Religion..

[deano]

Created with evil intentions to manipulate humanity?

or

Naturally happened and then manipulated by the eilte?

Did Humans see aliens and thought they was gods,and thats how religions started?

What are your views on religion

[sweet cheeks]

Created with evil intentions to manipulate humanity?

or

Naturally happened and then manipulated by the eilte?

Did Humans see aliens and thought they was gods,and thats how religions started?

What are your views on religion

I believe - NOW - that religion is/was manufactured for many reasons, but not to help the people.

It was put into place for the gullible, the scared, scared of death, and the weak.

First of all what better way to "control" a human being, but, through "beliefs"??

And second of all we/they believe it, because we are afraid of death.

Ever heard of "Freud"?? Watch a video on google video called "The Century of Self".

He knew how to manipulate minds.....

It was no different back in the day when folks were'nt as savvy as they are today, not that they are super smart or anything! :rolleyes:

Ya know that song? Row, row, row your boat....LIFE IS BUT A DREAM.....:D

[funky rusty sherrif star]

www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com

[rcox]

I believe that all religions, at their core, contain fundamental truths in how to attain spiritual enlightenment. However, through hundreds and sometimes thousands of years of misinterpretation, purposeful manipulation, etc. religious writings in their current understanding have lost any meaningful purpose other than to divide populations.

I read some books by a great spiritual teacher named Eckhart Tolle who weaves together teachings from various religious disciplines in a consistent manner that supports the idea that at their core all religions point to one spiritual teaching--getting in touch with the present moment, disidentifying with your mind, and realizing your eternal nature that lies hidden within every being.

David Icke has always stated that the primary way to fight the Illuminati is to disidentify from the Matrix or mental emotional prison that most people live in, and Eckhart Tolle offers a way to do exactly that. If you decide to read any of his works, I recommend you read "The Power of Now" first, then, if necessary, read "A New Earth".

[follz19]

Religion was created funtamentally for human control. They were created to divide and rule and they rule through that word called fear. As David Icke has long pointed out, Jesus is symbolic of the Sun and a complilation of the much more ancient stories of Isis and Horus, Krishna and many others.

[awakensong]

Now that I'm re-reading "Infinite Love is the Only Truth", I see that religion was created 'by' the Matrix 'for' the Matrix. They feed off our energies of worship and fear. Who but an entity with a huge ego would want, need or demand worship? I used to be a music and worship minister in churches and bible studies, and then when my eyes were opened I was totally astonished at what we were all doing.

Who wrote the very first so-called sacred scriptures? Was it the Vedas, or the Sumerian texts, or....? By whom were they written, and how did this first person receive that knowledge?

Religion has done more to cause war, hatred, bigotry and division than any other single thing on this planet. Certainly there are people who believe they receive comfort from it, but that is still a 'belief' taken on 'faith' and it continues to separate them into a duality of living, which is counterproductive to the comfort being sought.

I continue, however, to support my statement posted below my signature, because each person must go through the levels and stages of conscious awareness that are right for them. I believe in acceptance of all different paths, "as long as" they allow the same in return.

"Live and let live; Believe and let believe"

[horseflesh]

As far as I'm concerned, religion is the ultimate in mind control, all manufactured by the lizards/annunaki. Like most propaganda it uses a lot of truth with a few lies thrown in to suit their agenda of enslavement and bloodshed.

And it doesn't matter if you believe the bible or not

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he (they) didn't exist

The "devil" is real, there is no "god".

[awakensong]

I think I have to at least partially agree with you on this, horseflesh. The way I see/ understand it is "god" and "satan" are two sides of the same coin; i.e., they are vibrational frequencies that we either do or don't align ourselves with.

[sweet cheeks]

I think I have to at least partially agree with you on this, horseflesh. The way I see/ understand it is "god" and "satan" are two sides of the same coin; i.e., they are vibrational frequencies that we either do or don't align ourselves with.

Dorina
Live and let live; Believe and let believe.

Yeah, yeah, Opposames! :D

[awakensong]

Okay, so, according to Icke, wouldn't that make the Devil and God part of the "God Program" spoken of in "Infinite Love Is The Only Truth", and part of the Matrix?

How then, is it a 'trick of the devil', as horseflesh has said, to believe the world doesn't exist, if the Matrix is the whole trick in the first place?

[horseflesh]

I haven't read any of David's books, but I have watched a lot of his speeches on the web.

I personally don't believe there is any kind of spiritual answer, it's all very well having the ability to change your own reality and to love everyone, but to me that's not going to change the fact that we are enslaved. It just makes you feel a bit better about it, which I suppose can be a good thing, it's just not my thing. :)

Quote awakensong: "How then, is it a 'trick of the devil', as horseflesh has said, to believe the world doesn't exist, if the Matrix is the whole trick in the first place?"

I didn't say that "the world doesn't exist", what I was trying to say is that the 'devil' is real and 'god' is the 'devil', who mankind has been tricked into thinking is a good thing. They created us and they control most of us.

[seamus]

Religion was created funtamentally for human control. They were created to divide and rule and they rule through that word called fear. As David Icke has long pointed out, Jesus is symbolic of the Sun and a complilation of the much more ancient stories of Isis and Horus, Krishna and many others.

I belong to a spiritual brotherhood who view all clergy/laity arrangements (including non-judaeo-christian ones) as manifestations of the "Nicolaitans". The word means "those who conquer the people". Don't believe the christian commentaries that say there was a cat named Nicolaus who taught sexual immorality. The meaning of "Nicolaitan" is plainly contained in its structure. It is no mistake that in the book of Revelation, the Nicolaitans were condemned, and one church who were doing almost everything wrong were partially praised in that they have this one thing going for them: they hated the Nicolaitans. When the Nicolaitans finally succeeded at squelching the voice of the general membership of the early church, it was effectively dead, which is what the Masters of the Nicolaitans (demons and maybe reptiles too or maybe they are the same thing) wanted.

It doesn't take massive moves of reptilians to accomplish this, either. All it takes is for a few people to get egotistical, and you start to see it happen. They start being unkind to people who don't speak as well, they start giving long-winded sermons, they start wearing fancier and fancier clothes to the gatherings while the widows lack proper clothing... before you know it, your new spiritual movement is DEAD.

s

[awakensong]

I didn't say that "the world doesn't exist", what I was trying to say is that the 'devil' is real and 'god' is the 'devil', who mankind has been tricked into thinking is a good thing. They created us and they control most of us.

Okay, I agree that the devil is who the world and church thinks god is, but I don't think "they" created more than our physical bodies. But even then, if the body is just an illusion, then it's just the illusion itself that has been created, right?

[awakensong]

I didn't say that "the world doesn't exist", what I was trying to say is that the 'devil' is real and 'god' is the 'devil', who mankind has been tricked into thinking is a good thing. They created us and they control most of us.

So my question again is, is "THAT" the trick? Is it the Matrix trying to make us think we are not separate? Here is something I read a couple weeks ago, as food for thought on this:

Transcending the Control System: Synopsis of the Alien Master Plan (http://montalk.net/alien/35/synopsis-of-the-alien-master-plan)

And a couple of years ago I began reading this. I don't think it is explained correctly from either viewpoint, but it also is interesting food for thought:

Oneness vs. Separation (http://world.std.com/~snet/lovewill.htm)

I personally don't believe there is any kind of spiritual answer, it's all very well having the ability to change your own reality and to love everyone, but to me that's not going to change the fact that we are enslaved. It just makes you feel a bit better about it, which I suppose can be a good thing, it's just not my thing.

Isn't Icke's position that the answer is we are to "log off" from the Matrix program, and "log on" to Infinite Consciousness which is Infinite Love, and that all else is illusion?

[horseflesh]

Okay, I agree that the devil is who the world and church thinks god is, but I don't think "they" created more than our physical bodies. But even then, if the body is just an illusion, then it's just the illusion itself that has been created, right?

This is where my opinion differs from David's, I don't see the body as being an illusion. Who knows, he may be right, I just have difficulty with this concept.

[horseflesh]

So my question again is, is "THAT" the trick? Is it the Matrix trying to make us think we are not separate? Here is something I read a couple weeks ago, as food for thought on this:

Transcending the Control System: Synopsis of the Alien Master Plan (http://montalk.net/alien/35/synopsis-of-the-alien-master-plan)

And a couple of years ago I began reading this. I don't think it is explained correctly from either viewpoint, but it also is interesting food for thought:

Oneness vs. Separation (http://world.std.com/~snet/lovewill.htm)



Isn't Icke's position that the answer is we are to "log off" from the Matrix program, and "log on" to Infinite Consciousness which is Infinite Love, and that all else is illusion?

The only illusions that I can see are religion, law, politics and fear that have been thrust upon us. The rest of the world is as real as it gets.

As far as 'logging off' goes, to me that can only mean death, and death is the end of us as we know ourselve's to be.

It's my belief that our souls are actually our DNA. It's widely accepted that our memories are stored in the brain. I don't think our DNA has the capacity to retain memories. When we die our DNA returns to the earth and emerges in many different forms with no memory of who we are/were. Only experience in your present form dictates who we are now, whether this be mammal, plant, insect etc. All life on this planet is one.

However the human DNA has been tampered with or possibly even been created from scratch by the 'gods' and is having a negative impact on all life as we can see, humans don't exactly fit in the natural balance of things, because our DNA has been 'programmed' to make us behave this way for the benefit of 'them'.

[awakensong]

When we die our DNA returns to the earth and emerges in many different forms with no memory of who we are/were.

That sure goes against all the people, including myself, who can remember past lives. Have you read the books of Dr. Ian Stevenson who investigated all this and came as close to verifying it as mainstream science can?

My own personal view of "illusion" is anything that is not permanent or eternal. Only Infinite Consciousness is permanent and never changes, so that must be where David gets his idea that the only truth is Consciousness/Love, all else being what he and the other writers of similar ideas call illusion. Yes, DNA is a biological computer and can receive software programming.

As far as 'logging off' goes, to me that can only mean death, and death is the end of us as we know ourselve's to be.

That must be because you see nothing more than a person being a "body"? That isn't at all what Icke is saying. We are Infinite Consciousness which can and are meant to manifest as Love. Our program has been hacked into and we are being used for hatred and violence.

If you haven't read the book, then you won't be able to understand on what basis he is saying to "log off" of one program and "back onto" the other, all while staying inside these bodies. I personally believe we wanted to express ourselves as Love through physical manifestation, and it has been hijacked and corrupted.

[awakensong]

www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com

Here are a few chosen excerpts from the above site:

Question: You never spoke of God or Any divine intervention I can't seem to find your view on your site other than organized religion?

Answer: To put one's self in one of the many pigeon-holes of religion
means the only view of the world you have is toward the entrance. Religions are meant to contain rather than free. The most perfect trap must look beautiful and it must appear as one would expect it to, otherwise no one would take the bait. Those who know what is happening are now trying to get a voice, squeezing between the establishment's fakes who have bound and captivated vast audiences with intrigue and fantasy. I have no doubt there is a creator somewhere, yet the only tie we have is through what we do while here and to understand there is no point in placing human values upon something so beyond our ken. Our conscience is our guide and if you can find a single person on the same wavelength then you are doing well in these times.

Question: I have been a member of the ________ group, I gave it up after reading The Nephilim.... It basically scared the hell out of me and made me (God fearing) and having originally being brought up in Christianity, must have stirred up some deep ingrained conditioning?

