Standard Political Operating Procedure... with post-hypnotic commands of misbehaving with the new walk-in body: "Go take control of the body of that president's wife and get her to like having s&x with little boys and girls and we'll get your husband from here to do the same with your new husband over there so we can blackmail them all." The internecine battles of secret societies....

[...]

You can hypnotize a human being or drug a human being and move him as an astral body, in all or in part, to remote distances and have him observe or act or communicate and move back to his body again. This has many descriptive phrases such as "astral walking".

This is very common. Your hypnotist knows this manifestation very well. These are very elementary, quite well known manifestations.
So, once upon a time; long, long ago; someone, somehow, discovered some ability to send some of his/her goats (or mares -- night-mares) pull the toes of some rivals or enemies to get back at them... and became the shaman/sorcerer/medicine wo/man of his/her people. If, on top of that, the same energy goat was continually used from generation to generation to go and bother the rival family, clan or tribe... guess what happen to that "goat"?

My bet is that it suffered the same fate that's known as "tulpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa)" by the Tibetans.

Of course, the recipients of these toe-tugging visitations would surely have conjured up some protections... and here we are, with zillions of entities and counter-entities...

Accordingly, yes, it's a big joke, a very practical one, however!

One which has been very seriously studied by the US military as explained in that book "The Men Who Stared at Goats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats)".

With that, what's left available are the effects of such -- so-called subjective -- visitations as manifested and/or perceived in the physical realm. "So-called" because, until a radio receiver can step down -- to audible sound -- the electromagnetic waves from a transmitter, there is no way to prove the existence of radio waves, yet they are there, all around and creating more and more havoc with the biology of living organisms.

Cheers!

PS: Welcome back, BTW :)

[Rozzy]

Your joking right??
Look at the title of the thread and then look at your first post, you offended multitudes of people and it looks intentional, what would you expect??

Since when a well substantiated critique can be considered an offense?

Is religion something special which should somehow be placed above critique?

You probably aren't aware of that but what I've said on the OP is pretty much a summary of what every single credible Historian and Theologian agree about Christianity: It's nothing more than a collage of "pagan" religions.

I didn't invent any of these concepts. Have you ever thought about questioning the Bible? If you want to keep being a Christian, you'd better don't even start, because there's no coming back. Historically speaking, if you remove all inconsistencies from it, you'll be left with no more than a handful of pages.

If you feel offended by the truth, then are you a real truth seeker?

One thing is clear, you do not know me period, I have debated and fought some pretty well known Churchmen, theologians and scholars on the Bible, come against the narrative where it was many against one, me being the one. I know religion all to well from the inside where a laymen will never see. I am not offended so easily, but to those who are members of churches and generational satanist you call them down and then expect no blow back. In the previous posts no one has even given you much in the way of what I might expect.
You call satanism a joke, you are pretty uninformed if you truly believe that, it is no joke, of course you do not know this or you would not be so loose with the lips on this.
You call christianity a farce and all a lie and lot more, tell that to people who really are christian and know whom they believe in and would die before recanting their faith.
Tell it to the people whom have had their loved ones raised from the dead, tell it to the ones who have been healed from a chronic terminal disease that the doctors gave up on, tell it to the ones who have returned from NDE and attempted suicide who know what they know. Tell it to those who have been in other dimensions and literally been there, I have been there and the other side is real, there are beings there you know nothing about because with your ego you would not last a minute there. My ego got me thrown out hard one time, I learned just how real it is. Not all Christians nor satanists either for that matter are anything like you know of. The people who do good works unknown to any one, those who sacrifice their own time, health and money and go about their life not looking to debate anyone on it. You want to find frauds, go ahead the world is full of them, in the end we all get to find out if God is real or not, just give it time.

[Roisin]

For some, and here I'm talking about v.v. few, doing good works with part of the express intention (other than the obvious which is to do good works, of course) that no one knows about it except for maybe the beneficiary is a magnificent obsession. People from all walks of life belong to that v.v. small group... even atheists.

PS -- don't mind me if the above statement seems off-topic as I'm soon to turn 60 and will just use the beginning onset of dementia as an excuse for that even though that's not the case. :lol:

Truth be told, I think those who do good works with no expectations for any kind of reward for doing that.... who just do it because it's the right thing to do and who do not bother to tell others about their good deeds either... are the most noble of them all.

[Rozzy]

There are a lot of things I do not believe but I do not call other peoples beliefs a joke, a farce, lies, etc, etc.

[Roisin]

Some people live by their inner voices with great clearness.
And they live by what they hear.
Such people become crazy... or they become legends. Those who have have the courage and common sense to march by their own drummer come out ahead more often than not... even if some call them crazy. :p

[13th Warrior]

Concerning Satanism and Christianity,

One belief system stands on it's own; the other is dependent upon the previous...

The fact is, there is real occult knowledge that has been preserved in the form of allegorical tales, hidden symbolism, metaphor, cyphers, numerology and geometry.

These profound truths have thus been hidden from the profane(wold of horrors and unwashed masses) to prevent abuse and misuse.

All kinds of horrors and miss-truths have been spawned by the ignorant trying to decode the hidden meanings.

Yes, satanic ideology revolves around being ego centric; what is misunderstood is the satanic concept of "ego". Satanists view human kind as an animal that is self-aware/ego and is distinguishes from other animals by this quality. The process of elevating one's ego is "to know thyself"

The composite figures(half man half goat) of the goat of mendes/Baphomet, represents the man who has transcended his animal aspect...

Another composite figure often associated with satanists is the Egyptian figure of Set. Set represents man as being separate from nature because, he is a self aware/ego animal in a world of animals that are bound by natural law where he is not. Set represents mans creative ability by illustration of a man with the head of a non-natural animal unlike the hawk headed Horus or ibis headed Thoth.

Most people will read what i've just wrote and will not be able to comprehend the meaning for a variety of reasons...the over arching reason can best be elucidated by the "Matrix" metaphor of: one can not be told of the matrix, one must experience it for them-self.

[Roisin]

http://p1.pichost.me/640/45/1685721.jpg

Here's what's on wiki...
"Satanism is a broad term referring to a group of social movements comprising diverse ideological and philosophical beliefs."

[13th Warrior]

Well, if that's what "satanism" is, then Jesus must have been a satanist too, (that is, before Christianity was corrupted) with a diff. set of symbols, of course.

Indeed....

[ZooLife]

Truth be told, I think those who do good works with no expectations for any kind of reward for doing that.... who just do it because it's the right thing to do and who do not bother to tell others about their good deeds either... are the most noble of them all.

Noble to whom? To the self of course. The expectation is to the self. It pleases the self.

Works is works is works.

It is a mental exercise/ programing to rate works in a hierarchy.

Works does not ultimately elevate a person above another in the grand scheme of it all.

[Roisin]

Did I include "expectation to the self" as one of those wrong reasons for doing what it right wrt "good works"? Whoops! I guess I should have said that one too.

Good Works is Good Works and those who do them with no expectations for reward and especially for those who do not boast about doing them who even keep such good deeds secret are the most noble of them all.

[KiwiElf]

The original Zeitgeist doco explains Christianity, religion and "ascended masters", such as Jesus Christ, quite well IMO. The commonalities, doctrines & dualities between various religious beliefs and ascended masters defies coincidence.

So many of these people who claim to have "talked to God" (or other entities, incl Satan), could have technically conjured it in their imaginations.

(Start at the 16:00 mark).

a36_CwzA0bk

The whole Morman religion is based on a guy slipping over in a stream and banging his head on a rock, and then heard voices and had visions! (with chunks from the Bible - which was written by MEN - thrown in for good measure). Good grief, every single one of us could start a religion on that basis. :rolleyes:

Thousands of years ago, perhaps humankind was simply too dumb to figure it out and some religious belief system was needed. These days, I'm not too sure considering the strife that differences in religious belief have and continue to cause us. Strip away all the dogma and clap-trap, and most religions are very similar in their "guiding principles" (the Ten Commandments for example), which for all intensive purposes, can fit on a single page, not a whole "book".

[Shezbeth]

Not pointing fingers or dismissing anyone's experiences,... but be honest, what sounds better (to the ear, to the ego, to the vested interests, etc.); "hearing the voice of God" (Jesus, angels, etc.) or "psychosomatic auditory hallucination"?

I'm not at all discounting extra-ordinary, extra-sensory, extra-dimensional, etc. phenomenon.

Having said that, how many people who claim such knowledge and information - myself included - are unwilling to honestly and legitimately assess the possibility that they're bats hit crazy?


Concerning Satanism and Christianity,

It's just above, so I'll spare the forum a reiteration of what you just said, but I applaud you for attempting to effectively (read: scholastically, analytically, and as unbiasedly as possible) disseminate some of the core concepts of metaphysics.

Allow me to go one step further by stating unequivocally that Satanism (in most forms) is a tradition centered around Metaphysics, NOT the other way around.

In a curious parallel, it is about the refinement and emergence of the individual - including the ego - to a state that (like 13th pointed out) the individual transcends their animalistic origins. For most (dogmatics) this seems foolish; the human is not an animal!. For others, that the human is an animal is simply and observably axiomatic.

The parallel that I refer to could be considered as comparable to the Buddhist tradition of seeking the dissolution of the ego, the merging with the divine of numerous other traditions, etc. The bottom line is, if one finds themselves knee-jerk reacting to the terminology they're probably behind on a few of their studies.

Are their groups that identify themselves as Satanic (et al) which practice in a manner that is injurious to those who are not engaged in the metaphysical process of emergence? In a manner of speaking, yes and no. On the one hand, the abject disdain that many such organizations operate toward non-practitioners (non-emergents) is tangible, but one could as easily say that such groups are doing it to non-emergents as they could say that non-emergents operate in a non-conducive manner which allows them to (for lack of better phrase) fall victim to the practices of such groups.

To summarize, and to bring the discussion more back to its OP concepts:

Satanists are real, but they are not the boogeymen they have been reported as; I suggest that those who are actively demonizing such groups are selling something (merchandise, ideas, themselves,....). Satanists do engage in behaviors and practices which can and do result in adversity for individuals who are essentially not working on themselves, but the onus for that is equally if not moreso on the individuals as it is the Satanic groups.

If anything, the real boogeyman (boogeyperson?) is the individual who has refused to or ceased to emerge and develop, to take responsibility for themselves (real responsibility, not just a few bullet-point items and calling it a day). I have heard many theologians refer to that person as A Satan (indicating that Satan is a title and not a personage ^_~) and I'll tell you RIGHT now that Satanists do NOT worship complacency or irresponsibility.

I would also suggest that Raf's tone is directed toward that type of Christian; the ones who feel exonerated for anything and everything because of a story of a guy on a cross and woe betide anything not otherwise associated with that guy!

For reference:

Emergent - noun - Individual actively engaged (whether conscious or not) in the process of developing themselves in a variety of capacities and categories, whether by secular or metaphysical means. Related form: Non-emergent. (this reference is in addition to the existing definitions for the word which do not include a noun-form, except for aquatic plants)

P.S. Allow me to further suggest that the truly potent metaphysicians do not operate with or as part of a group.

[Tangri]

Seems to me that science is the religion that claims ownership of that which the collective consciousness likes to believe we truly understand

I don't see it that way.

Listen, your computer is working, right? You car works, right? How about your refrigerator, does it work? Your lightbulbs? Your cellphone? When you have headache and take an aspirin it works, right?

That's it, man. I'm not up to discuss the merit of how much real reality really is.

However, science is completely opposed to religion because, well...It works.

Religion is strictly about beliefs, science not.

Things created through science, like those I've cited in the second sentence of this post, they keep working independently if you believe them or not.

Religion, though, is just the opposite. Mohamed exists as a god just for the Muslims...Christ is only real for Christians....But an ipod exists for everyone, independently if you believe in ipods or not.

There might be some people out there who worship science as it's some kind of god. These people, in fact, are anti-science.

Science is about questioning everything, specially science itself.

After couple years of retirement, I think you have been changed a lot.

You are absolutely wrong on your claim.

Brazilians can do any sport except football. 6-0 German's defeat is a proof of it.

Above sentence is a hypothesis which tried to be supported with a proof.

" Mohamed exists as a god just for the Muslims."

You have no idea on Islam and, or about God. Muhamedi Alejhi Selam was a envoy from god, he was only a human, not a god.

[Napping]

Hey Raf,

After a little reluctance, I thought that I'd jump in and offer my thoughts, perceptions, and opinions. You bring up a lot of great points and this is an important topic. :)

Firstly, Anarchism simply means etymologically "no rulers or masters," but does not mean "no rules." It means understanding that one is a sovereign being who owns oneself and therefore can decide how one's body and mind functions without dictates from any other being. Depending on one's moral code, a self-proclaimed Anarchist could harm others and disobey any form of rules, or they can adopt the non-aggression principle and abide by rules that protect the sovereign state of all beings. Anarchism and civil disobedience are two completely different things, and one is a potential product of the other.

Secondly, Satanists also vary, depending on their flavor of Satanism. Satanism as a whole is based entirely off of the worship of one's ego above everything else, and doing whatever it takes to be on top. Satanism always leads to hierarchy, because it is based off of a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. Therefore, most Satanists are Statists whether they believe it or not, and not Anarchists.