Answer: Your journey is pretty typical with each group hoisting it's flag
and telling you to come over. Religion has always been used for control purposes and if Jesus was to come tomorrow and explain things in greater detail the existing establishment would use it as a weapon over the public as soon as he was dead. As for joining esoteric groups, they're all forms of mind control under many names yet all controlled by the same head. A novice from the lower classes will never be let into the higher mysteries. There is nothing wrong with the basic teachings within the new testament if applied to a seeker on an individual search. If the kingdom is within you, then it is up to you and no group to find it there. Superstars are put out for public consumption. They take basic truths which are being written about or spoken about by others which might be detrimental to the elite's plans. This is then spun off into some weird direction and discredits the serious research done by the original authors. This technique is used by counter-intelligence all the time. No one else is living your life, therefore the truth you seek must be applicable to you.

[horseflesh]

That sure goes against all the people, including myself, who can remember past lives. Have you read the books of Dr. Ian Stevenson who investigated all this and came as close to verifying it as mainstream science can?

My own personal view of "illusion" is anything that is not permanent or eternal. Only Infinite Consciousness is permanent and never changes, so that must be where David gets his idea that the only truth is Consciousness/Love, all else being what he and the other writers of similar ideas call illusion. Yes, DNA is a biological computer and can receive software programming.



That must be because you see nothing more than a person being a "body"? That isn't at all what Icke is saying. We are Infinite Consciousness which can and are meant to manifest as Love. Our program has been hacked into and we are being used for hatred and violence.

If you haven't read the book, then you won't be able to understand on what basis he is saying to "log off" of one program and "back onto" the other, all while staying inside these bodies. I personally believe we wanted to express ourselves as Love through physical manifestation, and it has been hijacked and corrupted.

I do understand what he/they are saying about 'logging off', it's just that I don't agree. I'm not a very spiritual person as you can see. :)

I believe a person is created from it's 'programming', environment, diet and experience. This is why we know next to nothing when we are born and have to learn everything. If we were 'infinite conciousness' then wouldn't we know everything that ever been known ?. :confused:

I haven't read the books of Dr. Ian Stevenson. Past life memories in my opinion are false memories given to people by the 'gods' to fool us into thinking that we can live forever with our memories intact. After all this is why most people swallow 'their' religions, so that they can live forever, but they have to follow certain rules to achieve it. Which is just mind control, carrot and stick style.

[awakensong]

Well, maybe it would change your mind a little if you did read his books. He investigated the claims of children who remembered their deaths from a former lifetime, and they always had a corresponding scar from the injury of the death. It was usually a traumatic death that children remembered. The book contains documented pictures of all this. One child remembered dying on a battle field from a gunshot wound and had a scar with a bullet "entry" and "exit" spot on his head. He remembered the name of the person who was killed that way, and they tracked it down that such a person had lived, fought in battle and had died from a gunshot wound to the head. I don't at all see what point there would be for the "gods" to insert that into memory. It would have a counterproductive effect, I would say, for their agenda.

Another small boy would sit on his mother's kitchen floor filling bottles with water. When she finally asked him why he was doing that, he said "My wife is sick and she needs medicine". With the proper investigation, they actually tracked down an elderly sick woman whose husband had died just a few years prior.

Another baby was born with a bleeding chin, and later remembered a fatal accident with death from bleeding in the neck or facial area.

There were many, many "verified" cases, as well as many "falsified" ones. He never tried to make something look true when it wasn't. He detests hypnotic pastlife regression, but does believe most children's recall is true, especially when there are marks on the body to coincide with the memory.

I recommend his book "Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect". He is an M.D. psychiatrist and head of a department at the University of Virginia.

[spectator]

I have been following your discussion here, horseflesh, awakensong and the others, with considerable interest. This is one of my favorite subjects for discussion, but it is one which I am rarely able to discuss, because the discussion often soon becomes emotionally charged and confrontational. I am new to this forum, and I hope you won't mind my "butting in."

I have had what are called "past life regressions" conducted by a skilled hypnotist. I remembered several "past lives," but I have never been able to decide for myself whether they were genuine or not. I'm sure the hypnotist didn't plant any false memories in my subconscious, because she purposely conducted the sessions so that I would clearly remember everything she said to me, and I still do. However, the "past lives" I "remembered" still don't seem genuine to me. As I've said to her, it's almost as though I made them up, though, since I was in an altered state of consciousness I don't think I could have done that. Anyway, the genuineness of "past lives" is still a mystery to me. The hypnotist, who is also a medical doctor, claims that the lives I remembered helped her understand my current life better; that elements in my past lives had a bearing on my current life. However, I'm still not convinced, though I'm aware of the many books that have been written on the subjects by many different authors.

As far as organized religion goes, I concur with many of the views stated in your discussion. Because I come from a Christian background, my experience of religion has been confined to that of Christianity, and I consequently can't speak to the practice of any other religion. However, it has long seemed to me that the people who espouse Christianity are of four general types: those that adhere to the religion for the sake of social propriety and status, but who really have only a cursory knowledge of their religion's teachings; those that believe in the teachings of Christianity, but are ashamed and fearful of practicing it more faithfully than anyone else for fear of being thought "strange" or "fanatical;" those that fiercely defend and practice their Christianity and are aggressively intolerant of those that deviate from such strict adherence; (These, in my opinion, are true fanatics.) and finally there are those who may not practice the tenets of their faith to the letter but who personify and embody the teachings of Christianity in every facet of their daily life, and who are unaware that they do. In spite of this, they never condemn or judge anyone else, and are quick to defend those condemned by the fanatics, even though they have practically nothing in common with the condemned. (These, in my opinion, are truly saints.)

I differ with David Icke in his belief that Jesus never existed mainly because of the existence of that fourth group of Christians. If one gets to know one of these people, one cannot truly say that Jesus never existed, because He's obviously and inescapably present IN THAT PERSON. The presence of Jesus in these people is as real and as palpable as the presence of their hair color! He absolutely and completely lives in their hearts. Now, how does one explain this, if Jesus was a mere fabrication of the Church? He can't! It's impossible. Of course there are evil, despicable people in the Church! Of course there are Satanists! Of course there are hypocrites! Of course governments use the Church to their advantage and even use it to persecute people unjustly. Of course the Church lets them do it and even aids them! That has always been true! BUT ... there are also real, honest to goodness, undeniable saints. It is the presence of those people in the Church that persuades me that the truth about Christianity is far more complicated that David Icke thinks.

[tonto o_reilly]

IMO Jesus is simply a personification of the sun.
Anything can be real to you if you believe it is.
Have you seen this before, if not I would like to hear what you think of it.
After watching this one, the next question is.....WHY? A big can of wriggley squirmy worms this one but it certainly makes a lot of sense
and leads to further investigation about the massive scam played out on humanity.



http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=the+truth+about+the+jesus+myth

[i_am]

I differ with David Icke in his belief that Jesus never existed mainly because of the existence of that fourth group of Christians. If one gets to know one of these people, one cannot truly say that Jesus never existed, because He's obviously and inescapably present IN THAT PERSON. The presence of Jesus in these people is as real and as palpable as the presence of their hair color! He absolutely and completely lives in their hearts. Now, how does one explain this, if Jesus was a mere fabrication of the Church? He can't! It's impossible. Of course there are evil, despicable people in the Church! Of course there are Satanists! Of course there are hypocrites! Of course governments use the Church to their advantage and even use it to persecute people unjustly. Of course the Church lets them do it and even aids them! That has always been true! BUT ... there are also real, honest to goodness, undeniable saints. It is the presence of those people in the Church that persuades me that the truth about Christianity is far more complicated that David Icke thinks.



This is a very complicated subject and everyone has a different opinion. Like you, I do differ from David Icke on this subject. (I Think) I believe that Jesus did exist but not as told in The Bible. There have been many prophets and teachers who embody the Christ Consciousness. I believe Jesus was just one of these. The 'Christians' to whom you refer are blessed with this Christ Consciousness, not Jesus, although whatever they believe is ok if it works for them.

Jesus as Son of God would be quite right as we are all sons of God. Even David said this and was laughed at by everyone. I just did a search on Christ Consciousness to see what I could find to support my view and found this:

'Edgar Cayce's readings not only affirm that Jesus was the Son of God, but they also state the same thing about each and everyone of us. In other words: Jesus was like each one of us and, ultimately, each one of us is destined to be like Him.'

I was brought up in a christian environment but something always seemed amiss to me. I was around fourteen when I rejected the whole thing. I still had a belief in something but not what they told me in church. They stood up there and told you that God is Love and then tried to control by fear. What the???

I believe that God IS Love or more to the point Infinite Love is the God, the Force, vibration, creator, all that is, whatever term you wish to use.

oh yeah..........and everything else is illusion :p

[karenmoore1979]

Nice post "I_am" :o I agree.

What I am confused about is the comment made earlier by someone that David Icke doesn't believe Jesus existed? Is that true? It has been a while since I have read his books but I was under the impression that he believed a "Jesus/Christ" type figure did exist and he tried to teach people about love and "oneness" etc - but that he wasn't "divine" and that the church/historians/whatever just made up all the stories and myths surrounding him to fit their agenda?

So is that wrong? Does David believe that Jesus is a completely made up person? Can someone please clarify?

Thank you :cool:

[i am all i am]

LOVE IS THE GOD

LOVE IS THE CREATIVE GIFT,
HERE NOW TO UPLIFT,
AND MAKE YOUR LIFE EASY,
IT'S A GIFT WITH SINCERITY.

LOVE IS THE GOD INSIDE OF ME,
LOVE IS THE GOD THAT SET ME FREE,
LOVE IS THE GOD OF ETERNITY,
AND LOVE IS THE GOD OF OUR DESTINY.

LOVE IS NOW THE CHOICE,
HERE NOW AS I GIVE VOICE,
AND SAY THE WORDS THAT I DO,
YES IT'S LOVE THAT I SEE IN YOU.


All is one. We are all god.

With LOVE.
________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[i am all i am]

WHEN YOU ARE NOT LOOKING TO FIND SOMETHING IN ANOTHER, YOU CAN FIND IT WITHIN YOURSELF.


With LOVE.
___________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[lolo]

emagen pleis ter is nothing emptinest vhen yu daye emagen that. taht is the bigest resen of relegen peopel are afreyd that vhen dehy day ther vont be enithing. mir s vama

[spectator]

tonto o'reilly, I am familiar with all the information in the videos on the link you provided. David Icke offers a very good digest of them in his books. Of course, anyone who does a little research on the subject finds that the story of Jesus as related in the New Testament has many, many commonalities with the stories of practically all the ancient gods of the Near East during and before the first century C.E. There is also good evidence that the New Testament as we now have it has been altered, possibly by the Church itself, and possibly by a Roman Illuminati family which was related to Julius Caesar, in the first century. David Icke details all this in his books. I don't argue with any of that. What I do argue with is the idea that this "proves" that Jesus of Nazareth, an itinerant Jewish rabbi in first century Palestine who became the basis for Christianity, did not exist; that he was a complete fabrication.

As I said in my previous post, my chief reason for not believing that Jesus was merely a fabrication is the presence of saints in Christianity. Saints are not just the bad portraits with obscure, unpronouncable names under them that one sees in Church literature. They were, and are, real people. Not all Christian denominations refer to them as saints, and not all venerate or remember them, but all denominations, I am convinced, have them. They are people whose lives affirm the truth of Jesus' teachings. They are the heroes of the Church, who sometimes even bear in their bodies the marks of Jesus' crucifixion: the stigmata.

However, the vast majority of saints are people who lead, or led, obscure, impoverished lives. Some are known, or believed, to have worked miracles, but many, many more are never known but by a very few people. This is because they are always very, very humble, modest people, content to shuffle about doing menial tasks as janitors, gardeners, maids, etc., or as obscure priests, monks or nuns in monasteries and convents, or in tiny parishes in, often, very poor countries. They are never aware of their sanctity, and more often believe themselves to be the greatest of sinners. When they are dead, and their poor families lay them to rest in anonymous graves, someone may remember their goodness and pray to them for help in a time of trouble. If the person who asked for their help receives an answer in the form of a cure for illness, or a favor for a loved one, they often tell others that they were helped. Then, a cult may form around the saint, and their lives become objects of study and research. If the cult keeps growing over decades and centuries, the Church elevates them to the status of saints, which in Catholicism, means that the Church considers them to be in Heaven, where they can intercede with God for their bretheren on Earth. Then Cathedrals may be built in their honor and become a place of pilgrimage.

A constant in the lives of most saints is the indifference, even disdain showed them by the Church! Saintly priests or religious are even severely punished by their superiors and the Church hierarchy because, more often than not, they are seen as frauds and charlatans, whose activities can damage the Church's reputation. Rarely, saints occupy important positions in the Church, so that they continue to be honored and deferred to, to the humble saint's unvarying consternation. Far more often, however, saints are very, very poor and uneducated, and tend to be completely ignored by the world at large.

This is how saints have arisen in the Catholic Church for two millennia now, but not all saints are honored by the Church. The virtue of the vast majority of them is known to God alone, and that is just how most of them want it!

It has been my privilege to know some of these people. It is no exaggeration to say that, when one is in their presence, one is in the presence of Jesus or Mary. The contrast between them and ordinary people is that stark and impressive. I believe that they are so humble and self-effacing because they believe they have nothing whatever to do with their sanctity, and they are right! The Church has always said that saints are "given by God for the Church's edification." That, I think, is quite true. Their sanctity comes not from themselves, but from God. Sanctity is the polar opposite of demonic possession: it is possession by God. God, however, does not take away the saint's free will, as the Devil does in demonic possession. Instead, the saint joyfully surrenders his will to God in order to witness the great works God does through him. Sanctity, I want to reiterate, is a real phenomenon, one I myself have witnessed. I have not witnessed anything that I can truthfully say was a miracle, but, for me, the true miracle was the saint himself. That was miracle enough!

Now you see why I just can't go along with David's assertion that Jesus was nothing more than a Sun God! In knowing a saint, one knows Jesus or Mary. They are sitting across the table, smiling at you! I likewise can never agree with the common modern assertion that God is neutral about human welfare. Are you neutral about your children's welfare? Stewart Swerdlow, another writer on the Illuminati, asserts that God lets all things in the Universe unfold by themselves; that he is neutral with regard to good and evil. Rubbish! The Illuminati may have told Swerdlow that when they educated him (He is from a Russian Illuminati family.) but they were lying to him. God is not neutral!!!

Imagine, for a moment, what you would do if a murderous kidnapper kidnapped your children and threatened to kill them; that then he lied to them, telling them you didn't love them or care about them, and that you would do nothing to save them. What would you do? Wouldn't you do everything in your power to save them from the kidnapper? Wouldn't you face death, or even sacrifice your own life to save theirs? Then why in Heaven's name do people accept the egregious lie that God would do less than they themselves would?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ..." Why is that so hard to believe?

I have great respect and admiration for David Icke. He has performed an immeasurable service for the world in delineating for the first time, the true structure of evil in our world. But he is wrong about Christianity! His works CONFIRM the Gospels, they do not contradict them! Before I read Icke's works, there were passages in the New Testament that were obscure and not understandable to me. Now, they make much more sense. One example is the passage that describes Jesus's going out into the desert to fast for forty days and be tempted by the Devil. When the Devil appears to him, he takes him up to a high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. "All these I will give you if you fall down and worship me," he tells Jesus. "THEY ARE MINE AND I GIVE THEM TO WHOM I PLEASE!" Before I read about the Illuminati, I didn't understand those words. Now I do! Satan is bragging about his control of all the governments in the world, and, for once, he is telling the truth!

[i am all i am]

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us."
Pope Leo X


With LOVE.
_____________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[howlingmad]

Now you see why I just can't go along with David's assertion that Jesus was nothing more than a Sun God! In knowing a saint, one knows Jesus or Mary. They are sitting across the table, smiling at you! I likewise can never agree with the common modern assertion that God is neutral about human welfare.
...

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ..." Why is that so hard to believe?
...

I have great respect and admiration for David Icke. He has performed an immeasurable service for the world in delineating for the first time, the true structure of evil in our world. But he is wrong about Christianity! His works CONFIRM the Gospels, they do not contradict them!

I think, spectator, that the expression of "God" (what I refer to as the ultimate creative energy source) that you perceive in those "saints" is the expression of "Christ consciousness", an aspect of the creative source we are all imbued with, yet for many of us it is a sense that has generally atrophied. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son ..." asserts that "Jesus" was the only expression of this dimension of humanity. Not so! Read those passages again (perhaps between the lines), and you can surmise that the lesson we are to bring home is that we are all capable of this state of being.

Does this imply that the Bible is "telling the truth"? In a way, yes. Among Bible scholars there is no doubt that the message has been messed with. It has become forbidden for you to consider that you're capable of "saving yourself".

'Only vicariously through "Jesus" can humans be accepted by "God"'. This is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. "Jesus" is a spiritual broker. This is false on its face. Each of us, you, me, your dog, my cat, the cup of coffee next to me, is a complex expression of the ultimate source of energy/matter (Einstein proved that each of these is a dimension of the other). It is basic that we should and can know that we are a holographic representation of this Source, just as everything else is. We are the Source. This includes George Bush (either one) or Tony Bleah!, or any reptilian entity, in this dimension or the next. The problem with these people is that they have disconnected with their creative sense and "feed" off of others through manipulation; often using fear as their tactic.

The true lessons of Jesus, though somewhat obscured, are real enough, though I believe much, much older. Whether Jesus actually existed is, in the end, immaterial.

[i am all i am]

In 'The Bible Fraud', Tony Bushby states that there are over 14,800 differences or inaccuracies from the Mount Sinai Bible (the oldest known bible) to the bibles in circulation today.

So which version is true ???

With LOVE.
____________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[spectator]

I think that the "Christ Consciousness" you and many others speak about, and which I certainly believe exists, would NOT exist if there had not been an "Anointed One" in the first place! If Jesus the Christ had never lived and died as a human being, we would have no way to access that divine aspect of ourselves. That's why He came and lived here as one of us, and died a human death, so that we would all have access again to that part of us which we lost in our original "Fall from Grace." I differ, however, with most Christian teaching on this subject. I believe that the "Fall from Grace," or "Original Sin," as it's referred to in Christian theology, was not, strictly speaking, a "sin," that is, an act of disobedience of God, but was instead a darkening and blinding of our consciousness resulting from our entrapment in material existence. Christ came to show us the way out of this entrapment, to open the way for us to regain the intimacy and familiarity with God, our Father, that we had long ago. We are indeed all imbued with that creative source (God) as you say, but our conscious connection to it, our access to it, had atrophied and shrivelled. Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, reestablished our connection to our source, God, and made it possible for us to overcome our entrapment in physical existence. This, I believe, was what Jesus meant by the "Kingdom of Heaven." The saints have already "crossed over," so to speak, into the Kingdom, where we are all destined to go: into oneness with Christ and God in a "reborn" humanity. This is why St. Paul calls Christ the "first-born of many bretheren." Jesus the Christ was not, then, the "ONLY expression of that dimension of humanity," as you assert. He was, rather, the FIRST.

Like you, I believe that the New Testament we have has been altered, but not, I believe, substantially. The Illuminati delight in perverting what is good and holy for evil purposes, and to that end they endeavor to change those good and holy things as little as possible. To them, that constitutes their mastery over Good. In the case of the Gospels, however, not even they dared to go too far in altering the Word of God. They are far more aware than humans are of the power of God, and they are terrified of it! They have tried to use Christianity to enslave people, but they have been only partially successful. The saints have foiled them. They have managed to enter the Kingdom, and freedom, in spite of the evil masters of this world.

You are right, I believe, in asserting that everything is "a complex expression of the ultimate source of energy/matter (which I would call God)." and once all of us enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as we are all destined to do, because Christ made it possible and inevitable for us to do so, we shall see the Universe as it really is: the expression of the Mind of God.

i am all i am, many writers have pointed out that there are numerous differences between all the versions of the Bible. However, the message that comes through from all these versions is the same: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The teachings of Jesus show very minor differences in all these versions: the message, as I say, remains the same. Therefore, I would say that ALL those versions are true, because if you put into practice what they say, you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

[seamus]

http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=the+truth+about+the+jesus+myth

I have been disabused! [link] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=disabuse&submit2=Lookup) When he started talking about Moses... my amygdalas started firing. I want to find his source material. Do you know what book was used for all those comparisons? I knew about the code of Hammurabi, but I didn't know about Misis/Moses... oof.

Hooray for our side! The side of truth.

I still think Jesus did live on the earth and did say much of what is attributed to him. But I am weeding out the myth. Hey, he was a troublemaker. Why shouldn't the pharisees have killed him? He was telling people Love is more important than Religion. He was exposing them in their control game. Like most movements, his got hijacked early on.

Why would I still believe? Because I have seen people truly in love. Not romantic love. I live with people who love. This is a love that connects with the same source that Jesus spoke of. This love has changed me, whereas Christianity was only able to temporarily soothe me. I think that a seed was preserved, and has been planted in these last days to give people like me who are hopelessly antisocial, a chance to become a real human being. Like Pinocchio.

[/tirade]

s

[happyone]

Love of self first that's what brings about the connection of the higher love you talk about...it's the biggest obstacle we all face or have faced in our lives. Jesus was also a healer, if there's any legacy I will always hold onto from the religious tuition I was given as a child is that "Christ Consciousness" Spectator refers to. I have never been baptised & I don't believe that negates my place in the universe when my souls purpose is to heal, there is much in the scriptures that have been manipulated by the Illuminati to suit their evil agenda. I have had no real religious training other than what was given to me as a child & now only really discovering it from a desire to know the truth through external events happening around the world. Religion has not affected my ability to follow my path...rather working on the layers by looking within & not above, along with my own personal belief in a higher power that guides me, but not all of us think that way. David Icke has never claimed to have all the answers, no one has ever proven that Jesus did not exist & it's such a cotenscious issue now would you believe it if they did? There are parts of so many religions & philosophies that strike a chord with us because those chords come from within, so the only way you can know the truth is to know & love yourself, healing all the parts of you that hold you back from reaching your full potential & serving your soul's purpose.