Mark Passio, an ex-Satanist, summarizes the ideology of Satanism better than anybody I've ever met. I've known about Satanic ideology before meeting him, but his gift of oratory can express it better than I ever could, so I choose to follow the work he does out of a respect for his gift. I would recommend to you to check out his work when you get a chance, especially his Natural Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E) seminar. If people of all religions and ideologies knew about Natural Law, we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in.

I can't speak for all Satanists, but I think that my understanding is very accurate based off of my experiences and interactions with them. Concerning Christians, there are some who are Bible-loving, Jesus-worshiping, miracle-believing, subservient, devil-fearing, ignorant nutcases, but there are also others who call themselves Christians because they simply appreciate the teachings of Jesus without all the dogma. It is the same with Satanism, but there are far less of them who believe in an actual devil character. Most of them simply take Satanism as an ideology that is based upon worshiping the ego above all else and exerting one's will onto others for their own personal gain. The word Satan stems from its Hebrew etymology which means "adversary, or opponent."

Many Satanists take up the role of "adversary" with dignity, truly believing that they are serving the best interests of the universe, because they help to push and challenge people to higher morals. This, of course, comes with an air of superiority. But nonetheless, most Satanists do not believe in a devil character. Most Satanists are even aware of the laws of the universe and how the human psyche works, but they proclaim their own values above it all. Compared to most Christians, Satanists as a whole are extremely cunning, intelligent, courageous, and full of self-respect. But this does not mean that I agree with their ideals, because their will to harm others is deplorable.

Anyway, I don't wish to get too deep into that realm. But I do want to share my background a bit. I've been an atheist for over a decade now. As soon as I was confirmed in my Catholic Church, I declared myself an atheist with passion and eagerness as I shed my layers of indoctrination. To me, the scientific method is the best way to gain an accurate understanding of the universe, and coupled with intuition and empathy, we could also better understand ourselves. Though I still consider myself an atheist, I acknowledge that atheism simply means "without a god." One could still be spiritual and believe in ghosts, demons, jinn, elementals, and "angels" without believing in a god.

As an atheist, I simply reject the notion that there is a superior force above everything else. I think that we are all emanations of a Source that splintered itself and condensed denser and denser into deeper realms. I don't care what people even call Source, whether they call it "God" or the "Big Bang." My spiritualism is a balance between science and religion, and is reminiscent of Theosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy)or Anthroposophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy), though I dislike labels. But as an atheist, or one who doesn't believe in a god, I think that that whatever the Creator is, it placed certain laws in the universe that guide a soul (a splinter of the Source) up through the levels of Densities as it achieves a high enough vibration to merge with the oneness of the Source of the universe. It's as if we are all splinters of the Source being dragged back into oneness at our own pace based upon our free will to decide how fast or in what way we progress. I can still take up these notions while still labeling myself an atheist.

That being said, I also reject any notion of "believing" anything. Those assumptions I made about the universe and our place in it are based off of research and intuition guided by experience. These are perceptions, and for all I know they me be completely wrong! But what separates me (and many other people) from others who have their thoughts and opinions about how the universe works is that I am not afraid to admit that I am wrong. Everybody is entitled to their perceptions of reality, but some are more aligned with the Truth than others, and it is our duty as sentient beings to change our patterns of thinking if we sway far off the mark. This is why I appreciate the Dalai Lama when he says:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

Unfortunately, most people of both religious and scientific belief systems refuse to sway from their current thought patterns as new information emerges. As far as Christianity goes, yes, I believe most Christians are so deluded beyond repair. I care not what somebody chooses to believe, a long as their belief system does not harm another sentient being and they do not indoctrinate others with their beliefs. It doesn't matter whether or not Jesus was a historical figure in the grand scheme of things, because it is his message that matters. I do see it as a problem that most Christians truly believe that they can be spiritually saved by the acts of another being. I don't care what religion somebody is or if they base their lives entirely around science, but it is folly for any human being to believe that one's consciousness will ever advance by the sole acts of others.

As far as the existence of demons go, I'd encourage you to reconsider this. ;) Again, atheism does not mean rejecting any notion of inter-dimensional beings. Research in quantum physics is showing more and more the existence of dimensions, parallel universes, and multiple realities. Since, scientifically, the entire universe is composed entirely of vibrations that resonate at different levels of frequency, the existence of entities that we cannot see is very convincing. Our eyes can only see a very small bandwidth of light and are tuned into this reality. I would argue that this is so at our current density our souls can learn certain lessons before gaining a higher vibration as we progress to a higher density.

But putting that aside, we are only tuned to see what we see, but that does not mean there are different layers of universal dimensions. Just like with a radio, there are different stations that have different frequencies. In order for the radio to function properly, it must be tuned to only one station. When you raise the station to a higher frequency, you can hear another station. In between the stations there is static. How is this any different to the human body connected to this current dimension? Our eyes are tuned to a certain frequency so we can properly function in this reality. Spiritualists may say this function is for our souls to learn lessons, and non-spiritualists may say that it is pure evolution.

Either way, the static between radio stations can also be applied to our reality. Why cannot demons or jinn be the "static" between two layers of universal densities? In Eastern traditions, especially Islam, they are adamant that there are jinn who are inter-dimensional beings that are caught between two realities. Jinn are the Eastern equivalent to Western Demons. Why cannot ghosts, demons, and jinn all be a reference to beings that are caught between two layers of universal densities? Theoretically, it is perfectly aligned with the realm of quantum physics.

Anyway, my tolerance for people of any religion is very low, and that includes the dogmatic belief in authority and money. Though we all have perceptions, there is one universal Truth. Personally, I choose to follow the Truth wherever it goes, and I continue to adjust my path every single day to come to as accurate of an understanding of our reality as I possibly can. This path has nothing to do with Darwinism, as Christians are falsely taught. In addition to being empathetic, I choose to be a moral person and not harm sentient beings because I understand that those actions will come back around and I will accumulate Karma in one way or the other. Isn't the Law of Karma written somewhere in the laws of physics? Oh yes, it's called Newton's Third Law. :)

Robin this post was mind blowing for me. You managed to articulate almost exactly what I perceive to be true concerning your take on religion, spirituality, other realms ie spirits etc and the importance that science has played/plays in turning the metaphysical into something that can be explained/understood.

I'm going to cut paste this post and print it out as it eloquently articulates almost exactly what I try and spit out when people ask me about my beliefs.

I'd love to hit you up about some books/ doco's you recommend, but I'll do that privately as I think poor Raf's thread has gone down too many wayward twists and turns as it is.

Hang around Raf, what's offensive to some is refreshing and appreciated by others.

If people can't see Raf as anymore than a sincere, warm and generous soul of substantial intellect then your looking through a different lens that what I am.

Cheers,

Matt

[Cidersomerset]

I don't know if Satan or God exists , but there is an awfull amount death and
destruction in their name from most of the events that have unfolded over known
history up to the present. I tend to think the demonic entities are real and are
either ETS or inter dimensional and are part of our psychie . God I interpret in a
different way we are all eternal beings experiencing this reality and we are all
gods. You could look at everything from war to peace and every experience as
constrast while we are in the physical as it is only in this state we create. As in
our natural non-physical eternal selfe we manifest whatever we require instantly.
Which then goes back to why we fell. Living in bliss is boring over eons , so we
created this theme park for the full range of corporeal experiances warts and all.

If I look at it from that point of view all this is unimportant and if the elites know
this explains the lack of empathy for human life as they know its an illusion and
no one is really harmed its just like a movie.

If this is not correct then the human race is evil and backward and needs awakening
spiritually or just as a species, this is the question asked by every generation..


There are horrific acts happening all the time...


Big Questions for the State to answer on what has happened to these children
new Sunday 8th February 2015 at 09:16 By David Icke
http://breakingdownthnews.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/shocking-this-is-serious-satanic-child.html

Children Were Hunted Down and Killed Trying to Escape ‘Rape Dungeon’ at
Notorious Florida Boys School
Sunday 8th February 2015 at 10:38 By David Icke
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/

and I should say fun good experiances happen all the time as well ......'CONTRAST'...

like I'm off in a little while with Lance ( Ecnal 61) for our Avalon S/W
meet up as Becky is moving out of the area, only five of us can make
it but hopefully we will have an interesting fun chat over coffee.....

[RMorgan]

Hey folks,

I've asked a billion times for people to take things in context but I guess it's useless.

I've already said that I was (obviously) referring to biblical literalist Satanism and not all of its countless branches, but people still insist on interpreting things as they please.

I don't intend to be arrogant (but I bet someone will call me that right away), but when educated people like us are discussing an issue, it's absolutely essential that there's a mutual effort to understand each other and, since educated people know that it's not productive to be ambiguous during a debate, they assume that, whatever the other part is saying is reasonably literal and objective, not full of subjective, underlying meaning.

It's impossible to go somewhere fruitful during a discussion if I say "that bus is white" and the other part picks one of the countless underlying colors present in white and say that what I was actually saying is that "the bus is purple".

Anyway, there are quite a few intelligent responses in this post, which unfortunately get lost among piles of meaningless babble. I apologize to you and I'll try to answer them one by one in private

As for beliefs, yes, I understand that people get angry when they have their beliefs confronted by someone else, but what can I do? I have the same right to confront beliefs as people have rights to have beliefs. Besides, as you're aware of, beliefs are not harmless things that should be respected no matter what.

Beliefs, mostly those involved in religion, are responsible for the biggest atrocities in human history. How do you think Christianity has become the biggest religion on the planet, by kissing, dancing and singing beautiful songs? No. It was by torture, murder, genocide, rape, converting people through fear and pain, not love...And you North-Americans should actually beware: There's a huge and growing current of Christians who will do whatever is within their reach to transform the US into a totalitarian Christian Theocracy. You should not underestimate these folks.

That's it. Please feel free to contact me in private, any time. Beliefs for beliefs, I don't believe this present discussion model to be healthy.

Cheers,

Raf.

[SilentFeathers]

Welcome back Raf.......after being gone so long you come back and start a thread containing the subject matter that has caused more wars and death than just about any other thing in human history and expect your OP to taste like candy and go over smoothly with everyone???? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry brother, could not resist that remark! :)

Regardless, just because this thread does relate to so many failures for us as a "human family" it is worthy of discussion because if solutions are not found soon and corrections are not made soon, we are basically doomed to continue to slaughter each other off until none of us are left. Most of the conflicts going on across the planet right now are being waged due to one god is better than the other god on one hand and on the other hand money is better than all gods.....

IMO faith itself has been distorted........most people do not have a concept that having faith in each other as one family, each of us just as important than the other, is more important that slaughtering each other over their faith in their gods that often times teach just the opposite of how they are behaving...........

[Jake]

Not pointing fingers or dismissing anyone's experiences,... but be honest, what sounds better (to the ear, to the ego, to the vested interests, etc.); "hearing the voice of God" (Jesus, angels, etc.) or "psychosomatic auditory hallucination"?

I'm not at all discounting extra-ordinary, extra-sensory, extra-dimensional, etc. phenomenon.

Having said that, how many people who claim such knowledge and information - myself included - are unwilling to honestly and legitimately assess the possibility that they're bats hit crazy?


Concerning Satanism and Christianity,

It's just above, so I'll spare the forum a reiteration of what you just said, but I applaud you for attempting to effectively (read: scholastically, analytically, and as unbiasedly as possible) disseminate some of the core concepts of metaphysics.

Allow me to go one step further by stating unequivocally that Satanism (in most forms) is a tradition centered around Metaphysics, NOT the other way around.

In a curious parallel, it is about the refinement and emergence of the individual - including the ego - to a state that (like 13th pointed out) the individual transcends their animalistic origins. For most (dogmatics) this seems foolish; the human is not an animal!. For others, that the human is an animal is simply and observably axiomatic.

The parallel that I refer to could be considered as comparable to the Buddhist tradition of seeking the dissolution of the ego, the merging with the divine of numerous other traditions, etc. The bottom line is, if one finds themselves knee-jerk reacting to the terminology they're probably behind on a few of their studies.

Are their groups that identify themselves as Satanic (et al) which practice in a manner that is injurious to those who are not engaged in the metaphysical process of emergence? In a manner of speaking, yes and no. On the one hand, the abject disdain that many such organizations operate toward non-practitioners (non-emergents) is tangible, but one could as easily say that such groups are doing it to non-emergents as they could say that non-emergents operate in a non-conducive manner which allows them to (for lack of better phrase) fall victim to the practices of such groups.

To summarize, and to bring the discussion more back to its OP concepts:

Satanists are real, but they are not the boogeymen they have been reported as; I suggest that those who are actively demonizing such groups are selling something (merchandise, ideas, themselves,....). Satanists do engage in behaviors and practices which can and do result in adversity for individuals who are essentially not working on themselves, but the onus for that is equally if not moreso on the individuals as it is the Satanic groups.

If anything, the real boogeyman (boogeyperson?) is the individual who has refused to or ceased to emerge and develop, to take responsibility for themselves (real responsibility, not just a few bullet-point items and calling it a day). I have heard many theologians refer to that person as A Satan (indicating that Satan is a title and not a personage ^_~) and I'll tell you RIGHT now that Satanists do NOT worship complacency or irresponsibility.