[geo2]

:rolleyes: the 'controllers' through their 'illuminati' agents could only pull the wool
over the 'masses' eyes so far as the goddesses/gods [saints] let them.....but the so-called 'bible' was n is used as a 'slick' mind-control-program over the 'masses'...the WORD is wherever the Word wants 2B.....celebrate LIFE in the Holy Temple of ones-Self...His Highnesses Heart is in Marias' Immacculate Heart in each one of us ! LOLove ! 2forgiveisDivine ! Yes, Healing ! jn 10:34

Ave Maria ! Mother Earth ! down home ! Infinity

:) :cool: kisses

{ March, the month of saint joseph, the King-of-Love }

{ JC, will show u, Himself, if u treat Him tender n do unto Him as u want it done unto u..... }from the Womb 2the Breast n on DOWN, into INFINITY {{{{{{{{

[bigus_dickus]

nice thread people.

let's take a different perspective for a while, shall we

as you know, jesus is a name, but christ is not a name. christ means, as you already know, the "anointed one". so far so good.

but, what does that really mean? here is what it means: jesus, was made christ. by who? by other people, by wise people, or the positive faction of the 'illuminati' if you will.

maybe you didn't know about them and maybe they don't know themselves as that anyway, but they are possibly the 'saints' you are referring to.

anyway, there are (there must be) two versions of the so-called 'illuminati'. the "positive" and the "negative" ones. i don't mean that the first are saints and the second are demons, i mean that they already know who they are and the roles they agreed to play.

so, two fictional entities were created. the first one is the devil and the second is the christ. representing duality to its fullest diametric attributes.

now, when i say "fictional", i don't mean not real. there is nothing "unreal" about imagination, for what you imagine today, you experience tomorrow. the theories of today, are the facts of tomorrow and so on.

so, to go on with the story, these entities exist in many forms and by many names throughout the whole history of our planet that we know of (because the largest part of the history of the planet, we only have a glimpse of).

let's say, so that we can understand this a little better, that these thought forms representing absolute darkness and absolute light each, have existed before anything that existed and they are both one. they are both aspects of god and what they do, is create a field of existence (an illusion) in which they both exist at the same time, so that one can experience the other in every possible conceivable way.

so jesus gets programmed to be christ, long before his birth. don't you think that any one of us, whoever you may think, can be trained to be christ, even before his birth? i am saying that it is not only possible, it is evident!

the same way you can train a child to become "satan" personified, you can train her to become "christ" personified. and the outcome will be as real as the people believe it to be.

in other words: there is no christ or satan and there is absolutely nothing to hold the existence of these two "hypothetical" entities, if there are no people around to make them what they are believed to be. god does not have to believe anything, do you think god wonders what is the best belief for him, or what to do next, or how to proceed to achieve something? that's our job.

needless to say, that the one faction of the wise beings represent "evil", is the only one that orchestrates wars and differences and fights against the opposite faction, while those who represent "goodness" will not do such things, as they are perceived to be out of their nature.

the oppo-sames and the third party, which is in reality the second party, that just observes and moves in "mysterious ways" as people say about god.

we have, in ourselves, both aspects of god and the third one, which is usually "inactive" until "awakened" and this third aspect, is the eye of the soul, or the famous "third eye", with which one realizes that he is both "good" and "evil" in this world, but then and only then she can see what "free will" really means.

these are by no means my beliefs, just an observation, or exploration in the depths of the human mind if you will and it's not even a summary of it. food for thought.

[geo2]

:rolleyes: except JC is a real Person born of the Real person Mary...

looking at the 'good n evil' with Mary Immaculate is no problem, except 4the goody-goody 'babylonian-harlot' types n so-called 'vatican pros' who claim 2be her spokes-people, who one needs to show 'compassion' 2 but keep moving into Infinity...........

Let Mary show u JC n herself, Herself ! learn her language ! n then u will know how 2really talk with JC, Himself !

Ave Maria ! 13yo Mother ! Infinity

:) :cool:

[spectator]

seamus, when you say "... [Jesus] was telling people Love is more important than Religion," I think you strike at the heart of what Jesus was all about. I really think my understanding of Jesus and the New Testament was incomplete until I read David Icke! Icke's delineation of the heretofore hidden action of the Illuminati in world history made Jesus' mission on Earth completely understandable to me for the first time. The Illuminati have always manipulated mankind through fear, conflict, war , deprivation, lust, materialism and the abuse of power. The Son of God (really, God Himself) came to Earth to teach humanity how to return to the intimacy we once had with Him by counteracting and neutralizing those Illuminati tactics. To counteract war and conflict, He taught love of neighbor. To counteract deprivation and poverty, he taught charity. To counteract lust, he taught faithfulness to one's spouse and chastity. To counteract materialism, he taught the cultivation of freedom from the desire for material possessions through abstinence, self-discipline, fasting and prayer. To counteract the abuse of power, he taught obedience to ligitimate authority, and stewardship on the part of those who exercized power.

I really think He anticipated (even counted upon!) the Illuminati's appropriation of His Church for their own purposes, because He knew that no matter how they tried to pervert the mission of the Church, they could never dispense with His teachings, because those teachings were the source of their power. He knew that the kind and virtuous people of the world would receive His word joyfully and put it into practice, often in spite of their church and civil leadership. The saints of the world, through their quiet, patient, humble virtue, would shame and convert even the powerful. In effect, He intended to use the Illuminati to spread His message! This is what He meant when he asked Simon:

" ... and who do you say that I am?" Simon answered Him, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but it was my Father, who is in heaven. Therefore, I say to you that you are now Peter (Cephas, Greek for "the Rock"). Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

But Christ foresaw that His Church would ultimately accomplish far more than merely survive the machinations of the Illuminati and spread the Christian message throughout the world. He knew that the Illuminati would continue their abominable practice of child sacrifice and blooddrinking, even surreptiously within the Church. Therefore, He gave Himself as a human sacrifice for the Illuminati members of the church! He Himself became their human sacrifice on the cross and in Communion. At the Last Supper, He instituted the Communion of His Body and Blood not so much as a propitiation for human sin, but to reconcile humanity and the Illuminati, and, ultimately, bring them both to Himselfin the Kingdom.

"When supper was ended, He took bread, blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take. Eat. This is My Body, which is given for the life of many." After they had all eaten, He took a cup, blessed it, and gave it to them, saying, Take this cup and drink from it, all of you. This is the cup of My Blood, which is shed for the life of the world."

By living a human life and dying on the Cross, Jesus the Christ SANCTIFIED the life and death of every human being that ever lived, or who ever would live. With His death on the Cross, when He said, "It is finished," the life and death of every human being on Earth henceforth became HIS life and death! Therfore, whenever the Illuminati sacrificed an innocent young child, or anyone else, drank its blood and ate its flesh, they were sacrificing HIM, and bringing slightly nearer, with that one death, the triumph of God's Kingdom on Earth. The reenactment of His sacrifice on the Cross, in the Last Supper, did the same thing. The bread and wine in the Mass were transformed into His Body and Blood. Each mass, or even reenactment of the Last Supper, brought a little nearer the final triumph of His Kingdom. This is why He told His disciples, after the Resurrection, "Do not be afraid, I have overcome the world."

All the parallels of Jesus' life with the legends of Horus, Hercules, Mithras, Attis, and many other gods (and SUN GODs!) served to make His message more acceptable to the people of the first century. If those parallels had not been there, His message would not have been understandable to them, and they would have rejected it. That's why God arranged His life on earth to conform to those legends!

All the sacrifices of the Mass, all Satanic sacrifices, all wars, all the faith of those who have believed in Him throughout the past two thousand years, all their martyrdoms and good works, have served to bring the world to where it now is: the eve of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. The Illuminati are making their allout bid for world domination in the New World Order, but they have already been defeated, and they know it! They are preparing to bring their "Christ" to Earth (the Antichrist), but those who know and love God, (that is, everyone who loves, or who ever has loved, anyone else) will not be fooled by him.

[howlingmad]

Spectator, I'd like to know how you perceive your relationship to God or Jesus. I get the sense that you still see these entities as superior to yourself, and humanity in general, that Jesus was God, and no other.

To me, this position removes us from our true nature, that of an expression of the infinite source of all there is, needing Jesus as a vicar to God. This is the thrust of the New Testament; that no one can know God but through belief that Jesus was the only Christ (not merely "annointed one", but one that understands the true nature of reality, in which universal love is inherent), THE savior, and this state of being cannot be achieved by "mere mortals".

This leads to the results we have seen, regarding humans as "worms" in the "sight of God" (from Catholic literature), ripe for manipulation. Where can there be self-love with that perspective? I don't mean conceit, which is a delusional state of being (the ego is a fabricated sense of self), but a true love of being an expression of the infinite. As was mentioned by happyone, loving yourself is the first step to universal love.

[spectator]

howling mad, as I said in one of my previous posts, I believe God incarnated on Earth as Jesus the Christ in order to show humanity how to return to the intimacy we once had with Him before the "Fall from Grace," which, as I said, was not precisely through a sin of disobedience against God (the "Original Sin"), but it was more through a darkening of human consciousness brought about through spiritual and mental imprisonment in material existence, though sins certainly resulted from this darkening of consciousness. In other words, the Christ came to RESTORE us to our true nature as sons and daughters of God and heirs of His Kingdom. As I see it, neither belief in this interpretation of Christ's action nor the action itself removes our true nature from us.

I believe you are certainly correct in saying that " ... the thrust of the New Testament [is] that no one can know God but through belief that Jesus was the only Christ ... THE saviour, and this state of being cannot be achieved by 'mere mortals'." This has certainly been the "mainstream interpretation" of the mission of the Christ for two thousand years of Church teaching. However, my interpretation of His mission is somewhat different. Although I believe that the Illuminati have not changed Jesus' actual teachings, they appear to have changed the EMPHASIS of a number of aspects of the narrative ABOUT his teachings, and I believe this "mainstream interpretation" may be an example of that. By shifting the emphasis from Jesus as "pathfinder," or "wayshower," for the sons and daughters of God to an emphasis on the ACCEPTANCE of Jesus as the Son of God as the ONLY path to God on the part of a spiritually destitute humanity belittles us and allows for a kind of slave mentality to take hold in the minds of people as regards their relationship to God. This emphasis. in my view, flies in the face of all Jesus teachings! Over and over again, Jesus reiterates the importance of humanity to God, and His desire to restore us to our original state of closeness to Him. He constantly points out the inherent, innate DIVINITY of mankind as the heirs of God and His Kingdom. At one point, Jesus even refers to human beings as 'gods'!

As I said in one of my previous posts, St. Paul refers to Jesus as " ... the first-born of many bretheren." Christ is our BROTHER! St. John, in his Gospel, says, " ... to us (humans) gave He (Christ) POWER to become the SONS OF GOD." The New Testament is full of references to our importance before God. In my view, we must return to this view of our relationship to God, because it is more consistent with the entire thrust of Jesus' teachings.

[howlingmad]

So, your interpretation of the lessons of Jesus are that we all have "Christ" potential, if only we could see it? If this is the case, then I understand that. But you would have to tear out so many pages of the Bible to make this message consistent, even some of those with red lettering. There are many other places to get this message that are not as rife with obfuscation as this collection of books. It's not an easy concept to grasp for most, anyway.

I created a →thread about Keylontic Science← (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1378), something I only recently discovered. They make the claim that their teachings are translations of records dating back some 246,000 years, teachings that, among others, Jesus was privy to. Their materials are a bit pricy, but their introductory statements are like reading a David Icke book in many ways. It may be far-fetched, even a scam, but it is intriguing to say the least. Take a look and tell me what you think. Hey, it's no crazier than believing that alien reptilians from the 4th dimension are trying to subdue and enslave humanity, or that the Creator of the Entire Universe became human, died, and came back to life for the benefit of all humanity (a widely-held belief) — resorting to this after many failed attempts at straightening them out.

What the fuck do we know, after all?

[spectator]

Greetings, howlingmad! I agree that the Bible is difficult reading, especially if you are trying to sift what Jesus was really trying to say from the "obfuscation," as you call it. I have struggled with this for many years, and I still can't claim to have really succeeded. Futhermore, I don't know anyone who can, even Biblical scholars and professors of Religion. Perhaps we should take a cue here from the saints. Their understanding of the Bible apparently doesn't come from being expert at its interpretation, or even from reading it! Many of the saints venerated by the Catholic Church, indeed, were illiterate! Yet their grasp of its truth seems effortless and innate, as if they live and breathe it. Most often, they are unable to quote chapter and verse of any concept in the Bible, yet their way of living seems to come directly form its pages.

We should remember, also, that the people to whom Jesus preached were nearly ALL illiterate. They were the poor and destitute people of Roman-occupied Palestine, forgotten and ignored by the wealthy and well-educated among their own people, as well as by the Roman authorities. Yet, what they heard so changed and animated them that they began converting the world to Christ. Why? What was there in His message that was so world-altering? I think it was that God was accessible to everyone, at every moment. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you!," as He said. The purpose of all religion, after all, is accessing in some way, the divine: intimacy with God. Jesus taught that religion was unnecessary to do that, that God was as close to every human being as his own heartbeat. Religion, as he so often told Jewish officials, could even be an IMPEDIMENT to intimacy with God! Intimacy, closeness to God, was a constant theme in Jesus' preaching. That's why he referred to God as "Abba." That word, often translated as "Father," is actually closer to an extremely familiar term for one's own father: "Daddy."

What a contrast that was to the religious establishment of His day, or to our own day! In fact, Jesus often said that if one wanted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, he must, in effect, become a little child: "I assure you," He said, " whoever does not come to the Kingdom of Heaven as a little child shall not enter therein." The saints all have this childlike quality. They perform acts of breathtaking love, generosity and self-sacrifice naturally, spontaneously, and completely without self-consciousness. Their view of God is exactly like the view a small child has of his parent. Even their view of other people is simple and childlike. Perhaps that's why saints are often thought to be retarded or extremely simple, mentally. Some of them are! However, this childlike quality is common even to saints of very high intelligence. In fact, when this childlikeness is combined with great intelligence the result can appear so strange to people that the saint can appear to be on drugs, or even drunk. No wonder, then, that witnesses of the gatherings of the first Christians said "they are filled with new (green) wine." Of Jesus they even said, "He is possessed (by a devil)."

I think this childlikeness is indeed the key to Christianity, or, as it probably should be called, the Kingdom of Heaven. The saints have entered the Kingdom and are living there, the devout want to enter, and the rest of us are wondering what in the world is going on! If it is the key to the "religion," that could explain why the intellectual appreciation of its concepts are not necessary to its practice. Indeed, It could be said that the Kingdom of Heaven (Christianity) is not a religion at all! It is a state of being.

The contrast, too, between the Kingdom of Heaven and the website of which you provided the link, is stark. I have visited many similar websites. With all due respect, they remind me of the ancient Egyptian and Near Eastern mystery religions, and of Freemasonry. One must grasp arcane techniques and knowlege in order to gain insight (only "insight, mind you, not the Truth itself!) into "The Truth." If one wants "The Truth," I think he is better advised to gaze into a child's eyes, listen to a symphony, walk in a flower-filled field, or visit the bedside of a dying grandmother. As Jesus said one day, "Consider the lillies, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."

[spectator]

howlingmad, in your last post, your question, "What the fuck do we know, after all?" is very profound, and I intended to talk about it in my last post, but I ran out of time.

I've been thinking about this fact - what do we really know - for some time, and it truly has a direct bearing on what we are talking about here. What, indeed, DO we really know?? David Icke postulates that the world we think is real is really NOT real! Modern physics, as he points out, seems to bear out this statement. According to physics, what we see around us as solid objects are really mostly empty space, and the few particles that make up those objects are essentially vibrating energy whicih we PERCEIVE as particles! On top of that, what we are able to perceive with our five senses represents an astonishingly narrow range of vibrational frequencies. In other words, what we perceive is only a small fraction of what's really there! These facts have always made me think of what Plato wrote.

Are you familiar with Plato's metaphor of the cave? He wrote that the human condition is like that of people living in a dark cave in which they always face the cave's back wall. On that wall they see the shadows of people and objects passing by the mouth of the cave. They can't turn around and see the objects and people passing because of an embankment that separates them from the mouth of the cave, so they must make judgements about what the things passing outside really are based only on the shadows they are seeing. Plato, I think, either knew, or guessed, the truth about human perception. David Icke says he was very high in the Illuminati hierarchy. Perhaps.

To me, all this suggests a question: WHY do we humans live in a world in which we have such a limited capacity for perceiving that world when we can imagine things and universes, and, above all, MEANING, far beyond what we are able to perceive? Could it be that God has permitted this condition to exist for His children for a specific reason? I think there is a reason, and it may be that, in such a world, with such a human capacity for perception, we are driven to live by by faith. Our faith may be in science, in "reality," in money, power, or many other things, but it is always - and ONLY - faith! When we become aware of how limited those things are in which we put our faith, we are, in turn, led to faith in God. Jesus asked, "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on Earth?" Yes, he will!

[howlingmad]

Hi spectator, I've been delayed in returning a response. I may be wrong, but I still see the difference between you and I is that your interpretation of God is as a benevolent creator of humans, His children, crafting them with loving intentions. This is the common view among those of the Christian persuasion. I, on the other hand, view consciousness, whether it be God's or man's, to be of the same energy, the same source. Unless the knowledge of the existence of God is maintained in the collective consciousness, then God ceases to exist. So does, in my mind, everything else. The entire system of awareness collapses. In other words, God is as dependent on humans (or any other sentient being—this leaves it wide open to speculation about ET's) as humans are on God.

The late Alan Watts describes the Hindu concept of God as this amusing scenario: One day(?), God was getting bored with Himself, and so devised an ingenious little game of hide and seek. He split Himself into millions of billions of individuals, each given the task of "finding" God again. It may take many lifetimes in order to do this, but so much more the fun. When the final individual "finds" God, then the game is over. We win!

Then we can consider a crucial myth imparted in the children's story of "Peter Pan", regarding Tinker Bell. Upon her imminent demise, the children are encouraged to shout "I believe in fairies! I do, I do!" This, of course, brings her back into being.

Much of the Christian doctrine is mythology of this nature. In fact most religions (and other systems, as you indicated) rely on this "act of Faith" to function as an entity. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, unless the practioners of this faith see danger in the lack of participation of some of their neighbors. This indicates that it's no longer a game to them, that the continued "reality" of their myth depends on everyone being forced into this practice—or be eliminated.

What I grasped from the Keylontic website was that human existence (perhaps not in the form with which we are now familiar) is very, very old. As David Icke has come to believe, our present civilization is one of many incarnations of human civilization after some major cataclysm, whether natural or artificial. I'm inclined to accept this view, although I will always be capable of changing my mind if substantive data presents itself. So, with this extreme antiquity of humanity in mind, it must be considered that "The Truth" has been around far longer than the existence of Jesus, perhaps another "fairy myth" itself. I stress that it is immaterial whether Jesus existed or not, except for the current wide-spread doctrine of the "return of Jesus". Here, I take the view that, if anything, "Christ consciousness" will return in a big way, not a physical (or meta-physical) incarnation of Jesus.

I was intrigued by your advice regarding finding the "Truth" in the eyes of a child, the melodic strains of a symphony, the last words of a dying grandmother. As obvious as these things may seem to you and I, there are many (too many) that would gain little from these excercises without the proper insight to receive such truth. Here is where the problem lies! What can we do to assist these people; to remove the veil from their eyes, the sludge in their ears, the blockage in ther minds and hearts, so that they can also perceive the great, yet simple beauty that we relish in these things? It cannot be forced, this we know. To do so would be like trying to smooth the water with your hand.

The only approach is through Love. Love is an energy, a vibration of the substrate of the creative energy of the universe, the one that harmonizes most with the original vibration. We can feel it as well as create it. This is our God nature.

Another vibration (the opposite) of this same energy is also Fear, but this vibration is disharmonic with the original vibration, the first tone. This vibrational energy provides for the existence of "entities" that contribute to nightmares, whether in our waking or sleeping hours. Love is an attractive energy, it draws us in, whereas Fear is a repulsive force.

So, as simple as it sounds, the only thing we can do is to reside in that place within, that we know exists, where it becomes natural and easy to resonate Love energy, which does radiate into the surrounding universe. If you don't mind me saying, cannabis can help.

Sounds "hippie-dippy", doesn't it? Well, that's a reflection of my childhood, I guess. I grew up in the '60's.

[spectator]

Thank you for responding, howlingmad! I was beginning to think I had offended you in some way. You are an excellent "dialoguist," and I value your comments and judgements highly.

You know, I get the feeling that we're really talking about the same things, even though our terminologies are different. Part of the reason, I'm sure, is that I am a child of the 1950's, a time of great "stability," born in Texas (1947), the USA, to a fairly conservative family, whereas you were born in the 60's, a time of great upheavel, in Britain, apparently, and probably to a more liberal family. (George Bush and I, by the way, are close to the same age, were born in the same month (JULY), and we were both raised in Texas! I trust (and hope) that that is the extent of our similarity!)

I find your views of conciousness fascinating! I, too, view consciousness as emanating from a single source, but I consider God to be that source, and I consider Him to be independent of all the consciousness He created. He doesn't depend on any of them, in my view. They all depend upon Him. I take somewhat the view of Stewart Swerdlow, the American author I've often referred to on this forum, in that he views God as creating all sentient beings in the Cosmos (infinite Universes) so as to greater understand Himself. I don't, however, subscribe to Swerdlow's view that God is therefore neutral about whatever unfolds in the Cosmos, allowing all things whatsoever to unfold regardless of the consequences to His creations. I believe that God is NOT neutral about the welfare of his creations, just as human parents are not neutral about the welfare of their children. To me, God's non-neutrality does not constitute proof that God was "made in our image." Rather, that we were made in HIS image. That is why we are similar to Him (or Her, or It) in this regard and in many others.

I heartily agree with you about the danger of using faith as a rationale for prejudice, persecution, and, as we all know, murder and genocide. The Illuminati have been very skilled in using faith in this way to foment wars and other horrific crimes throughout history, as David Icke, and many, many others, have documented (although most did not credit the Illuminati for these events). Using faith in this way, in effect, destroys it, by converting it into a demonic engine for atrocity. This is a major reason why I say that Christianity was never intended to be a religion in the first place, and it STILL is not a religion! Rather, it is what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven. It is where the saints live, where the devout wish to live, and where the rest of us, who are too grounded in this world, view as an impossibility.

Christians have long since forgotten, over the last two thousand years, that the reason so much of the world was converted to Christianity in the first, second and third centuries, was that Christians didn't so much PREACH the KIngdom to outsiders; rather, they invited them IN, as Jesus did! Jesus, after all, didn't go about standing on street corners shouting, forcing people to listen to Him. Rather, he invited people to come out to Him in the wilderness. Chritianity (or, as I think it should be called, and as Jesus called it, the Kingdom of Heaven) in those days didn't shout out, "Listen to us or be damned!" Rather, it said, "Come out from the world and hear the Gospel, and be saved." Jesus, and the first Christians, taught by EXAMPLE. They didn't use doctrines or verbose arguments as I'm doing. The pagans of the Hellenistic world, a world in which human life had very little value, where slaves were property and masters were brutal, found among the Christians that EVERYONE was valued, and EQUALLY valued. Above all, they found the Kingdom of Heaven, a state of being, Heaven on Earth, where one talked to God as a Father and all men were brothers.

You can only grasp this, howlingmad, when you live around, and with, saints, as I have. I was born and raised a Christian, but I didn't understand what Christianity really was until I saw these people in action! They don't preach to people, they don't argue, condemn, judge, or, most of the time, even speak. They LIVE the Gospel, and one can't understand what that means unless he sees it with his own eyes. However, I think you have already grasped what it is, at least intellectually, when you say,speaking of how we can awaken people to the beauty and harmony that lives all around us, " ... the only thing we can do is to RESIDE IN THAT PLACE WITHIN, THAT WE KNOW EXISTS, WHERE IT BECOMES NATURAL AND EASY TO RESONATE LOVE ENERGY ... " you are describing - PERFECTLY - the place where the saints live: the Kingdom of Heaven! This is what Jesus' ministry was all about. In one of the Apocryphal Gospels (one of the Gospels not included in the present New Testament) Jesus says, tHE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS ALL AROUND MEN, AND THEY DO NOT PERCEIVE IT. This is also what Jesus meant when He said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN you!"

I, too, believe humanity to be very, very ancient. There is archaeological evidence, most of it discovered in the nineteenth century, before the paradigms of archaeologists became set in stone, as they are today, that suggests anatomically modern humans have existed on Earth since at least the CARBONIFEROUS Age, when the "highest" animals thought to be living here were amphibians! Of course, all of that evidence has been buried and ignored by our "sophisticated" modern scientists! This seems to be changing, however. Slowly, the truth seems to be coming out. Perhaps by the time I die, it will have emerged!