I would also suggest that Raf's tone is directed toward that type of Christian; the ones who feel exonerated for anything and everything because of a story of a guy on a cross and woe betide anything not otherwise associated with that guy!

For reference:

Emergent - noun - Individual actively engaged (whether conscious or not) in the process of developing themselves in a variety of capacities and categories, whether by secular or metaphysical means. Related form: Non-emergent. (this reference is in addition to the existing definitions for the word which do not include a noun-form, except for aquatic plants)

P.S. Allow me to further suggest that the truly potent metaphysicians do not operate with or as part of a group.

Excellent post,, Bravo... When I first decided to face what was happening to me,,, ( manymany obes and powerful energetic events) I questioned everything.. The first being my sanity.. I saw psychologists, and sleep medicine doctors and was given a clean bill of physical and mental health. I went to my church leaders too.. Boy that was a revelation! !! The search for truth has broken my heart..

Have you ever experienced a messiah complex? I know you've probably heard of it, but have you ever experienced it?

Therein lies my problem with religion... I have no idea where each perspective religious base gets its culture and history, or even if any of it is true.. I can see that Christianity is Based in the proppoing up and putting what is perfectly natural human potentials, on a devine,, godly, unattainable platform to which you can only worship...

If you are to embrace any latent potential, then you are a heretic????? I suffered from my faith for tooooooooo long.. I began to hate myself, based on advise from church elders.. Nobody could help me. Not wrapped in this style of BS... Hundreds of people holding out there hands and singing hymns, yet not a single one of them would help me, not a one...

I was terrified about what was happening,,,, According to Christianity, , I was a demonic posessed monster... And I began to accept that.

I have learned much about myself and Christianity since then.. lol... The abilities that Jesus showed, I believe,, are latent untapped potentials that lay dormant in each of us.. Jesus was trying to tell folks, but the language simply did not exist...

I have tried describing living multidimensional universe to physicists.. Easy enough, we have different words now.. Imagine trying to explain it using only ancient Hebrew terms.. Again, I'd be grumpy too.. lol...

As folks wake into their latent abilities,, we are struck with messia sickness... Based solely on the mistake of putting jesus on a pedistal and worshipping him...

Calling it all lies, does not move us forward either... (did ya read that in a book?) Lol.....

All religions have been redesigned to keep us worshipping instead of searching within ourselves.. They turned Jesus into a god,, and we suffer because of it....


I do not believe that I am like Jesus,, but I am willing to accept that he may have been like me...

And NOBODY is going to tell me that Mohumad was not having obes... lol.. same with Buddas, etc.... Take them down from the devine pedistal and stop with the worship.. Embrace and accept that you/we are nothing less than all those things yourself...

When I wrote my book in2010,, I called it 'The book of Jacob'.. It was a shot at Christianity.. I think we should ALL right our owngospels... A book about your own awakening, and the free and sovereign people that we are becoming....

My guess is that because I do not 100 percent agree with the OP, that I will be accused of blatent and toxic hostility.. . :)

So be it, I am that I am...
Jake

[Mike]

Not pointing fingers or dismissing anyone's experiences,... but be honest, what sounds better (to the ear, to the ego, to the vested interests, etc.); "hearing the voice of God" (Jesus, angels, etc.) or "psychosomatic auditory hallucination"?

I'm not at all discounting extra-ordinary, extra-sensory, extra-dimensional, etc. phenomenon.

Having said that, how many people who claim such knowledge and information - myself included - are unwilling to honestly and legitimately assess the possibility that they're bats hit crazy?


Concerning Satanism and Christianity,

It's just above, so I'll spare the forum a reiteration of what you just said, but I applaud you for attempting to effectively (read: scholastically, analytically, and as unbiasedly as possible) disseminate some of the core concepts of metaphysics.

Allow me to go one step further by stating unequivocally that Satanism (in most forms) is a tradition centered around Metaphysics, NOT the other way around.

In a curious parallel, it is about the refinement and emergence of the individual - including the ego - to a state that (like 13th pointed out) the individual transcends their animalistic origins. For most (dogmatics) this seems foolish; the human is not an animal!. For others, that the human is an animal is simply and observably axiomatic.

The parallel that I refer to could be considered as comparable to the Buddhist tradition of seeking the dissolution of the ego, the merging with the divine of numerous other traditions, etc. The bottom line is, if one finds themselves knee-jerk reacting to the terminology they're probably behind on a few of their studies.

Are their groups that identify themselves as Satanic (et al) which practice in a manner that is injurious to those who are not engaged in the metaphysical process of emergence? In a manner of speaking, yes and no. On the one hand, the abject disdain that many such organizations operate toward non-practitioners (non-emergents) is tangible, but one could as easily say that such groups are doing it to non-emergents as they could say that non-emergents operate in a non-conducive manner which allows them to (for lack of better phrase) fall victim to the practices of such groups.

To summarize, and to bring the discussion more back to its OP concepts:

Satanists are real, but they are not the boogeymen they have been reported as; I suggest that those who are actively demonizing such groups are selling something (merchandise, ideas, themselves,....). Satanists do engage in behaviors and practices which can and do result in adversity for individuals who are essentially not working on themselves, but the onus for that is equally if not moreso on the individuals as it is the Satanic groups.

If anything, the real boogeyman (boogeyperson?) is the individual who has refused to or ceased to emerge and develop, to take responsibility for themselves (real responsibility, not just a few bullet-point items and calling it a day). I have heard many theologians refer to that person as A Satan (indicating that Satan is a title and not a personage ^_~) and I'll tell you RIGHT now that Satanists do NOT worship complacency or irresponsibility.

I would also suggest that Raf's tone is directed toward that type of Christian; the ones who feel exonerated for anything and everything because of a story of a guy on a cross and woe betide anything not otherwise associated with that guy!

For reference:

Emergent - noun - Individual actively engaged (whether conscious or not) in the process of developing themselves in a variety of capacities and categories, whether by secular or metaphysical means. Related form: Non-emergent. (this reference is in addition to the existing definitions for the word which do not include a noun-form, except for aquatic plants)

P.S. Allow me to further suggest that the truly potent metaphysicians do not operate with or as part of a group.

Excellent post,, Bravo... When I first decided to face what was happening to me,,, ( manymany obes and powerful energetic events) I questioned everything.. The first being my sanity.. I saw psychologists, and sleep medicine doctors and was given a clean bill of physical and mental health. I went to my church leaders too.. Boy that was a revelation! !! The search for truth has broken my heart..

Have you ever experienced a messiah complex? I know you've probably heard of it, but have you ever experienced it?

Therein lies my problem with religion... I have no idea where each perspective religious base gets its culture and history, or even if any of it is true.. I can see that Christianity is Based in the proppoing up and putting what is perfectly natural human potentials, on a devine,, godly, unattainable platform to which you can only worship...

If you are to embrace any latent potential, then you are a heretic????? I suffered from my faith for tooooooooo long.. I began to hate myself, based on advise from church elders.. Nobody could help me. Not wrapped in this style of BS... Hundreds of people holding out there hands and singing hymns, yet not a single one of them would help me, not a one...

I was terrified about what was happening,,,, According to Christianity, , I was a demonic posessed monster... And I began to accept that.

I have learned much about myself and Christianity since then.. lol... The abilities that Jesus showed, I believe,, are latent untapped potentials that lay dormant in each of us.. Jesus was trying to tell folks, but the language simply did not exist...

I have tried describing living multidimensional universe to physicists.. Easy enough, we have different words now.. Imagine trying to explain it using only ancient Hebrew terms.. Again, I'd be grumpy too.. lol...

As folks wake into their latent abilities,, we are struck with messia sickness... Based solely on the mistake of putting jesus on a pedistal and worshipping him...

Calling it all lies, does not move us forward either... (did ya read that in a book?) Lol.....

All religions have been redesigned to keep us worshipping instead of searching within ourselves.. They turned Jesus into a god,, and we suffer because of it....


I do not believe that I am like Jesus,, but I am willing to accept that he may have been like me...

And NOBODY is going to tell me that Mohumad was not having obes... lol.. same with Buddas, etc.... Take them down from the devine pedistal and stop with the worship.. Embrace and accept that you/we are nothing less than all those things yourself...

When I wrote my book in2010,, I called it 'The book of Jacob'.. It was a shot at Christianity.. I think we should ALL right our owngospels... A book about your own awakening, and the free and sovereign people that we are becoming....

My guess is that because I do not 100 percent agree with the OP, that I will be accused of blatent and toxic hostility.. . :)

So be it, I am that I am...
Jake




your life has been a brave one, Jake. i respect the hell out of you for not only enduring, but coming out the other end with grace and wisdom. and your sanity! really...that couldnt have been easy!

lots of love to you.

[Robin]

Hey Raf,

I think this post is more in line with your OP. :)

I feel that all religions have some value in them, and that it is important to study all of them to have a holistic view of the world. That being said, I know people who are pure Darwinists and do not believe in the existence of anything spiritual. All of them are the most intelligent, moral people I have ever come across. One does not need religion to live a moral, upstanding life.

I don't mean to pick on Christianity, because Islam and nearly every other religion is responsible for a lot of violence. But you know when a parent sits their child on their lap when they reach a certain age and explains to them that Santa Clause is not real and that that they have been lying to the child their whole life because they felt that the story made them feel good? I envision every single day the time when humanity reaches a point where the vast minority of people are bone-headed Christians, and we all can finally sit them down like children and explain to them that they have been believing in a fairy tale and have been lied to.

What are they going to do when most of humanity corners them and kindly tells them like a child that it is time to finally grow up? They are like children, and I seriously think that we need to have a big intervention and start treating them like children. If you want to believe in a childish notion, then you should be treated as such. When they have temper tantrums because their beliefs are being challenged, we can mail them all binkies, bibs, coloring books, and boxes of crayons.

Or we can even think of it like a drug-addict intervention. Really, religionists are kind of like drug-addicts too. They are addicted to their belief system, so why not? You know when a drug addict makes their way home only to realize their parents set up an intervention by inviting all their child's close friends and family? Then the child sits in a circle and they all cry and tell the child how much their behavior is harming them and letting them down? This is what conscious humanity needs to do with Christians, and Muslims, and all the rest who are thinking and behaving like child addicts.

Lets stop protesting the governments of the world, which only continues to acknowledge their right to rule by doing so. Instead, we need to go to the source of the problem, which is a mass of ignorant people with flawed perceptions that vote for corruption and don't do anything about it. We need to start protesting the streets of the suburbs and wake up the true "enemy," for lack of a better word, which is all the brain-dead people who continue to sponsor violence due to their belief systems.

So lets grab picket-signs and peacefully protest on sidewalks and other public property outside of peoples' homes and let them know that their belief system are harming other people and making life miserable for those who do not subscribe to their beliefs. The source of the problems is not any government, but the collective mass of people with flawed perceptions that were poisoned with belief systems, and in turn, think and act like child addicts.

And, no, I don't feel bad for saying that at all. ;)

[awakeningmom]

I guess I don’t understand the hostility towards the OP. Perhaps much of it could have been avoided had the OP simply called the thread: “Why I believe Satanism (and Christianity) is a lie”? But isn’t that what he is really expressing? That’s how I understood it – his current worldview.

In any event, I am really enjoying many posts here and appreciate all the different perspectives. Robin/Sam Wise, thank you so much for your post at #77. It comes the closest to my current understanding of how the Universe/Source possibly operates. Having read The Ra Materials and now just starting to explore the Kabbalah, this idea of Source splintering to experience itself resonates with me right now.

Raf, getting back to your response to my last post, and I thank you for it! I think my former view of the world and “religion” was quite similar to yours at post #31. As I said, I basically lost my religion after my very first Comparative Religion class, where the derivative nature of Christianity and all the Abrahamic religions was made quite apparent. And I too used to think that all religions were based on Man’s attempt to understand Nature or the introduction of Higher Technology into a more primitive world (e.g, shooting arrows at helicopter “demons”). But in trying to understand Deep History and Politics, I’ve come to doubt this perhaps ignorant/incomplete view. This is because in going down the rabbit hole I started to see that certain elites commonly associated with “science” (among others) were simultaneously practicing Majick and studying/practicing occult topics. Thus, it was eye-opening to me to learn that Sir Issac Newton and other scientists studied/practiced Alchemy and Astrology, and that J.P. Morgan noted that “Millionaires don’t use Astrology… Billionaires do.” WHY? Why study/practice various occult arts that were publicly ridiculed so that the masses turned away from them? What did they know that others didn’t know about the true workings of the world?

Two possibilities emerged for me. Either: 1. There is a deeper, supernatural/metaphysical/higher Force or Power involved in our world (be it god, angels, demons, inter or intra dimensional or ET beings with superior technology, etc.) and those with knowledge have been tapping into this Power for Centuries (to the detriment of others); or 2. The elite/priest class/shamans have fashioned a very elaborate Centuries-long hoax on the masses to make us believe this is so, so that the masses concede all of their Power to those who appear to be able to tap into it. I’m still trying to figure out which one it is – or whether it’s a little of both.