I believe, that information about those earlier times once existed in the documents that became our Bible, but that it was carefully redacted in antiquity. Exactly why, I don't know, but I believe the Illuminati were responsible for it. There are cryptic references in the Kabbala, for instance, to giants and a samall grey race of beings that kept humans underground at some time in the past. I think there were probably references to aliens and many other things we would consider strange in the New Testament before it was redacted. One day, perhaps this, too, will be revealed to humanity.

There is, however, a new consciousness coming to us humans. I am sure of it. This, I believe, is what God incarnated as a human to accomplish. In fact, He (Jesus) said, "If a grain of wheat is not cast out into the Earth before it dies, it gives no fruit, but if it falls to the Earth and dies, it yields hundreds of measures of grain for an abundant harvest" (I am paraphrasing here, because I don't have the text in front of me.) Christ was the grain of wheat that died to give an abundant harvest. WE are the harvest! I also believe that Jesus' references to the "Son of Man" actually refer to US. WE'RE the "Son of Man!" The phrase, "Son of Man," can actually be translated to "human being." This is also what St. Paul was talking about when he said, "... for we shall be changed, in a moment; in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised, incorruptible; for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal, immortality." I interpret this, and the foregoing, to mean that we - ALL of us - will be changed, suddenly, "in the twinkling of an eye" into the likeness of Christ, that is, will all of His insights, powers and abilities, as the Sons and Daughters of God. That is why He came: to transform all of us into His own likeness.

[awakensong]

Nice post "I_am" :o I agree.

What I am confused about is the comment made earlier by someone that David Icke doesn't believe Jesus existed? Is that true? It has been a while since I have read his books but I was under the impression that he believed a "Jesus/Christ" type figure did exist and he tried to teach people about love and "oneness" etc - but that he wasn't "divine" and that the church/historians/whatever just made up all the stories and myths surrounding him to fit their agenda?

So is that wrong? Does David believe that Jesus is a completely made up person? Can someone please clarify?

Thank you :cool:
I've heard him on the radio say "I don't buy the Jesus story". And his explanation went along the lines of what it would mean to our being One Consciousness if an outside Saviour was needed. We would no longer be One. It would hold us in Duality if something 'from the outside of Consciuosness which we all are' had to come along and rescue or save us. It isn't about being united "as one"; it's about actually being One.

A caller to the program I was listening to said she had named One Consciousness "Yahweh". David said he didn't care if she had named it "Ethel", but that the minute we separate ourselves from "It", we cease to be One.

On another forum, and I no longer remember where now, I read where a long time ago David claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus. If he really did say this, maybe it was before he had developed the theory he goes by today. Not sure. :)

[howlingmad]

On another forum, and I no longer remember where now, I read where a long time ago David claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus. If he really did say this, maybe it was before he had developed the theory he goes by today. Not sure. :)

I think what you may be refering to is the fateful TV interview with the jerk whose name I can't remember. See the video clip "David Icke -- Was He Right?" (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6860946590182985661&q=David+Icke+Was+He+Right%3F) to watch part of that interview. He simply said that he was the son of God. Now, Christians would be hopping mad over this statement, since they tend to believe that there was, and could only be, one Son of God-- Jesus. The interviewer coaxed the audience into laughter, attempting to ridicule our stalwart brother.

But he was right. He is the son of God. So am I. And everyone else I've ever met or will meet (about half of them are daughters of God, though).

[howlingmad]

Thank you for responding, howlingmad! I was beginning to think I had offended you in some way. You are an excellent "dialoguist," and I value your comments and judgements highly.

Thank you very much. It's nice to be appreciated.

You know, I get the feeling that we're really talking about the same things, even though our terminologies are different. Part of the reason, I'm sure, is that I am a child of the 1950's, a time of great "stability," born in Texas (1947), the USA, to a fairly conservative family, whereas you were born in the 60's, a time of great upheavel, in Britain, apparently, and probably to a more liberal family.

No, actually I was born in 1954 in Los Angeles, California. My mother was raised a Mormon, but my father was a devout atheist, 'til the day he died. Not very liberal attitudes. My aunt, on the other hand, could be called a beatnik. She was a great influence on me. So there's the "liberal".

My mother re-established her belief in the LDS doctrine later in life. She, at one time, tried to get my siblings and I interested in the church, but the whole thing turned me off, even at that early age. I'll never forget the banner draped in front of the dias(?) toward the congregation that read: BE REVERENT. Reverence is something that comes from an understanding of the unfathomable greatness and magnitude of all existence. You can't just command the congregation to "be reverent" any more than you can force Love. It comes of itself. Imagine saying, "I'm trying to be reverent", or "I'm trying to love you."

I'm reminded of the story of George HW Bush telling a joke to a Japanese audience. His anecdote went on for some time. At the end, he turned to the interpretor, who then addressed the audience in Japanese: "Mr Bush has just told an amusing story. Laugh now!" The audience complied; Bush's ego satisfied.

I'll admit that when I was young, around 17-18 years old, I "accepted Jesus into my heart", as they say. The people that talked me into it were attending an Evangelical church; Foursquare. Certainly you've heard of them. They practice glossolalia, where one member of the congregation would suddenly stand up, rattling off some rather fluid-sounding gibberish, followed by an "interpretation" into english, usually by the pastor. I did believe that I was also given this gift to pray in this "language", bestowed during a baptism of the Holy Spirit, which really just consisted of someone laying their hands on you, babbling this gibberish. But one gets caught up in the moment...

I attended this church for many months, but one day I simply wasn't in the neighborhood, so I went to a different church of the same brand.

I was shocked by what I heard. They "spoke in tongues", but instead of the lilting sort of Celtic sound I was accustomed to, they were emitting a noise closer to Klingon. Who was speaking the true language of angels?

It was then that I began to suspect what a crock this all was. Then, after returning to my "home" church, I heard that the pastor had translated a message from God that the congregation should vote for Nixon (this was obviously around 1971). That did it for me.

But I did learn something from the whole experience. First, they taught that the miracles that Jesus is said to have performed were not solely the province of the only begotten Son of God. With faith, one could acquire these capabilities as gifts from God. This is an important distinction from most sects of Christianity.

Second, that the simple act of acceptance can bring one to a feeling of joy. "And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."" I know you'll agree with that (I think you said the same in previous posts).

So, going forward with this new-found information, but eschewing the artificial structure that surrounded it, I also looked into Buddhism, mostly in the way that Alan Watts presents it (thanks to my aunt). He began as an Anglican scholar, later becoming a Zen Buddhist. It's really in Buddhism that the essence of Christianity starts to make sense.

But Buddhism has been called "the religion of no religion". They don't worship a god. It's more about removing the mental artifices that obscure our true being. It's a practical guide for ceasing the "monkey-mind" and returning consciousness to the unblemished state of an infant, where nothing coming in through our senses has a pre-conditioned interpretation, and all can be easily accepted as one.

Later on, I found some books that de-mystified the still somewhat mysterious nature of quantum physics, finding that scientists were discovering, quite by accident, the basic essence of Buddhism in their formulas. It's been about a hundred years since this startling revelation, but it's only now starting to sink in.

Then, just because I found the images to be so beautiful, I picked up some books on fractals and Chaos theory. Here, I found, was the third note in the triad, so to speak, the principle of self-organizing systems, the revelation that what appears as randomness at one scale is order at another, and the notion of the "butterfly effect"; that any element in a non-linear dynamic system can influence the whole in a dramatic way, with the behavior of the system extremely dependent on initial conditions. For me, it tied all creative energy together into a simple formula; indeed the simplest!

Then, of course, I came across David Icke, and his research presented plausible answers to the profoundly disharmonious state of humanity. And another book that has had a powerful impact on my worldview is Michael Talbot's "Holographic Universe". If you, spectator in particular, haven't read this book, then I highly recommend it.

[awakensong]

I think what you may be refering to is the fateful TV interview with the jerk whose name I can't remember. See the video clip "David Icke -- Was He Right?" (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6860946590182985661&q=David+Icke+Was+He+Right%3F) to watch part of that interview. He simply said that he was the son of God. Now, Christians would be hopping mad over this statement, since they tend to believe that there was, and could only be, one Son of God-- Jesus. The interviewer coaxed the audience into laughter, attempting to ridicule our stalwart brother.

But he was right. He is the son of God. So am I. And everyone else I've ever met or will meet (about half of them are daughters of God, though).
I doubt he would word it now as the son of God, because he so clearly teaches that to do so causes duality. He would say we are all God in One Conscious Awareness of Itself. The Matrix causes duality, and he definitely doesn't want us to remain 'there'.

[spectator]

Welcome to the discussion, awakensong! I hope you'll stay with us.

It seems to me that I read something along the lines of what you say David Icke said in his radio interview in one of his books. I regard the ideas in your account of what he said to be true, except for the fact that our human consciousness can be affected by what we believe to be true, whether it is true or not. I believe that Jesus the Christ came to REESTABLISH our collective consciousness of the oneness we humans have with our Creator. In our "Fall from Greace," we had fallen under the illusion that we were separated from Him, which was, and has always been, totally false! We are, and have always been, one with God, but we had to be taught to realize that fact and ACT on it to reacquire the freedom from want, disease and death that we are entitled to as the sons and daughters of God. Jesus called this freedom the Kingdom of Heaven. It is now known as Christianity, but as I've tried to explain here, the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus restored to us is not a religion at all. It is a state of mind. That became clear to me when I witnessed the lives of people I would call saints. These people actually live in a different world from ours, yet it is a world totally accessible to all of us, if we follow the teachings of Christ.

This world of war, conflict, poverty, disease and death that we see around us, I am convinced, is passing away and will be supplanted by the Kingdom of Heaven, which is, and has always been, alive in the hearts and lives of Earth's saints. When there are enough of them, the change prophesied in many ancient texts will occur, and this nightmare world we have been conditioned to think is real will pass away like a dream. These saints are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, and believers in many other philosophies and religions. If it were possible to gather them all in one place, there would be no disagreements among them. That is because they all live in the same Kingdom, with the same King, whether or not they call Him by the names ezch of them recognize, and even if they don't recognize a God at all! What is important is what they DO, how they treat other people, and in what Spirit they live and move.

Hello, howlingmad. Your account of your early life only confirms what I have long thought about Christianity. The Church, which I define as the Community of all believers in Christ, has been fractured and fragmented by innumerable doctrines and dogmas that have NOTHING to do with the Kingdom of Heaven! People have used these doctrines to whip and persecute each other to the ends of the earth, and for what? What believers in the Kingdom should have done instead of creating all these doctrines is Live the Kingdom! NO doctrine or dogma is more important than that! Jesus said, "Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, and all things shall then be added to you." How true! If we believers in Christ had only done that, the whole history of the world would have been different!

As you point out, though, these groups all have good things about them, too, such as the idea that the miracles attributed to Christ could be performed by any believer who had enough faith. Jesus Himself said that many times in the Gospels. That's what is so tragic! There is such good and holiness in so many Christian communities, but it has been perverted by inconsequential, nonsensical trivia that darkens the whole community.

I'll never forget the time I visited a Christian community here in the town where I live, El Paso, Texas, It was a "Chuch of Christ" protestant community, if memory serves. I had never felt such an overwhelming sense of love, respect and sheer goodness before among any group of Christians. It was stunning! I was so impressed, I began praising them for it! Almost immediately, they started bickering and quarreling with each other, and the earlier atmosphere of love and respect swiftly evaporated. it was almost as though they wanted to PROVE to me that I was wrong about them. I was terribly dissapointed and even ashamed. I thought I had had something to do with their sudden dissention. Never before or since have I seen such a swift change among people in a community.