There are breadcrumbs and dead ends everywhere for me, and I wonder if I'll ever get the answer. So, was Aleister Crowley someone who really channeled/accessed demon spirits, as he claimed – or was he a British MI5 (or its precursor) Agent pretending to do so, as others claim? Do elites really engage in horrific (Bohemian Grove type) rituals where sexual abuse and human sacrifice occur in the name of some powerful dark entity – or is the internet deliberately filled with such stories by supposed whistleblowers and researchers just to mess with the masses’ minds? (several posts on this thread seem to suggest that Satanists are simply misunderstood. Indeed, when their “ego-centered” philosophy is explained that way, it sounds relatively harmless, even if selfish/arrogant. So then who, if anyone, is engaged in the horrific rituals explained in articles like this?):

http://www.richardpresser.com/wordpress/satanic-ritual-abuse-australia-extension-world-opdeatheaters/

Is this all BS just to horrify readers and/or keep us in fear of the Powerful whacked-out so-called Elite? At one point, I would have dismissed all of this as utter nonsense (or wouldn’t have spent my time reading it). Indeed, it still seems so over-the-top to me. But when it keeps coming up over and over again in the alternative research literature, and when the international high-level pedophile rings are starting to be exposed as Truth, it’s hard to ignore. And please excuse my admitted ignorance, but much of this horror is attributed to Satanists or Luciferians by the supposedly ex-members themselves. So is this not so and the ones doing these things think of themselves as something else?

Robin/Sam Wise in particular has given me a lot to digest. I would never have thought of someone who believes in supernatural/intradimensional beings as well as a Prime Source as an atheist! :) But since RAF started this fascinating thread, I still would like to understand what he thinks about how this undercurrent of elite occult practice throughout known history fits in to the Big Spiritual Picture. In your opinion, even if the packaged Christianity/Satan is a lie, do elites truly believe they have/can access occult/supernatural power – or has this been a giant Psy-Op on the masses from the start? All breadcrumbs are appreciated. :)

[turiya]

Religion is nonsense and Satan, in the traditional Christian sense, is just an overdeveloped version of the boogieman, deliberately created for the same purpose: To control your behavior through fear.

Raf.

Come on Raf, religion does serve a purpose. Just as belonging to the Rotary Club, the Lion's Club & Freemasonry. It can help one be successful with their business, to get to rub elbows & to know their community leaders, to become a better 'cog in the wheel'.

[magnum]

http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/children-describe-satanic-ritual-abuse-sacrifice-video/

Children Describe Satanic Ritual Abuse and Sacrifice (video)
Feb 8th, 2015 | Category: Latest News |29 Comments

A video posted on YouTube features two young children describing the horrifying details of the Satanic Ritual Abuse and child sacrifice they witnessed first hand.


In a deeply disturbing video posted online, a 8-year old boy and his 9-year old sister describe the horrors they were forced to endure at the hands of their British father who is the leader of a Sexual Ritual Abuse cult in North London. Along with horrific gruesome details, the kids actually point out specific people and organizations who collaborate with the Satanic ring. Here it is.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/children-describe-satanic-ritual-abuse-sacrifice-video/

[magnum]

and more SATANIC ritual being performed in front of millions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtXSg70ulZU

2015 GRAMMYS Illuminati symbolism predictions

[ZooLife]

Having said that, how many people who claim such knowledge and information - myself included - are unwilling to honestly and legitimately assess the possibility that they're bats hit crazy?


Calling yourself out there Shezbeth? I am with you hos. ;)

Crazy makes sense in the realm you're in.

In 'crazy logic', the word 'crazy' is removed in the school of thought/ belief that one adopts in an effort to appear logical.

http://www.cbruen.com/blog/crazy_friend.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3Kk5tZSmo

"There are times when all the world's asleep"

"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
liberal, fanatical, criminal."

[Shezbeth]

Excellent post,, Bravo... When I first decided to face what was happening to me,,, ( manymany obes and powerful energetic events) I questioned everything.. The first being my sanity.. I saw psychologists, and sleep medicine doctors and was given a clean bill of physical and mental health. I went to my church leaders too.. Boy that was a revelation! !!

One good turn deserves another ey? You just sent me off on a few trains of thought, and I am quite glad you did!

One thing I have come to appreciate (yes, I said it!) about the Psych establishment and likewise the Religious establishment (though to a slightly different degree than the Psych) is their having served the role of worthy adversary.

Much like you describe Jake, early in my development I perceived Religion and Psychology/Psychiatry as both being something of an authoritative industry from which conclusions, positions, and definitions could be not only derived/found but were beyond contest; the DSM in particular is especially non-complimentary toward one who experiences extra-stuff, and you rightly point out the (literal) demonization one can experience from the church(es).

As the saying goes, "The only way out is through" and after many years of inquiry and delving into those (and other) 'authorities' did I come to find out that what I was experiencing was not only normal (in a sense) but a wonderful and laudable (IMO) thing. I haven't had (I assume) near the number of OBE's you have described but I was always particularly apt at perceiving intentions and thoughts (as well as other experiences), which many pastors and such were quick to describe as demonic influence; similarly the psych's found me remarkably well adjusted for an individual who was - in their words - hearing voices and experiencing schitzo-typal phenomena.

In any case - and as a partial explanation in response to the OP of why what is described is not more readily adopted and/or realized - it was many years of buying in to various 'authorities' before I even began to entertain (let alone question and/or challenge) the legitimacy of those 'authorities' or to realize my own authority (which, in the years hence I have come to recognize is among the central teachings - or at least the professed doctrines - of most religions in the first place!). Upon doing so, I came across a wealth of information that not only corroborated the legitimacy of my own experiences but outright challenged and contested the legitimacy of the findings of said establishments.

Among the many problems with humanity (for simplicity I'll go from the 'basic' 7) laziness (sloth) is definitely prevalent and widespread. Let us assume that a majority of the aggregate were to disregard some of the more obvious inconsistencies or inaccuracies prevalent among Christianity and/or Satanism (or even religion in general); if done en masse, developing generations will simply adopt the 'new' viewpoint as being the 'correct' one and never bother to learn to discern between the two. As is many aren't learning to discern between the truth and the propaganda (plz note I'm being careful to not label either the truth or the propaganda) and that dynamic would not change if false beliefs were cast out.


Come on Raf, religion does serve a purpose. Just as belonging to the Rotary Club, the Lion's Club & Freemasonry. It can help one be successful with their business, to get to rub elbows & to know their community leaders, to become a better 'cog in the wheel'.

Pardon me for saying, but that strikes me as being equally valid as the person who attends 12-step programs because they like the free coffee; its not forbidden certainly, but they're missing the point (and operating under misguided principles IMO).

And, while I hate to take an apologetic tone, allow me a word on Avalon.

The forum is in a state of refinement and development, but perhaps not to the degree that such words might initially invoke. This forum in particular operates very much like an educational institution (with all the implicit correlations). As a starting point (or continuation) for those who are seeking new(er) ideas and pursuing alternative perceptions, it has an overwhelming abundance of theories, ideas, schools of thought, and individuals who are both new and old to such ideas with which to converse. Many of the 'students' develop in a variety of ways and directions, and upon 'graduating' will often move on (whether voluntarily or with 'firm encouragement') to other forums, to start their own blogs, youtube channels, etc. Others will remain to assist in 'lectures', 'dialogues', 'debates', etc.

My underlying point on this element is that, while I agree with some of your dissatisfaction re: the forum (it's not all gilded lilies certainly!), I would not hold it against the forum as an organization for failure to have holistically evolved, as the evolution that is most apparent (IMO) occurs within the individual participants. Most of the individuals who might respond or agree with your salient points are off doing other things, or are satisfied with your iteration and feel it unnecessary to participate in this particular dialogue.

So to you Raf, I would state - as one would state to a graduate student (and without applying any type of self-qualifiers) - do not be put out by some of the opinions and expressions of students who are studying different materials, and especially by students who are new to their studies. I perceive that you are operating from a position of greater evolution of thought and authority of perception which this very discussion might serve to assist in helping others to achieve. Which is better after all, to state an opinion and be met with unilateral agreement, or to be met with contention from which over time new understandings can be achieved?

[magnum]

Satanism being discussed live while the occult grammy ritual is performed
http://freemantv.com/de-occult-grammy-awards-live/

[turiya]

Someone might need to round off their edges a bit... being overly intellectual gets tiresome, I would think.

[Shezbeth]

Mom always said its better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass,...

... sorry, couldn't resist.

:focus:

[turiya]

Intelligence and Intellect are diametrically opposed to each other.
The wonders of having a "beautiful mind".

[Jake]

Mom always said its better to be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass,...

... sorry, couldn't resist.

:focus:


Ha, made me laugh.. My mom always pointed out that I was quite talented being Both... :);)

jake

[Shezbeth]

Not according to the dictionary,....

They're derived from slightly different conjugations of the same latin word, meaning that not only are the words of almost identical meaning, but the route words are all but identical; nice try tho.

<ahem> One more time,....

:focus:

[Nine]

Hey Raf,

Instead, we need to go to the source of the problem, which is a mass of ignorant people with flawed perceptions that vote for corruption and don't do anything about it. We need to start protesting the streets of the suburbs and wake up the true "enemy," for lack of a better word, which is all the brain-dead people who continue to sponsor violence due to their belief systems.

So lets grab picket-signs and peacefully protest on sidewalks and other public property outside of peoples' homes and let them know that their belief system are harming other people and making life miserable for those who do not subscribe to their beliefs. The source of the problems is not any government, but the collective mass of people with flawed perceptions that were poisoned with belief systems, and in turn, think and act like child addicts.

And, no, I don't feel bad for saying that at all. ;)

Hi Robin,

I used to think that voting mattered also and voting for the right folks but as I am now heading way past middle age I have put such notions aside as I have put aside many of my beliefs and ideologies.

And to our dear Raf...thanks for the thread I am thoroughly enjoying it and learning so much from all of the posters!

And I have recently been thinking about Jesus and the God-Head or the Zero Point Field and what power or energy (http://www.ahealedplanet.net/humanity.htm#energy1) really is and can it even be defined?

Of course I am no scientist and am still an evangelical Christian only because of family connections and evangelicals have rejected science and of course look to the past and of course the evangelicals that I know are all Americans who live in the most powerful and richest country in world history and are indeed its most privileged and of course that is under attack and so they have chosen to align themselves with some of the worst folks who want war in order to take from the other.

And so they have become the American State religion so that her multiple serial wars of acquisition can continue with the blessings of the priesthood...the new American priesthood and so what does the empire want? In a word she wants power and what is power but energy?

To me true spirituality is giving up ones personal ideologies if found wanting and so like you I am in a search for truth. American evangelicals will never give up their power until there is free energy and not before. And so if one would doubt this I could tell you about them but of course why bother....and so I will show you instead...

Chris Kyle at an evangelical church:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yISEIg1XIg

and that is so surreal its like the hunger games...

Humanity is fast running out of energy and so IMO this is an area of ideology that folks must give up to move forward. And this issue is way down the list for me to get very worked up over and yet this thread is a great read and I do thank Raf for it...

Nine

[Omni]

Great Post Robin (#77). I do have some comments.


But as an atheist, or one who doesn't believe in a god, I think that that whatever the Creator is, it placed certain laws in the universe that guide a soul (a splinter of the Source) up through the levels of Densities as it achieves a high enough vibration to merge with the oneness of the Source of the universe.

I'm an atheist too, but I have a slightly different perspective. Who knows who is right, I feel both are of value.

1. Merging back with source seems like non-existence to me. At least in terms of what something like the Ra material says(timeless source merging). No time = nothing exists. Nothing is possible without time the way I see it(i realize you didn't mention time but maybe you were getting merging back with source from something like the Ra material). I don't think we are meant to merge back with source. That implies we are disconnected to it as we are now. I think we are one with source already if we can find that in life.

2. Densities are a psy op IMO. It is an engineered mass delusion of the new age if I had to take a stab at what it is. An essential part of the new age religion which is largely based on inaction(Ascension, Meditate the darkness away, etc)... What is the result of people believing everything will suddenly magically shift into rainbows and unicorns and everyone being spiritually intelligent? Inaction. If the universe was composed of different "densities" is it reasonable that science has found zero evidence of such?

3. I am quite uncertain about this whole "higher vibration being better" thing. I know I have experienced intense technological fears that were much higher vibration/frequencies than some of the love feelings I have felt. Of course that is just my perception of frequency/vibration, but I don't think I am wrong here. I am leaning towards the whole "higher vibration" thing being misconceptions with parts of it. There are individually both high frequency fear, and low frequency fear from what I've experienced. I have sent emails to neuroscience departments, but to their own lack of intellectual integrity they never get back to me about this. Maybe I will send Dr. Persinger an email, as he did reply to me, even when I mentioned I was a contactee/targeted individual(to his credit).

I do think many of the higher vibrations are beneficial. And higher energy is typically better than lower energy in emotions. But in terms of making emotions linear, and bad ones lower, while good ones are higher vibrations, I think will be debunked once science learns about chakras and the true emotional matrix.


Also like you Robin, I see my own fallibility. So I could be wrong about anything I believe that hasn't been proven to me. I am also very aware of how things can appear to be proven in the field of being an experiencer when they really are a calculated technologically engineered illusion. I personally do believe things, but it is more a "soft belief", I reassess any belief I have whenever it is challenged. I feel that is a productive practice for disillusionment.


In addition to being empathetic, I choose to be a moral person and not harm sentient beings because I understand that those actions will come back around and I will accumulate Karma in one way or the other. Isn't the Law of Karma written somewhere in the laws of physics? Oh yes, it's called Newton's Third Law.

I don't think it's right to not do something immoral just because it will hurt you in the longrun. That isn't true morality. That is fear of punishment. Maybe what you meant by empathetic at the beginning of that sentence is you actually care.

Thanks again for the brilliant post. It is always nice to see another atheist who isn't imprisoned by left brain thinking. The atheist group on facebook wouldn't admit me because of my ET ties :yell:

[Nine]

Omniverse,

Why should we act when we do not know for sure?

I have seen the persons with the lowest personal integrity placed in power...

and Star Trek's most memorable line " Resistance is futile" of the Borg...


Strategically inaction might be the best option....but of course soft belief might be our best option...

Nine

[Omni]

Omniverse,

Why should we act when we do not know for sure?
Do not know what for sure? I think it's pretty clear on many levels what is happening in society. Some things one can do nothing about IMO, like lets say, being abducted by Greys. Other things need a public outcry and protest before the politicians do anything about it. They only do what they are forced to when it comes to actual good(in large abundance).

More activism is needed now than ever IMHO. Like for example the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth having lecturers around the nation speak all the time(according to my emails from them anyway). That is action. It doesn't have to be to end the entire corrupted system with actions.. In fact I'm not sure what could end the corrupted system beyond global first contact. But working on smaller things and goals is big. I am a firm believer in action. Pretty much nothing ever gets done without some potent people taking initiative.

All around from the cabal's psy op divisions I see the agenda is to make people inert. Ascension will fix everything, don't worry about it. Jesus will save us, don't worry about it. God will rapture the world, don't worry about it. Meditate peace into the world, instead of going out and actively applying your vision to the world, don't worry about that. ETs will save us, don't worry about it. Everything will change in 2016, don't worry about it. The white hats will save us, don't worry about it. It all has a foundation of making people inert in making change, because 'it's all being taken care of'. Very few people have the variables for fertile grounds for action with all the psy ops. If they knew the truth about what type of reaction they would get for making a change half of them wouldn't be doing it anyway, for lack of courage or dedication enough to die or suffer for their cause.

Humanity has major problems and I do not see any type of savior. The savior is ourselves(although ETs may assist if we got something going), and that embodiment is fully suppressed. If in 20 years nothing has changed but the agenda being more unleashed(less freedom, 1984, police state even moreso) I wonder what people of Avalon will think? I hope Avalon exists for that long....



Strategically inaction might be the best option....but of course soft belief might be our best option...

Nine
Inaction can be the best option at times IMHO, but when it comes to the global picture, I think action is needed.

[turiya]

Just as one's head is opposed to one's [smart/dumb] ass...
Truth is synonymous with intelligence... found only in absolute silence...
Whereas, the Intellect buffers one from its being realized...
Yes, I suppose, some consider the dictionary their holy book... full of noise... signifying what appears to be their great treasures of life... nothing could be further, but synonymous only with a head full of clutter.

Life is religion... one can become immersed in it... or one can avoid it - riding on waves that are found only on the surface. Living a life of skin-deep superficiality. Good luck with that.

cheers

[donk]

Seems to me that science is the religion that claims ownership of that which the collective consciousness likes to believe we truly understand

I don't see it that way.

Listen, your computer is working, right? You car works, right? How about your refrigerator, does it work? Your lightbulbs? Your cellphone? When you have headache and take an aspirin it works, right?

That's it, man. I'm not up to discuss the merit of how much real reality really is.

However, science is completely opposed to religion because, well...It works.

Religion is strictly about beliefs, science not.

Things created through science, like those I've cited in the second sentence of this post, they keep working independently if you believe them or not.

Religion, though, is just the opposite. Mohamed exists as a god just for the Muslims...Christ is only real for Christians....But an ipod exists for everyone, independently if you believe in ipods or not.

There might be some people out there who worship science as it's some kind of god. These people, in fact, are anti-science.

Science is about questioning everything, specially science itself.

I've been thinking about this: I've come to understand "science" to be the popular approach for humanity as a species to describe the reality we seem to share, to experience in common.

It includes the "scientific method", which is the description of the best way to learn and observe phenomena common to all of us.

An institution has been built around it, a power structure formed controlling it, politics have entered into it (perhaps even "created" it)

And you cannot see how it can be viewed as a "religion"?

I thought religions were the common beliefs about reality that the members of them all shared? I thought that was why it was important to identify the lies built into (or subsequently infected post-creation of) all of them.

I think it's possible to become "dogmatic" about it, and did not think raf was from the totality of my experience of with him. But my friend, I must say: some of the comments in this thread read to me like dogma of the (un?)holy institution of Science

[donk]

The thing that makes science a more appealing religion to me is that at the core of it is the spirit of adaptability . In theory, beliefs brought into science change as experience shows them to be wrong, and ignored when they prove not to be useful.

The reality I experience seems that science has been captured though, and we should stop lying to ourselves about who it is the ONE TRUE belief system, and rather than focusing energy from separating it from authoritarian control system dogmatic faiths all become, examine the similarities to keep it from falling into the same trap.

Science can be the "one true religion", if we can manage to somehow keep (make) it honest! (Sayeth the beast ;))

[Shezbeth]

Just as one's head is opposed to one's [smart/dumb] ass...
Truth is synonymous with intelligence... found only in absolute silence...
Whereas, the Intellect buffers one from its being realized...
Yes, I suppose, some consider the dictionary their holy book... full of noise... signifying what appears to be their great treasures of life... nothing could be further, but synonymous only with a head full of clutter.

Can't keep it out of the thread can you? Ever heard of PMs? :bored:

I can understand why you might perceive such divergence between the terms intelligence and intellect, as there are a wealth of individuals who are most want to A. use words outside their correct context and meaning and then B. exclaim all the while that they are correct (and thereby spread the misuse of the word). You are welcome to your own interpretation, but meanwhile those who utilize the english language have a benchmark for establishing something of a standardized comprehension of word meanings and definitions, and it is the dictionary; its not holy by any regard nor is it flawless, but I'm all ears if you have a more suitable reference that comes from centuries of etymological study, analysis, and application; anything at all,... wait there are none? Hmmmm. :rolleyes:

Let's put this into context; if a person were to ask me the what the meaning of a word was, does it sound credible for me to say "Well, there are numerous dictionaries - who make it their business to research and compile word meanings - that posit the meaning to be <def. A>, but there's this Turiya character online who asserts that its <def. B> so that's what we're going with."?

Would a person who, engaged in the act of measuring lengths with precision utilize a ruler (or worse, a caliper!) be likewise chastised for relying on 'holy instruments', or would they be recognized as utilizing an adequate object designed for that express purpose (and one superior to alternatives)? Subjectivity can work for the individual, but it fails when one attempts to apply it to the aggregate.

Interestingly, this dovetails nicely with the OP in that among the principle objections first mentioned is that of individuals perceiving that their subjective interpretation of ideas neither fit nor illustrate the objective reality. To presume to understand Satanism in the inaccurate context provided by Abrahamic traditions (or even to view them as related!) is to be missing the point entirely, just as putting a little bit of spin on two words that are all-but identical and claiming a divide is doing likewise. One is well entitled to be wrong if they so desire, but they shouldn't be surprised nor offset by having it pointed out no matter the poetry by which they might excuse or disguise it. Moreover, while one might point out the centuries of precedence of the Abrahamic traditions, it is centuries of asserting their subjective interpretations as opposed to a commitment to objectivity.

In a nutshell, if inaccurate or nonviable perceptions and ideologies are not called into question and are allowed to flourish unchecked, authoritarian indoctrination is precisely what happens.

Cheers indeed.

[AxisMundi]

Christianity is all wrong about their conceptual image of Satan and Hell...It's a joke.

They copied their concept of hell entirely from Tartarus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarus) (Greek mythology).


Raf.

I think what you really need to do is question the origins of these myths though. Myths are usually just the least prosaic methods of communicating very real and objective truths. I was going to write an essay here but I'll try and put it really simply. What happens upon death is simply that the consciousness leaves the physical container and merges with the very fabric of 'time' itself. Firstly, everything that has been both consciously and subconsciously experienced in the life just passed is magnified by thousands (or perhaps millions) and in this instance because time is experienced from a very different perspective, this event can 'seem' to last an eternity. Whilst it's a little more complicated than this, if you've spent your life engaging in darkness, use and abuse of others, this merging with time and magnification is not going to be pleasant! Hence. 'sins send you to hell' and 'holiness sends you to heaven'. Eternal heaven or eternal damnation in essence....

What I'm saying is that, whilst often crude, such myths and stories are indeed an attempt to portray very real truths about the science of consciousness and the rich and dynamic relationship between mind and the wider universe. For instance, the Christian Heaven and Hell and the elaborate metaphor in the Egyptian book of the dead regarding the weighing of the soul in the Hall of two truths are clearly both stories attempting to describe what can happen when we die. They aim to portray very real esoteric truths.

To my mind, it's your questions that are misguided.


To sum up, forget this Satanism stuff. It has absolutely zero substance. It's all made up.

Christianity was crafted from the begining to be the ONE religion. It's a big mess of syncretized concepts with absolutely zero legitimate theological originality, let alone spiritual legitimacy. It made it easier for people from different religions to assimilate it, though, because it contains elements from literally all major religions of the time.

There's no Satan. There are no Demons. There's no Hell. These things aren't even myths. They're distorted and corrupted shadows of myths deliberately crafted to frighten people, thus making them easier to control.

Hell and Demons are very real, many millions experience their own hell daily. If I may say, you simply need to stop thinking so literally. Unfortunately, one of mankind's problems is that we've become slaves of logic which is deeply rooted in mind/intellect. It actually obscures and obfuscates so much. Analogic (analogy) speaks to the soul and actually a mountain of wisdom can be attained through this method, more so than can be even comprehended by most. I think this is the one thing that your post highlights. Archetypes are very real in that they have an inter-dependent relationship with the 'real' world. You know I once heard it said that a man could sit in solitude for 40 years only with a tarot deck and understand everything there was to know about both the Universe and his own mind. That person knew what they were talking about in my humble opinion :)

[AxisMundi]

The other thing that I wanted to say is that I don't feel the dichotomy of Christianity/Satanism is really a useful one. At least regarding the fact that Christianity as we know it today is a completely bastardised and watered down practice which bares little or no resemblance to its original form. Indeed, such origins are obscured in the mists of time and perhaps the Gnostic tradition is the closest we have as an example. 'Satanism' is also term that has vague definitions and is forever debated over.

However, in terms of motive, method and ones perception of the metaphysical relationship between himself and the universe and the intent to work within that relationship, I've created the following dichotomy which I think is useful (at least for me). It delineates two completely polarised spiritual paths:

1. 'Magic' (or 'Satanism'): The individual concerned with the practice of ANY kind of ritual magic looks at the outside world and what he perceives in the final analysis is imperfection and subsequently discontent. (I should say here that I don't believe left hand/right hand path distinctions are helpful as really ALL ritual magic is in essence left hand path). What he desires is to change the world outside of himself via various means to 'suit him better'. He sees that the natural world and also individuals whom he encounters can be bent towards his own will by various degrees of manipulation which always involve interfering with the natural order of things. Such manipulation may not only involve ritual but this expression is more commonly embedded in the telling of lies which actually are a very real form of magic in that they seek to annexe the consciousness of others in order to manipulate and misdirect. The telling of all lies are at the root, a quest for power, control and dominion over another. What's even more pertinent to note is that this method ALWAYS involves interfering with the free will other beings. Whilst he usually does not acknowledge it, he perceives himself as 'God' or at least on a par with the logos as he sees the legitimacy of such interference as his birth-right. This is often attempted via various forms of ritual. The crucial distinction from the method below is that the practitioner attempts to change his inner experience by first changing the outward world.

2. Inner Alchemy/Transmutation (or 'Christianity'): Contrary to the above, this practitioner looks at his own inner landscape and personality and perceives imperfection. He realises in his wisdom that manipulation of the outside world and the manipulation of others to suit his own needs is morally entropic . However, he also knows that he may eventually be able to change the outside world by first changing himself. Contrary to path one, this does not involve interfering with the free will of other beings. It is a path of compassion and aims to serve others above self. It is also the realisation that such a path of initiation and being 'born again' necessitates an initial loss of innocence and a struggle for survival in the pursuit of Truth but that through such trials he can walk the path to freedom in the prison of life. It is a path which involves long and difficult spiritual work on the self in order to 'make himself whole' and not, as he was born a collection of fragmented 'I's' which are supremely inconsistent and in conflict with each other (see Gurdjieff). In comparison with path number one, this path is extremely rare. It is also a far more difficult and painful path. It is, in analogy the realisation that in order to reach a the summit of a mountain, one must climb it rather than believing it is his right to be delivered to the peak by a helicopter :)

These two paths are of course completely inter-dependent and can be witnessed merged in what we could call the 'Archetype of the Quest'. It is here that initiate of path two is pitted against the magic and manipulation of path one (think the story of Perseus). The archetype of The Quest is always told in the form of a long and arduous physical journey for treasure but really its the story of the human heart and of our personal healing and redemption, following the terrible trials and darkness that must be confronted, before eventually arriving with grace before unimaginable rewards. It can play out in as many ways as there are humans living and on either a personal level or indeed on a global level, as we are witnessing on Earth right now.