One thing I noticed about saints, though. When they witness something similar, they get a very serious, sad expression on their faces, and then they often say something, very quietly, that immediately puts all the dissenting parties to shame, Then those that were arguing suddenly grow silent and everybody turns and walks away. That's exactly what happens in the New Testament, when Jesus is confronted by a mob chasing a woman caught in adultery through the street. The woman throws herself at Jesus' feet. Jesus ignores what the mob is shouting about stoning the woman to death for adultery, calmly squats down and starts writing something on the sand. Then, when everyone has quieted down, He gets up and says, quietly, "Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her." That's a direct quotation from Mosaic law on the treatment of adulterers. Instead of throwing stones, the crowd quietly disperses and Jesus is left alone with the woman. "Is there no one to condemn you?" He asks her. The woman says, "No,sir." "Then I won't condemn you, either. Go, and sin no more."

I've read Chaos Theory, too, and have been fascinated by it. To me, it is more evidence that there is NO chaos in the Cosmos! What appears to be chaotic and disordered to us is NOT chaotic. What it also mplies to me is that there are NO accidents, either EVERYTHING that happens happens according to some plan or design far beyond our understanding. If we could truly understand the causes for everything, indeed, we would know the Mind of God, but that, I think, is impossible for human beings.

David Icke talks about Talbot's book in some of his books. I have intended to read it for years, but I have a very long list of "to read" books.

[howlingmad]

Jesus said, "Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, and all things shall then be added to you." How true! If we believers in Christ had only done that, the whole history of the world would have been different!

As you point out, though, these groups all have good things about them, too, such as the idea that the miracles attributed to Christ could be performed by any believer who had enough faith.

Certainly, "Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven..." can be considered true, but unfortunately he didn't say it, or perhaps it wasn't transcribed, in a way that people in his region could make wide use of this knowledge. Remember that the "gospels" weren't written until at least fifty years after his death. And who's to say that the writers really understood it.

Seeking the Kingdom of Heaven, as you have successfully argued, is attaining spiritual enlightenment. But the Taoists and Buddhists make it more attainable (!) by explaining that in order to reach this state of being, one must let go of our conditioned interpretation of reality; to return to the state of being that existed within us (and is still there) when we were little children.

When the Bible speaks of faith, it reads like a quality that is accrued by the spiritually diligent, like wisdom gained by experience. 'Greater' faith. But it should be understood more as that which remains after we have shed this limited view of the nature of existence. Children exhibit much greater faith than adults, because they don't have the pre-conditioned responses that burden adults. This not to say that we should give up technological knowledge and go back to the sandbox, but that accepting what is perceived without judgement, without narrowed perception, will allow ample room for beauty, love, understanding, joy, and compassion into the normal flow of interaction, with each other and with the natural world.

I'll never forget the time I visited a Christian community here in the town where I live, El Paso, Texas

I'm so sorry for you. I've been through El Paso. I don't think I'll be going again...

I've read Chaos Theory, too, and have been fascinated by it. To me, it is more evidence that there is NO chaos in the Cosmos! What appears to be chaotic and disordered to us is NOT chaotic. What it also mplies to me is that there are NO accidents, either EVERYTHING that happens happens according to some plan or design far beyond our understanding. If we could truly understand the causes for everything, indeed, we would know the Mind of God, but that, I think, is impossible for human beings.

Here, I differ with you. I still maintain that the mind of God is not separate from our own mind(s). That conscious energy, field, force, whatever unfortunate and ultimately inadequate label we put on it, is what creates us, and everything around us. When we think, it is God thinking, much as music from any instrument is still music. The limitation in our awareness is similar to the difference between an oboe and a piano.

And the differences are great. A piano has a range of 88 notes, any of which can be played simultaneously, whereas the oboe has only a 2 1/2-octave range, and can only play one note at a time. But the oboe is capable of far greater expression with each note than the piano, which sounds its notes, and has no further control.Yet each instrument provides exquisite, soul-enriching music in the hands of a well-tuned musician.

And so with each of us. We all play our essential part in the mighty orchestra. The great symphony, in which God began the first note (and determined the key), requires our part be played with the instrument that makes up our being, otherwise the music lacks an important harmony, perhaps even a key theme. What makes the difference is being a well-tuned musician. This comes from not only learning where all the notes are, how to read the music, etc., but most importantly that we become one with the music, that all the technical aspects become as another dimension of ourselves; second nature.

This comes from letting go.

As you can probably tell, I'm a musician. Quite often when I play the piano, just "fooling around", I feel as though I'm "channeling" the music, that my hands are doing things that I didn't really think about. Sometimes it's surprising, sometimes I have tears in my eyes. As I said before, cannabis helps, by clearing away the stilting preconceptions and allowing this spirit to take hold and play. That's why musicians love cannabis. Tunes them into the cosmic radio station. But even that takes practice, and I'm afraid that many young people haven't had proper training in the use of this marvelous herb, hence abuse occurs.

[awakensong]

Seeking the Kingdom of Heaven, as you have successfully argued, is attaining spiritual enlightenment. But the Taoists and Buddhists make it more attainable (!) by explaining that in order to reach this state of being, one must let go of our conditioned interpretation of reality; to return to the state of being that existed within us (and is still there) when we were little children.

That's exactly what the Gnostic Gospels teach as well. Those are the ones I read now; never the orthodox version anymore.

Here, I differ with you. I still maintain that the mind of God is not separate from our own mind(s). That conscious energy, field, force, whatever unfortunate and ultimately inadequate label we put on it, is what creates us, and everything around us. When we think, it is God thinking, much as music from any instrument is still music. The limitation in our awareness is similar to the difference between an oboe and a piano.

Yes, I agree. I say it is we who are both "God" AND "Satan", depending upon where we are resonating and vibrating at any given "time".

[spectator]

Greetings, howlingmad and awakensong!

I was interested to find out, howlingmad, that you are a musician (though I surmised that music was important to you from your "sign." (Is it called an "Avatar?") I am also a musician, that is, if you consider an operatic singer to be a musician! Some instrumentalists don't! I attended the vocal school here at the University of Texas at El Paso for four years, and then four more years at the Conservatorio di Musica Santa Cecilia in Rome, Italy, for another four years.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't like El Paso! What is it about this town that you dislike? Truthfully, there are some things about El Paso that I don't care too much for, either, but there are some good things about it, too.

I know that the Gospels were not written down until decades after Jesus' death. At least, that's what scholars tell us. These same scholars tell us that the sayings of Jesus were preserved in an oral tradition for that time period Oral tradition can be very accurate, however, especially among illiterate people! After all, they don't have any other means for recording events, so they take great pains to make sure that the oral accounts they have are accurate. One example of this are the vocally sung Islamic epic poems of Turkey. The most famous of these poems are sung continuously for up to eight hours, all memorized by text and tone by the Turkish bards. The majority of these epic poems are centuries old! Often, the bards and their listeners don't understand many of the archaic terms and references the bards are using in their renditions, but they are faithfully reproduced, anyway. it is thought that the Illiad and Odessey of Homer were preserved in this way for hundreds of years before they were finally written down!

I think the Kingdom of Heaven was intended to be just as accessible to people as the Taoist and Buddhist altered states of consciousness. That's why Jesus constantly referred to returning one's consciousness to that of small children in order to enter it. Many of the great Catholic saints, also, wrote about, or communicated in interviews, the necessity of "stripping away" the attitudes and responses conditioned into adults. Francis of Assisi and Katherine of Sienna spring to mind in this regard. In fact, the disciplines of many of the medieval Catholic religious orders (Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines, etc.) were designed to aid one in oing precisely that!

I do disagree with you however, about our limited human minds being equal to the mind of God: that they are one and the same! Many of the most renowned Catholic saints reported that God sometimes gave them brief insights into His Own Consciousness, sharing It with them when they were in a state of extasy (an altered state of consciousness), and that the experience was excruciating! All the accounts I've read say that after even a MOMENT of this Consciousness they begged God to return them to their customary consciousness. Some saints have said that even drinking wine with a meal can be dangerous if one goes into such a Hyperconsciousness, so I don't think they would recommend cannabis! Somewhere in the Bible, God Himself says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts; nor are your ways My ways." The human mind and the Divine Mind were, indeed, designed to play the same symphony of Creation. However, God is both the music and the orchestra as a whole! We can't be anything more than His instruments. Nor should we try to be.

"Letting go," as you say, is part of an exceptional musical performance. I couldn't agree more! But it has happened to me infrequently. Perhaps that's because a singer in an operatic performance is only superficially akin to an individual player in an orchestra. If an orchestra player of great technique and skill "let's go," lets the music take over, and all the other players do the same, it will be an exceptional performance. In opera, however, there are even MORE variables! All the singers on stage, all the orchestra members, all the set technicians, all the costumers and assistants (that dress the singers for each Act), and, yes, the audience itself, have to all be all on the same "wave length" in order to have an exceptional performance. Unfortunately, that doesn't often happen, but when it does, it's amazing!

Awakensong, I think you're right about our ability to "resonate" with either God or Satan. I definietely know who I want to resonate with! However, I'm convinced that they are VERY different entities and definitely SEPARATE from each other! We are also, thank heavens, separate from THEM! Some of the great saints of former times have written about visitations of Satan and demons, especially when the demons are "pouring it on," that is, when they are frenetically trying to get the saint to sin and the saint strenuously resists them. All the saints I know of relate how frightened and horrified they were by these visitations, so much so that they were afraid to retire for the night, because they knew that then the onslaught would begin. Of course, most people nowadays consider such accounts as pure fiction. More and more people, however, are coming to the realization that Satan (Lucifer) is REAL and humanity's mortal enemy! All experts on exorcism, for instance, say that the film, "The Exorcist" is an ACCURATE portrayal of what goes on in an exorcism! I advise you to see that film, if you haven't seen it already, and think about whether you would want such an entity to get hold of you!

[awakensong]

Awakensong, I think you're right about our ability to "resonate" with either God or Satan. I definietely know who I want to resonate with! However, I'm convinced that they are VERY different entities and definitely SEPARATE from each other! We are also, thank heavens, separate from THEM!

Hi Spectator,

I once believed and felt that way as well, but now it's my considered opinion, and I state emphatically that this is not something I'm trying to push on anyone else it's just my own finding and experience, that we resonate "as" not "with" God or Satan, and that no one is separate from each other.

It finally became clear to me after an extensive study of Consciousness that God/ Spirit/ Consciousness is all that can and does exist. Anything else that exists would have to cause duality which would never bring peace and love. And where could it have come from and not be God as well?

Interesting that you are also a musician and singer. So am I, and I grew up in the 50s also, in Southern California.

[spectator]

Hello, awakenson.

It's interesting to me how similar your belief in what I would call the "Unitary Conciousness," the beliefs of many other "new Agers" I have become acquainted with, and the beliefs of David Icke, among other authors, are, to the doctrines of Mary Baker Eddy, the self-styled seer and "prophetess" who founded Christian Science in the late nineteenth century. Actually, whe began writing her ideas down soon after the American Civil War. She was the first writer in English that I'm aware of to rail against the "dualism" she said conventional ideas of Good and Evil falsley engendered in human consciousness. She said that belief in Evil, or as she called it, "Error," gave Evil power to which it was not entitled, since it had, in reality, no real existence other than in the mind of man. If one wanted to free himself from sin and other "erroneous" beliefs, he had only to recognize their "unreality," and realize that he, as a child of God, was made superior to sin and invulnerable to its blandishments. Ever since the publications of Mrs. Eddy, it seems, her ideas have permeated particularly American religious and philosophical thought.