So I guess all I wanted to say is that to state Christianity and Satanism are a lie is to deny this fundamental human experience. From a wider perspective they are very real and indeed live in the hearts of all mankind........

[turiya]

Just as one's head is opposed to one's [smart/dumb] ass...
Truth is synonymous with intelligence... found only in absolute silence...
Whereas, the Intellect buffers one from its being realized...
Yes, I suppose, some consider the dictionary their holy book... full of noise... signifying what appears to be their great treasures of life... nothing could be further, but synonymous only with a head full of clutter.

Can't keep it out of the thread can you? Ever heard of PMs?

I can understand why you might perceive such divergence between the terms intelligence and intellect, as there are a wealth of individuals who are most want to A. use words outside their correct context and meaning and then B. exclaim all the while that they are correct (and thereby spread the misuse of the word). You are welcome to your own interpretation, but meanwhile those who utilize the english language have a benchmark for establishing something of a standardized comprehension of word meanings and definitions, and it is the dictionary; its not holy by any regard nor is it flawless, but I'm all ears if you have a more suitable reference that comes from centuries of etymological study, analysis, and application; anything at all,... wait there are none? [Wrong!].

Let's put this into context; if a person were to ask me the what the meaning of a word was, does it sound credible for me to say "Well, there are numerous dictionaries - who make it their business to research and compile word meanings - that posit the meaning to be <def. A>, but there's this Turiya character online who asserts that its <def. B> so that's what we're going with."?

Would a person who, engaged in the act of measuring lengths with precision utilize a ruler (or worse, a caliper!) be likewise chastised for relying on 'holy instruments', or would they be recognized as utilizing an adequate object designed for that express purpose (and one superior to alternatives)? Subjectivity can work for the individual, but it fails when one attempts to apply it to the aggregate.

Interestingly, this dovetails nicely with the OP in that among the principle objections first mentioned is that of individuals perceiving that their subjective interpretation of ideas neither fit nor illustrate the objective reality. To presume to understand Satanism in the inaccurate context provided by Abrahamic traditions (or even to view them as related!) is to be missing the point entirely, just as putting a little bit of spin on two words that are all-but identical and claiming a divide is doing likewise. One is well entitled to be wrong if they so desire, but they shouldn't be surprised nor offset by having it pointed out no matter the poetry by which they might excuse or disguise it. Moreover, while one might point out the centuries of precedence of the Abrahamic traditions, it is centuries of asserting their subjective interpretations as opposed to a commitment to objectivity.

In a nutshell, if inaccurate or nonviable perceptions and ideologies are not called into question and are allowed to flourish unchecked, authoritarian indoctrination is precisely what happens.

Cheers indeed.

What makes you think this should not be a part of this thread? Words are symbols...

I'll tell you what its about... its about control. Attempting to exert control over what is not understood... Its an attempt to control the flow... an attempt to keep everything inside the box that one is familiar with... Anything that runs outside of the parameters that one identifies oneself with has got to be thrown.... This is because, to allow it to enter, will cause one confusion. Touching upon a different paradigm [one that has not been previously touched upon] will usually do that. Confusion is a symptom of the ego feeling unraveled & threatened. And, to live a life that is dependent on the accumulation of information, the accumulation of words & their meanings, is living in a house of cards - a kind of superficial existence, in a sense. Another's point of view that runs counter to one's own accumulation of information, can cause the walls of the house [of one's ego] to begin to tremble. Feeling threatened, an attack is the most probable outcome, as in the "best defense is a good offense."

For example...

I submit:
"All Words are Lies". Any attempt to put 'Truth' in words would have it come out a lie!

Being an intellectual, this statement would be considered absolutely absurd. It may even bring hairs to stand up on the back of the neck, to even consider the very possibility. That is what I sense in the type of 'character' that makes up the average intellect.


http://curezone.com/upload/_T_Forums/turiya_file/LAO_TZU_3_590_X_298.png

I would submit that Lao Tzu would absolutely agree with the above statement, as he himself wrote in the Tao Te Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching) the following:


The Tao that can be told of is not the absolute Tao --Lao Tzu

Words are not able to convey much. Words by themselves lay at the superficial level of the intellect. Sometimes, a parable [a short story] is needed to help clarify a point... to become part of one's deeper understanding, dropping below the intellect... touching upon one's intelligence.

The story goes like this:
In his final days, Lao Tzu said goodbye to those that loved him dearly, as he decided to live out his final days of his life in the Himalayas. As he came to the border of China, the guard at the gate (who was also a disciple of Lao Tzu) was not willing to allow him to cross over the border until he wrote down his wisdom on paper. Then only after he did this would the guard allow him to leave China.

So, Lao Tzu spent three days in the guards hut in order to write down what he knew about the truth.

He wrote the above statement at the very beginning of what later became known as the book Tao Te Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching). He wrote that at the very beginning to serve as a warning for those that may come later to read these words. In other words, the Tao that can be put into words is not the true Tao, so whatever you read from this point on is not the truth.

Take Love for another example... Certainly the word 'Love' can be found in the dictionary. But is the word 'Love'... the Love that one is capable of experiencing? Can it fulfill the real experience of actually being in 'Love', of falling in Love? Or, take the word 'god'... can the word 'god' totally describe a godly presence? It is but only symbol, to represent a purely indefinable experience. The same with the word 'Love' can only be used as a very poor representation of the existential experience of being in 'Love'.

One cannot prove that one has fallen in love, as that is the proof "in the pudding." Surely, it is a subjective experience. But there are enough individuals have experienced this indescribable existential experience, there are plenty of "fingers pointing to the moon" of this as being part of the human experience -of being a "human being". The proof is in the pudding, that pudding is called 'living a life'.

The words contained in dictionaries are not Life. These words may be indicative of life, but they can no way considered Life itself.

If one has had an authentic experience of truth, has an actual experience of love, then one will also know what the fingers [words] are pointing to, what these symbols, words, may be attempting to indicate. Words can only be fingers pointing toward the truth, words cannot be the truth. If one has had no experience, or very little experience, of living a Life, Love, Godliness, or ever having experienced 'absolute silence', or a moment of profound bliss, then these words will have little to convey to such an individual.


Nice to have a friendly conversation.
Have a good day/night...

cheers - turiya :cool:

[Shezbeth]

Its funny that you mention that, because just yesterday I posited the same point in a thread on 'another forum'. That words are not truth is axiomatic in my estimation, though when the finger is 'pointing to the moon' it is generally preferred that the finger be pointing toward the moon; when one points to the earth and calls it the moon, they invite correction. Thank you for the refresher of the Tao though, it has been several years since the last time I read it.

However, your voluminous banter has little (if anything) to do with defining words correctly or incorrectly. In skilled hands, words can convey magnificent things, assuming one is using their words in the correct context and with the correct meaning; by 'correct' I am referring to the meanings by which the multitude refer, rather than one's personal preferences (though, there is admittedly a notable minority who likewise use words incorrectly).

The experience of - as indicated for example - love is a subjective experience of course, but one cannot substitute the word 'love' for the word 'indifference' with any credibility. To describe 'intelligence' and 'intellect' as diametrically opposed is comparably inaccurate. One's ability to wax (idiotic) is often most enthusiastically expressed when they are attempting to backpedal.

Am I to interpret that you equate disagreement with a lack of
an authentic experience of truth, [or] an actual experience of love and indicative that
one has had no experience, or very little experience, of living a Life, Love, Godliness, or ever having experienced 'absolute silence', or a moment of profound bliss ?

Why always with the attempts to dismiss? Is there some sort of rulebook about how an individual is supposed to behave after experiencing all of the above?

Again, one is entitled to their opinion,... but seeing as how they are having difficulty with clearly (and readily available) defined words (as the means of communicating ideas and concepts), I hope they will not be offended when it (and they) is(are) disregarded as spurious.

Its funny how readily individuals resort to the ''my experience is betterer than yours" defense, as though one person's experience is in some way more authentic; authoritarian nonsense.:lol:

[turiya]

Its funny that you mention that, because just yesterday I posited the same point in a thread on 'another forum'. That words are not truth is axiomatic in my estimation, though when the finger is 'pointing to the moon' it is generally preferred that the finger be pointing toward the moon; when one points to the earth and calls it the moon, they invite correction. Thank you for the refresher of the Tao though, it has been several years since the last time I read it.

However, your voluminous banter has little (if anything) to do with defining words correctly or incorrectly. In skilled hands, words can convey magnificent things, assuming one is using their words in the correct context and with the correct meaning; by 'correct' I am referring to the meanings by which the multitude refer, rather than one's personal preferences (though, there is admittedly a notable minority who likewise use words incorrectly).

My, my, it appears you are scrambling to stretch your political correctness. Oh, btw, ‘betterer’ is not a word. So much for your claim of being one having so-called “skilled hands”.

Yes, the phrase "finger pointing to the moon" is metaphorically used, just as your “gilded lily” phrase had metaphorical usage. The word 'moon' is an analogous representation with 'truth'. It is a poetic usage. Understanding that you are a die-hard intellectual, it doesn't surprise me to see that you are incapable of being flexible enough to make the appropriate adjustment, but only when it suits your own claim of having some sort of superiority - in having “skilled hands” in word usage.

It is obvious that you are “scrambling” to find fault with what I have proposed. In comparing Intelligence versus Intellect to ‘Love’ versus ‘Indifference’ comes about as close to comparing the Himalayas in Tibet with the atmosphere of Venus.

To Review:


Intelligence and Intellect are diametrically opposed to each other.
The wonders of having a "beautiful mind".


Not according to the dictionary,....
They're derived from slightly different conjugations of the same latin word, meaning that not only are the words of almost identical meaning, but the route words are all but identical; nice try tho.

A few noted quotes:
The following are some quotes by others that have made comparisons to Intelligence & Intellect:
"Never misunderstand intellect with intelligence, they are polar opposites" -- Osho

"Intellect is of the head; it is taught by others, it is imposed on you. You have to cultivate it. It is borrowed, it is something foreign, it is not inborn. But intelligence is inborn. It is your very being, your very nature" -- Osho
SOURCE (http://www.osho.com/ntb-052)

Nithyananda Sangha States:
We all use a mix of instinct, intellect, intelligence and intuition to handle our external and internal environment. Basically, all these terms refer to the same energy working at higher and higher levels of consciousness. When intellect is purified, it becomes intelligence. When intelligence is further purified, it becomes intuition. The more consciousness you are able to bring into your life, into your responses, your decisions, the higher the chance there is that you are operating at the level of intellect or intelligence.

Are you entirely aware of what goes on inside your head?

Our interactions with ourselves and the world are always a mix of conscious and unconscious perceptions. If the number of unconscious perceptions or actions are greater than your conscious perceptions or actions, it means you are operating at the level of instinct. If your conscious and unconscious processes are more or less equal, you are operating at the level of intellect. If your conscious process is faster than your unconscious process, you are using intelligence. When you operate totally out of awareness, you make the leap to intuition.

All of us use all these processes at different times. Moreover, they are not clearly demarcated, but flow into one another. It is simply a process of greater and greater refinement of the same energy, greater and greater awareness being brought in when handling the same energy. Intellect is what you normally use when making your decisions.

Intellect uses only logic to act. It does not know any other language. Intelligence is more creative, more constructive. It knows how to respond to life moment to moment, how to be awake to the challenge of the moment. Intelligence is aware of the situation, it can alter the answers according to the demands of the moment. Intuition is when the decision simply happens as a revelation! It happens from the energy of your being, not from the space of the mind. Meditation brings in the awareness to go from intellect to intelligence to intuition. With meditation, you go beyond the mind, into the space of just being, where understanding and action both happen spontaneously.
SOURCE (http://www.nithyananda.org/article/instinct-intellect-intelligence-intuition#gsc.tab=0) http://www.nithyananda.org/article/instinct-intellect-intelligence-intuition#gsc.tab=0

J Krishnamurti States:
Intellect vs. Intelligence
Training the intellect does not result in intelligence. Rather, intelligence comes into being when one acts in perfect harmony, both intellectually and emotionally. There is a vast distinction between intellect and intelligence. Intellect is merely thought functioning independently of emotion. When intellect, irrespective of emotion, is trained in any particular direction, one may have great intellect, but one does not have intelligence, because in intelligence there is the inherent capacity to feel as well as to reason; in intelligence both capacities are equally present, intensely and harmoniously.

If you bring your emotions into business, you say, business cannot be well managed or be honest. So you divide your mind into compartments: in one compartment you keep your religious interest, in another your emotions, in a third your business interest which has nothing to do with your intellectual and emotional life. Your business mind treats life merely as a means of getting money in order to live. So this chaotic existence, this division of your life continues. If you really used your intelligence in business, that is, if your emotions and your thought were acting harmoniously, your business might fail. It probably would. And you will probably let it fail when you really feel the absurdity, the cruelty, and the exploitation that is involved in this way of living.

Until you really approach all of life with your intelligence, instead of merely with your intellect, no system in the world will save man from the ceaseless toil for bread.
SOURCE: (http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20140907.php) http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20140907.php

Psychology Today States:
Intellect and Intelligence
In those long ago days just after World War II, when reading Psychology at the University of London, it was constantly stressed that Intellect and Intelligence should not be seen as synonymous terms—even though their symbiotic relationship in consciousness must be recognized.

Intellect was seen to denote cognition—the rational mental processes that constitute ‘knowing’: the ability to identify and analyze, memorize, and categorize… the physical characteristics and implications of whatever thing or event is perceived by the senses, thus bringing one to comprehend the objective facts of the external situation.

Intelligence, however, was regarded as a mental faculty in its own right—a function of consciousness taking one beyond the facts as such, to suggest meaning or purpose, and determine the course of action to be taken.

It is a level of consciousness that is triggered by the arousal of Feeling: the psychological phenomenon that accompanies every act of cognition—the ‘felt-thoughts’ that bring to mind one’s latent emotions and sensibilities that accompany not only every sensory experience of the external world... but also attend those moments when internally generated abstract ideas and thoughts take over consciousness. It is the way we feel, and the strength of feeling, that determines how we evaluate the facts of life and how we are driven to respond to them. ‘Feeling-attitudes’ motivate the actions we take: they may stir little or no interest or engage a questing curiosity; give rise to enthusiasms and passions demanding creative (intelligent) responses; or provoke apprehension, fear and a negative retreat.

Intellect (Fact) and Intelligence (Feeling) determine the existential course of one’s journey through life.
SOURCE: (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-consciousness-question/201205/intellect-and-intelligence)

I would dismiss your latest comment as your attempt to make mad scramble in a nonsensical fashion in an attempt to find solid ground to replant your feet on - backpedaling, indeed, can be appropriately applied here.

Best regards with doing that...
turiya :cool:

[Shezbeth]

<sigh> :boom:

One's penchant for taking things out of context knows no bounds apparently, and while I uttered the phrase 'skilled hands' I clearly was not referring to myself, as my ability to convey to select individuals is clearly lacking; I take full responsibility, and will endeavor to avoid overt eloquence artistic license misunderstanding.

In the interest of not being further misconstrued,....

The only scrambling that is actually going on is maintaining the prescribed code of conduct of the forum in the face of glaring idiocy insufferable petulance vacuous nonsense perseverant inquiry; beyond that 'ducks in a barrel' is a more apt qualification, though I am admittedly making a bit of a game of aesthetics making it entertaining for the reader.

One may note that I refer to the concepts of intelligence and intellect as being all but identical; if one were to draw a venn diagram vesica pisces two overlapping circles, the circles where one represents the intelligence and the other the intellect, the two circles would almost overlap. I do not contest that there is a difference between the two, but to claim diametric opposition - by you or this Osho person (or others) - is patently and axiomatically false not supportable by the evidence (as opposed to individual conjecture).

Incidentally, I am well aware that 'betterer' is not a word; it was an ironic joke about how when one is quick to attempt to correct others they ought make certain they are not overlooking an obvious error of their own. I had hoped that might be amusing,....

Finally - for the moment - thank you for supplying those quotes and references; they don't change anything however, as I have quite clearly indicated (previously and now) that I am not asserting that intelligence and intellect are identical. Some of your references very obviously corroborate what I have suggested, while others have reaffirmed my previous perception that there are individuals who either/or (both?) don't know what they're talking about or are waxing idiotic, and this has been most useful to that end.

<cracks knuckles>

The immediate and obvious question is, "WTF does this have anything to do with the OP?"

At face value, absolutely nothing; but watch as I pull a rabbit out of a hat!

But that trick never works!

In the same vein by which Christians inaccurately depict Satanists via their preconceived notions of Satan (and any who would otherwise be associated, if only by terminology) this exchange offers a parallel insight into the realm of subjectivity/preconception vs. objectivity/analysis.

While a multitude of resources are readily available by which Christians (in particular, Abrahamics in general) may dispel the many aspects of their perceptions re: Satanism, the most glaring observation that a 3rd party could assert is that these resources are not being utilized. In the same sense, 'intelligence' and 'intellect' can be readily compared and observed in their glaring similarity (as opposed to 'diametric opposition', which is synonymous with 'polar opposition') if adequately and properly researched; as previously indicated (in thread) the terms are derived from the same word.

Naturally there are going to be available references that simply haven't bothered to do the math research, and likewise there are those who will labor (and articulate) under the illusion of their predisposed perspective despite all attempts to suggest alternative ideas; in this day and age one can quite easily find a wealth of individuals who will inaccurately (but positively) assert the incorrect number of states in the United States (for example, or whatever preferred country); reaffirmation of incorrect assertion does not equate to a correct position.

Moreover, the caution and/or re-evaluation that the OP suggests seems to be directed toward one's understandings, rather than toward a particular group; what is at fault is the 'known' simply because it is 'known' (and thereby in the mind of the person who thinks they know, false)

In closing, I would invite that one re-read their initial reference, as - almost from the beginning - my main assertion is validated.


Basically, all these terms refer to the same energy working at higher and higher levels of consciousness.

Until next!

P.S. Unless relevant to the thread, may I request that this be rendered in PM? Edit: Nevermind, I had thought that this exchange was discouraging interest/participation; I stand corrected.

[ulli]

Please don't take this to PM. I am enjoying your dialogue, finding it intellectually entertaining, although it might not do much to enhance my own intelligence.

Right here and now reading both of you while my Osho and Krishnamurti books are rotting on the shelves.
That is very telling, is it not?

Shezbeth slightly ahead of Turiya due to Turiya not capturing the subtlety of Shezbeth's use of the word "betterer" which I had recognized as a tongue-in-cheek statement.

But then my approach to this thread was one of relaxed attitude, which may not be the current reality of either of you, both being engaged in intense dialogue.

:popcorn:

[Jake]

Please don't take this to PM. I am enjoying your dialogue, finding it intellectually entertaining, although it might not do much to enhance my own intelligence.

Right here and now reading both of you while my Osho and Krishnamurti books are rotting on the shelves.
That is very telling, is it not?

Shezbeth slightly ahead of Turiya due to Turiya not capturing the subtlety of Shezbeth's use of the word "betterer" which I had recognized as a tongue-in-cheek statement.

But then my approach to this thread was one of relaxed attitude, which may not be the current reality of either of you, both being engaged in intense dialogue.

:popcorn:


I must admit, I am enjoying the wordsmithing... :) A much betterer style of engaging than rudeness and arrogance... (Not, NOT referring to anyone here.) I have fancied myself 'wordy' in the past. I find myself taking notes and reading with a vigor... (if that is possible,, lol,,)

Cheers,
Jake

[outerheaven]

I'm glad someone's enjoying it. I've always appreciated that Avalon was, for the most part, a great deal more civil and above this kind of stuff that makes up 95% of web forums.

These public jousts have always seem so antiquated to me. But the fights in grade school always needed an audience to fuel it, I suppose.

All I can say is, it's not unexpected; when a conversation (thread) starts off with stamping all over everyone's toes, it's only a matter of time before the discussion at large turns to pointless bickering.

edit: ^^^ looks like I had to join in on the fun, too. See?! SEE WHAT YOU MADE ME DO?! OK, I feel better now. ^_^

[turiya]

"WTF does this have anything to do with the OP?"
Do I really have to remind you the name of this thread is "Why Satanism (and Christianity) is a lie."

As I said earlier... "All words are Lies."
The following is from the OP: "It's all a lie, all of it, including Satan"

If one is taken in by any of the symbolism being true, and all words are but symbols, then one is allowing oneself to be taken in by the lies, in believing them to be true, believing them to have a power & an affect over you. Just know from the beginning - cut it off at the root, just know that all the words, rituals, symbolism is utter BS, then you can save yourself from buying into a false narrative & being taken for a ride. Just waking up to this fact, then it has zero effect over you.


Everything is Subjective
If you really spend time to examine the typical communication process - between what is said by one individual & what is heard, or read, by another individual - the transfer of information is bound to be incomplete...

In other words - Everything is subjective - there is some miscommunication / misinterpretation that is bound to occur. The speaker is saying one thing, and the listener hears something else... it all depends on the individual(s) that are involved.


Words Change

It simply shows that language is alive & not a dead thing, not rigidly etched into a stone dictionary.

ABANDON
We use the word to mean “give up completely”, like abandoning hope, abandoning a baby or surrendering ourselves to emotion. But in 14th century Middle English it meant “to subjugate or subdue” someone or something – coming from the French phrase “mettre a bandon” meaning “to give up to a public ban”.
ADDICT
In Roman times addicts were broke folk given as slaves to the people they owed money to. It comes from the Latin addictus, which meant “a debtor awarded as a slave to his creditor”. In the 1600s it was used in the sense of giving yourself to someone or some practice. Only in the early 1900s did it become associated with dependency on morphine and later other drugs.
ASSASSIN
Far from Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s highly charged characters in 2005 action flick Mr and Mrs Smith, it seems “assassin” is the Arabic word for “hashish eater” – because warriors used to get doped up. At the time of the Crusades, fanatics were sent by their sheikh to murder Christian leaders. An explanation from 1860 says: “The assassins, before they attacked an enemy, would intoxicate themselves with a powder made of hemp leaves, out of which they prepared an inebriating electuary, called hashish.”
AWFUL
In the 1300s it originally meant “inspiring wonder” and was a short version of “full of awe”. But now the word has purely negative connotations.
BIMBO
From “bambino”, the Italian word for “little child”, it once meant “fellow, chap or one of the boys” in theatrical circles. By the 1900s it had come to mean a “stupid, inconsequential man or contemptible person”. In 1920s America through the pages of Variety magazine, it meant an immoral woman or “floozie”. Then it reappeared in the 1980s during US political scandals, with other versions such as “bimbette” and a male form “himbo” – taking it full circle.
BROADCAST
It may now be the way the BBC spreads the news, but in 1767 “broadcast” meant sowing seeds with a sweeping movement of the hand or a “broad cast”. Its media use began with radio in 1922.
BULLY
Referring to someone as a bully in the 16th century was like calling them “darling” or “sweetheart” – probably from the Dutch word “boel”, meaning lover or brother. But the meaning deteriorated in the 17th century through “fine fellow” and “blusterer”, to “harasser of the weak”. However, an American slang term of the 1860s, “bully for you”, gave the word a more positive sense again.
CUTE
Cute was a shortened form of acute, meaning “keenly perceptive and shrewd” in the 1730s. But by the 1830s it was part of American student slang, meaning “pretty, charming and dainty”. And, bizarrely, the original sense of “dainty” was “worthy and substantial”.
DECIMATE
We use the term to mean “totally destroy” but the original definition was “to kill one in 10”. The brutal practice was used by the Roman army in the fifth century BC as a way to inspire fear and loyalty. Lots were drawn and one out of every 10 soldiers would be killed by their own comrades. If one member of a squad acted up, anybody could pay the ultimate price.
FANTASTIC
If you’re thinking of telling your beloved how fantastic they look today, think again. Unless, that is, they look like a Hobbit or an Avatar (whatever floats your boat). The 14th century meaning is “existing only in imagination”, from the old French term “fantastique”. It was not until 1938 that the word was first used to mean “wonderful or marvellous”.
GARBLE
Garble originally meant to sort something out – not to mess it up. It comes from a 15th century Anglo-French word “garbeler”, meaning “to sift” and the Arabic “gharbala” Which meant sifting and selecting spices. It changed in the 1680s and was instead used to describe mixed up, confused or distorted language.
GAY
Back in the 13th century the word meant “light-hearted” or “joyous” and a century later it meant “bright and showy”. But in the 1630s it acquired connotations of immorality with the term “Gay woman” meaning prostitute or “gay house” a brothel. It was first used to refer to homosexuality in the 1930s.
HUSBAND
The Old German words “hus” and “bunda” mean “house” and “owner”. “Husband” originally had nothing to do with marital status at all, except that home ownership made husbands extremely desirable marriage partners in the 13th century. The slang shortening it to “hubby” was first used in the 1680s.
MATRIX
You may be thinking of Keanu Reeves in his 1999 hit sci-fi movie. But in reality “matrix” comes from the 14th century French word meaning “pregnant animal”. It went on to mean “womb or source”. Eventually in 1555 it was adapted to mean “a place where something is developed”.
NERVOUS
In the 1400s a nervous person was actually “sinewy and vigorous” – as the Latin word nervus applied to both sinews and nerves. By 1665 nerves were better understood and by 1734 the term meant “suffering a disorder of the nervous system”. By 1740 it meant “restless, agitated, lacking nerve” and it then became a widespread euphemism for mental illness – forcing the medical community to coin “neurological” to replace it in the older sense. “Nervous wreck” was first used in 1899.
NICE
Derived from the Latin nescius meaning “ignorant”, the word began life in the 14th century as a term for “foolish” or “silly”. It soon embraced bad qualities, such as wantonness, extravagance, cowardice and sloth. In the Middle Ages it took on the more neutral attributes of shyness and reserve. Society’s admiration of such qualities in the 18th century brought on the more positively charged meanings of “nice” we know today.
SILLY:
Meanwhile, silly went in the opposite direction: in its earliest uses, it referred to things worthy or blessed; from there it came to refer to the weak and vulnerable, and more recently to those who are foolish.
AWFUL:
Awful things used to be “worthy of awe” for a variety of reasons, which is how we get expressions like “the awful majesty of God.”
NAUGHTY:
Long ago, if you were naughty, you had naught or nothing. Then it came to mean evil or immoral, and now you are just badly behaved.
EGREGIOUS:
It used to be possible for it to be a good thing to be egregious: it meant you were distinguished or eminent. But in the end, the negative meaning of the word won out, and now it means that someone or something is conspicuously bad — not conspicuously good.
Source (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/words-literally-changed-meaning-through-2173079)


What Makes a Word Real?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6NU0DMjv0Y
Published on Jun 17, 2014


One could argue that slang words like 'hangry,' 'defriend' and 'adorkable' fill crucial meaning gaps in the English language, even if they don't appear in the dictionary. After all, who actually decides which words make it into those vaulted pages? Language historian Anne Curzan gives a charming look at the humans behind dictionaries, and the choices they make on a constant basis.

[Shezbeth]

It is true that the meanings behind words can be observed to change over time, where new meanings are added to a word while others are removed. Please keep me posted if/when 'Intelligence' and 'Intellect' likewise change, as for the moment there seems to be a veritable consensus that their meanings have not changed and refer to interrelated ideas.

It is further true that the subjective interpretation of the recipient is unavoidable, but there are steps that can be taken to mediate and/or minimize any misunderstanding that might occur, and that is done by maintaining one's perception of word meanings as relates to the aggregate perception. In that there will always be differences in both opinion and research level, it is quite impossible for one's definition to be agreeable to all others, so a compromise is inevitable. How one chooses to compromise is entirely their prerogative, though my suggestion would be that it behooves one to opt in a manner that agrees first with those who make a regular process of developing/maintaining their understandings (follow-up, further inquiry, etc.) and second with the target audience. I advise so because in the event that one's audience finds themselves disagreeing with a particular word or concept, any follow-up will most likely be done by confirming from among the first group, who one will have already harmonized with.

[turiya]

It is true that the meanings behind words can be observed to change over time, where new meanings are added to a word while others are removed. Please keep me posted if/when 'Intelligence' and 'Intellect' likewise change, as for the moment there seems to be a veritable consensus that their meanings have not changed and refer to interrelated ideas.

It is further true that the subjective interpretation of the recipient is unavoidable, but there are steps that can be taken to mediate and/or minimize any misunderstanding that might occur, and that is done by maintaining one's perception of word meanings as relates to the aggregate perception. In that there will always be differences in both opinion and research level, it is quite impossible for one's definition to be agreeable to all others, so a compromise is inevitable. How one chooses to compromise is entirely their prerogative, though my suggestion would be that it behooves one to opt in a manner that agrees first with those who make a regular process of developing/maintaining their understandings (follow-up, further inquiry, etc.) and second with the target audience. I advise so because in the event that one's audience finds themselves disagreeing with a particular word or concept, any follow-up will most likely be done by confirming from among the first group, who one will have already harmonized with.

Shezbeth
Thank you for your response.

I have just sent an email to Anne Curzan, the TED Talk speaker in the above video.



To: Anne Curzan

Just want to say that I enjoyed your TED talk presentation on "What Makes A Word Real". From that presentation you had a short discourse regarding dictionaries regarding Usage Panels of which I understand that as of 2005 you are presently an adviser.

The Indian mystic Osho Rajneesh has authored more than 698 books to his credit. All of which have been transcribed from lectures via audio/video recordings. While doing research on the words 'Intelligence' vs 'Intellect', I find many of the dictionaries attribute the same meaning(s) to both these words. I don't think that this should be the case.

Please consider bringing the following quotes of wisdom into making a better distinction between the two terms 'Intelligence' vs 'Intellect' into the next meeting of the Usage Panel that you are a member. - Thank you.
(I included the quotes that I laid out in another one of my posts above.)


I will let you know...
Regards
turiya :cool:

[Shezbeth]

Thank you for keeping me posted.

I notice however, that you are appealing to the orator that change could be made along the lines with your preferred interpretation. This serves to indicate that - at current - the consensus among industry interpretation seems to find my posited perceptions to be consistent with the sophisticated and authoritative meanings both researched and maintained. So, while it is important to be aware that the meanings and definitions change over time - and to likewise keep one's self appraised of those meanings and changes - it would seem that if only for the moment, the linguistics which I have thus presented and advocated seem to be accurate. ^_~

Good luck to you (and Osho)! I will be most amused to find that a more precise definition was developed from this little forum exchange!

[lightseeker]

Raf, I could not agree more. The subject of religion is one that I have stayed away from given that my views and research and experiences have brought me to similar conclusions as yourself. When ever I would raise the subject of the origins of some of these beliefs that you have mentioned during conversation with friends or family I would often receive very negative reactions. It seems to me that humans Love their superstitions, as did I at one time. I got over them and move on, even though I have be told I will end up in some hell for not believing in the b?st. LOL!

[turiya]

Thank you for keeping me posted.

I notice however, that you are appealing to the orator that change could be made along the lines with your preferred interpretation. This serves to indicate that - at current - the consensus among industry interpretation seems to find my posited perceptions to be consistent with the sophisticated and authoritative meanings both researched and maintained. So, while it is important to be aware that the meanings and definitions change over time - and to likewise keep one's self appraised of those meanings and changes - it would seem that if only for the moment, the linguistics which I have thus presented and advocated seem to be accurate. ^_~

Good luck to you (and Osho)! I will be most amused to find that a more precise definition was developed from this little forum exchange!

I purposely put the reference to Osho to put it as an extra barrier to overcome, or ignore, by Anne Curzan, as she specifically stated in that TED talk that she leaves her own opinion out of making such determinations - for herself & for other panel members. It makes it more a significant test for the proposed change to overcome - a double test qualifier, one might say.

later...

[Shezbeth]

Unfortunately (IMO) Raf has decided to resign from Avalon. I hope no one minds if I steer this thing back on its initial course,....


1. 'Magic' (or 'Satanism'): The individual concerned with the practice of ANY kind of ritual magic looks at the outside world and what he perceives in the final analysis is imperfection and subsequently discontent. [...] 2. Inner Alchemy/Transmutation (or 'Christianity'): Contrary to the above, this practitioner looks at his own inner landscape and personality and perceives imperfection.

While I agree that there are members of both camps who operate in kind to your depiction, it is not nearly as cut and dry as it is quoted above nor illustrated further above. For starters, there are a multitude of gray areas - or practices if you will - that adhere to neither example. Beyond that, there is a great deal of ritual practice (magic) inherent to Inner Alchemy, and there are a great number of types of magic that involve no ritual whatsoever.

As far as can be seen, the OP was particularly directed toward individuals who perceive both Christianity and Satanism (the 'anti-Christian' variety) as being literal histories/traditions, whereas I doubt that there is/was any begrudgement toward metaphorical interpretation. That all traditions are rife with occulted (yes, occulted) meaning and ideology seems something of a given, but that doesn't seem the principle objection. Aside from interpretation, the underlying issue was with individuals who are particularly unfamiliar with true Christian history and development, which is often overlooked even by devout adherents.

Make no mistake; prayer is a form of magic, and most often a ritual one at that. To equate magic exclusively with Satanism is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Mu2143]

When you speak words there is a color attached to it ,just like your aura.
That is what most people can't see and would be handy ,just to know.
The color should be White while speaking if it is red it hurt people.
You know it makes it realy hard to speak if you don't know what is troubling you.

[Shezbeth]

Begging your pardon, but what you suggest is not supportable. If anything, the color you perceive is derived from an interpretation of it, not from a particular objective quality of the words or meanings. If there are some corroborative references for this 'white', 'red', etc. business it would be helpful to share, else what you have suggested is merely an authoritarian assertion and has nothing to do with this thread topic.

Red and white indeed. What color is this sentence?

Ladies and gentlemen, please comprehend; everyone is entitled to their own subjective perceptions and interpretations. It is healthy to have them and maintain them, but the crux of the issue is when one's subjective interpretations fly in the face of objective analysis. The two should work together, not be at odds with one another. There are obvious cases where this is impossible (MSM reporting vs. real world activity), and I would even go so far as to suggest that any time the subjective position is disparate to the objective analysis there is an agenda (or several) at work.

While not overtly doing so, this thread is about addressing one's own subjective biases surrounding particular concepts. I suggest individuals who might find the thread title medially offensive could stand to thicken their skins a bit, take a deep breath, and consider reevaluating what is sacred; not just in their eyes, but in the eyes of everyone else.

Admittedly, I didn't write the thread title and am just sitting in as a proxy because I agree with the general premise and because I find it has valuable points, especially in dispelling some of the more egregious oversights of the named groups and ideologies,... but I can comprehend why some are disinclined to dispel those too. ^_~

[outerheaven]

Red and white indeed. What color is this sentence?


Ooo! Gunmetal grey.

[araucaria]

Turiya, post #132, you continue to tout this mantra ‘All words are lies’: I counted 16 different posts, but none so far responding to my objections. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?62627-Covert-Hostility-..the-Tone-Level-...-WHAT-IT-IS&p=720841&viewfull=1#post720841

This mantra actually contradicts your remark that ‘language is alive & not a dead thing’. Mantras are dead things, which is why they are the stuff of religion. If the etymology of the word ‘religion’ (to bind) is correct, it is because we are tied up by something that is dead. An altar is not just a place of sacrifice, it is also a funerary monument to some saint, and literally holds their physical relics. Hence if religion is a lie, then a living, evolving language is exactly the opposite of religion. If one muddies the water to the point of blurring this polarity, then we have nowhere to go and literally nothing more to say, and the logical response is to retire from this and any forum – to a hermitage.

To say ‘All words are lies’, i.e. malicious falsehoods, amounts to saying ‘all cutting instruments are weapons’ or ‘all pineapples are grenades’. You can see anything as a weapon, and indeed use most things as such, but until further notice, I believe this forum is a place where, rather than weaponizing the one thing we have at our disposal, namely language, we are trying to de-escalate the violence in the world.

It is a simple fact that if you can weaponize words, then you can equally use them in a myriad other pacific ways as well, including poetry and music, where the very notion of lying is moot. Or try comforting someone without words: it can be done, but far from easily. Try advising or encouraging them without words: even more difficult. Try reasoning them without words, try getting them not to jump off that tall building or not to shoot their hostage: as far as I know, there is no better way than simply talking to them – but with lies? I don’t think so. With what then? By engaging their soul with one’s own: there is no other way. Sure, words are mere signposts, but when pointed in the right direction, they are helpful and often necessary in getting you to your destination.

Religion may be a signpost pointing in the wrong direction or none. Death is a signpost pointing in the wrong direction: gravestones saying ‘Here lies Joe Smith or Mary Jones’ are lies of sorts (pun intended) – but not total lies unless the label (name) does not correspond to the mortal remains so described. Normally speaking, while we know the actual entity is identifiable with neither, the entity who used the name also used the body under the stone. Hence the statement is misleading, whether deliberate or otherwise is ultimately immaterial. Paradoxically however, the religious person is the one least likely to be misled.

Another paradox: there are two things (basically one and the same thing) we can take away from the story of Jesus. One is the cashless society: overturning the money-lenders’ tables – no monetarization. The other is the tombless society: resurrection as a refusal to take the graveyard stuff or the political assassination stuff seriously – no weaponization. No tomb, no altar, no religion. This is Jesus himself telling us, Religion is a dead-end. No ‘silent as the grave’: keep talking.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?61765-Enlightenment-and-Male-Vanity&p=713057&viewfull=1#post713057
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?61765-Enlightenment-and-Male-Vanity&p=713140&viewfull=1#post713140

[donk]

Beautifully stated arau, I’d venture to add that both personal responsibility and unconditional can be taught or learned through many of Jesus’ stories/quotes, and empowerment and the miracle of life can be found in some of the central tenants of “Satanism”, if you can walk a little down the left hand (selfish) path without going too far or living it too much.

The lie in all comes from the emotional attachments you inject into them, or read into the ones transmitted to you. To reiterate what arau eloquently states (if I may be so bold): I feel it is important to find a common ground, without loving detachment it is difficult to reach, in our current incarnation nearly impossible without language.

[Cydonia]

My first reply on this eye opening forum, bit hesitant as I'm not well read on certain subjects. But from my heart I believe love is the all conquering emotion here. I've known people who've followed the infamous satanist Crowley and from observations really follow his works like the bible, particularly the book of law. But to me as satan is a construct of Christianity or ancient beliefs , it's a duality good/bad etc . To me satan is real in the sense of bad energy, watch the Grammys or any high profile music show and openly they pledge themselves to this illusional entity, so to be positive and have moral values is something to hold onto, as they they try to corrupt our souls everyday. So yes to me satanism is not existant, so without the devil there can't be god, but caution should be shown on the negativity the entertainment industry releases, because to me it looks like satan exists for them.