The major problem with this view, in my mind, is that if one says that there is no consciousness other than the Consciousness of God, then all the evil we see all around us in the world is either not real (the view of Mary Baker Eddy, David Icke and many other "New Agers") or God is RESPONSIBLE for that evil, which, in my view, makes God indistinguishable from the Devil!

The idea that evil has no objective reality is, also, fraught with contradictions. The best illustration of this is, I feel, the example of warefare. If a soldier doesn't think the bullets and rockets coming his way are real, he will not survive very long! Another problem caused by this thinking is also practical: Let us imagine that a person is being stalked by a murderer. The murderer knows that if his target knows he is being stalked he will notify the police, put more and bigger locks on his doors and windows, be more careful about how, where and when he leaves his house, notify his family, friends and coworkers of his movements, vary his routes and times of travel, etc. If the target does this, he will make the murderer's job much more difficult, and possibly even thwart the murderer's plans entirely! It is obviously in the murderer's interest, then, to conceal his stalking from the target at all costs. The murderer knows that the target will not defend himself from a danger he does not perceive. Hence, the murderer is much more likely to succeed.

This, in my view, is precisely what Satan (Lucifer) has done! He has convinced most people that He doesn't exist, and therefore is no threat to them. Most recently, however, he has added a new manoever to his old game: he has convinced many people that he, not God, is the true lover of mankind, and that, therefore, all belief in the vengeful, aggressive God of Israel should be abandoned in favor of Lucifer's New World Order religion, which' he says, will be a religion that exalts man to the place where he belongs: as the god of his own world, who can do what he likes to anyone he likes simply because he can. Such ideas as conscience, ethics and morality are as outdated as the Geneva Convention!

[awakensong]

Hi spectato, nice to hear back from you. :D


Hello, awakenson.
It's interesting to me how similar your belief in what I would call the "Unitary Conciousness," the beliefs of many other "new Agers" I have become acquainted with, and the beliefs of David Icke, among other authors, are, to the doctrines of Mary Baker Eddy, the self-styled seer and "prophetess" who founded Christian Science in the late nineteenth century. Actually, whe began writing her ideas down soon after the American Civil War. She was the first writer in English that I'm aware of to rail against the "dualism" she said conventional ideas of Good and Evil falsley engendered in human consciousness. She said that belief in Evil, or as she called it, "Error," gave Evil power to which it was not entitled, since it had, in reality, no real existence other than in the mind of man. If one wanted to free himself from sin and other "erroneous" beliefs, he had only to recognize their "unreality," and realize that he, as a child of God, was made superior to sin and invulnerable to its blandishments. Ever since the publications of Mrs. Eddy, it seems, her ideas have permeated particularly American religious and philosophical thought.

Well, this just goes to show me how inadequate words are. After studying into both, I have totally rejected all that has to do with Christian Science and the New Age. It may be best to keep my thoughts to myself because as soon as I speak, no matter how I try to change my wording to fend off the last person's mistakes who misinterpreted me, yet another conclusion is drawn that is erroneous. I think only each of us knows what we mean by what we say. Words are inadequate at best for trying to express something so metaphysical as a belief or philosophy. I believe Mrs. Eddy's husband had studied in the East and he taught Advaitism to her. She then westernized it and began a movement.

The major problem with this view, in my mind, is that if one says that there is no consciousness other than the Consciousness of God, then all the evil we see all around us in the world is either not real (the view of Mary Baker Eddy, David Icke and many other "New Agers") or God is RESPONSIBLE for that evil, which, in my view, makes God indistinguishable from the Devil!

I know you don't agree with what I'm saying, but do you actually understand it? Using a skill called the "art of listening", just read what I said without a knee-jerk reaction. To me, and this is just to me, there is no God and there is no Devil. There is just Consciousness. I don't even like the words God or Devil but I have found that in this world, people insist upon using them, so I'm 'saying' that both of those would be "us", depending upon where we vibrate and resonate. We create reality, WE are Limitless Possibility, which means we have potential for being "God"ly or Devil"ish. I don't believe in either entity, per se. Especially since there is so much evil and suffering in this world, if there actually was a real God out There, why doesn't He/She/It/They do something to end this? Since that never happens, it is apparent to me that either we take hold of the steering wheel of the destiny of this planet and ourselves, or allow it all to continue to careen aimlessly through space.

I understand that you do believe in a separate God and Satan, which is very strange for being at a forum like this. I suppose it would then be very difficult for you to understand the 'language' spoken here by those of us who are on this track. Have you seen the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" It explains consciousness so extremely well; very professionally from a scientific viewpoint, using empirical science to verify or falsify.

It won't be reasonable or productive for us to continue to converse if you're going to continue to speak as if I believe as you do in a separate entity "out there" named "God", but not in a Devil, so that I'm blaming "God" for evil. It must be understood I believe in neither. Now how will you address that so the conversation can move more smoothly? My mind won't ever be changed back to what I ever believed before, and as yet I see no evidence for some sort of Transcendent God that the Gnostics speak of, who claim Yahweh is actually Satan. This is closer to what I could believe, but it still leaves us with the unsolved problem of no loving God who ends our suffering here.

The idea that evil has no objective reality is, also, fraught with contradictions. The best illustration of this is, I feel, the example of warefare. If a soldier doesn't think the bullets and rockets coming his way are real, he will not survive very long! Another problem caused by this thinking is also practical: Let us imagine that a person is being stalked by a murderer. The murderer knows that if his target knows he is being stalked he will notify the police, put more and bigger locks on his doors and windows, be more careful about how, where and when he leaves his house, notify his family, friends and coworkers of his movements, vary his routes and times of travel, etc. If the target does this, he will make the murderer's job much more difficult, and possibly even thwart the murderer's plans entirely! It is obviously in the murderer's interest, then, to conceal his stalking from the target at all costs. The murderer knows that the target will not defend himself from a danger he does not perceive. Hence, the murderer is much more likely to succeed.

This is where you have totally misunderstood me. I definitely DO believe there is evil in the world, but not because there is a Devil doing it to blame it on. It's because there are all of us living here and the universe itself exists in a flawed manner that it happens. We are choosing and creating our reality. What we do today creates tomorrow and so on.

This, in my view, is precisely what Satan (Lucifer) has done! He has convinced most people that He doesn't exist, and therefore is no threat to them.

Well, I would say that life has convinced me personally that neither Satan (but I don't consider him Lucifer even in the OT writings) nor God exists. Satan is no threat to us and God is no help. We must help ourselves and quit being such a threat to each other with our different gods and devils, or we're done for. These names of "God" and "Satan" are cosmic principles or energies which have been personified so they can be explained better. They've been put into storybook form and are not real. That's me; I know it's not you and I'm not going to try and convince or persuade you to it, but want you to accept that it's my persuasion for myself.

Most recently, however, he has added a new manoever to his old game: he has convinced many people that he, not God, is the true lover of mankind, and that, therefore, all belief in the vengeful, aggressive God of Israel should be abandoned in favor of Lucifer's New World Order religion, which' he says, will be a religion that exalts man to the place where he belongs: as the god of his own world, who can do what he likes to anyone he likes simply because he can. Such ideas as conscience, ethics and morality are as outdated as the Geneva Convention!

Please forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you sound sort of hysterical and distraught over this. Tell me, where did you go to hear his seminar? Do you really buy this? I don't. It's only because someone believes there is either God or Satan that these urban legend beliefs can be spread.

From everything I've ever heard or known, it will be Catholicism that will be the one world religion, if they can pull this off, and that will be mandatory subserviance to the fictional Judeo-Christian god, either by free will or through Inquisitions. I neither believe in the vengeful, aggressive God of Israel, or Lucifer/ Satan, which btw, I never believed were the same entity anyway when I was a church-goer.

I hate to say this, but I believe the human race is getting what it has created for the present by the way we have lived our past, and I only hope we can change course before it's too late. That's the way it always works - we create and we reap what we sow.

So then, I know you don't AGREE, but do you see what I'm SAYING, and do you see the difference between what I say and what you seem to read into it? I don't believe there IS a Satan to give power to, or a God to BLAME evil on (if a devil doesn't exist but a god does) or thank for the good. We are that!

Here I go trying to explain again, and words are so inadequate to explain the metaphysical, but I see One Consciousness as a "Mother Board" and us as "points of awareness" wired to "her" or "it". To me, One Consciousness, or "God" (if you insist on that word - but NEVER in the vernacular used throught religiondom) - or Spirit is "Ultimate Reality" and we are All Possibility, as Icke calls it. And actually, in all fairness to his message, he does say our consciousness has been 'hacked into' by the Reptilians, so maybe that is who to blame for the evil. However, they are just aspects of Us, too, and not separate entities "from" us. They are vibrating at a lower rate and can only hold us if we don't vibrate higher than they do. The answer continues to be that WE OURSELVES have to "log off", as he puts it, from their hacking of our program. This is all in his book "Infinite Love".

[spectator]

I'm terribly sorry, awakensong, if I've offended you, as apparently I did. In writing about Mary Baker Eddy I was merely trying to trace where the ideas many people have now about God and Satan, and Consciousness, actually came from.

It was not clear to me, awakensong, from what you said in the post before your last one, that you did not have a belief in God, or the Devil, at all. What you said sounded very much as though your belief was similar to the Christian Science model. If I misinterpreted you, I'm sorry. I do think, however, that you should avoid taking what I, or anyone else, says here so personally! I wasn't attacking you, I was trying to discuss the IDEAS, that's all.

You, and no doubt others on this forum, probably think it is strange for one who has a more traditional view of God and the Devil to writing be on this forum. There are two reasons for my presence here. The first reason is that I have a great deal of respect for David Icke and what he has written even though he never ceases to attack my religion. He is the first author I know of to combine many disparate threads in conspiracy writing in order to synthesize a global theory involving Reptilian-human hybrids, that is, I think, correct. Humanity, I believe, owes him a debt of gratitude for this. The second reason I am here is because, as much respect as I have for him, I think he is wrong about Christianity as a whole, and I am trying to show that the lives of the saints, of many different religions, and some of the Christians among whom I believe I have known personally, show that the promises of Christ are true and are the only real hope we have for escaping the long night of totalitarianism that is descending on the world.

[tinmenace]

Did Humans see aliens and thought they was gods,and thats how religions started?

What are your views on religion



Religion is like organized crime. It's the system with which they imprison our souls and curb our freedom. It's enslavement of the spirit, mind and body. How else could just a few of them control the many of us? They had to create these dogmas based on fear in order to keep control.

Religion is an absolute hoax. Yes, the ancient people did call the Aliens gods, and there is plenty of evidence to substantiate their very public presence. In fact they didn't go 'underground' until later.

For those that don't fall for the mainstream religions, there is 'New Age' religion as a final catch-all to make sure nobody escapes the net.





.

[howlingmad]

Religion is like organized crime. It's the system with which they imprison our souls and curb our freedom. It's enslavement of the spirit, mind and body. How else could just a few of them control the many of us? They had to create these dogmas based on fear in order to keep control.

It seems that religions at least begin with truth, then those that want the truth suppressed pervert and distort the truth to their own ends. Maybe that's part of human nature to try to impose what they think is best for everyone. Christianity is a prime example of this. To give spectator a break, there is truth to be found in the writings about Jesus, but as I've said, it is immaterial if he existed or not. Cultural myths have been used to disseminate some truthful information, but myths are most commonly used for disinformation. 9-11 springs to mind.

Awakensong, I sympathize with your frustation at attempting to get your excellent points across using words. You, of course, are not the first to disparage the use of words to describe these things. Here, the first page of the Tao Te Ching:

ONE

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

Spectator, I do appreciate some operatic singing (grand opera), but — and please don't be offended — I'm a purist, and find the singing to be a bit over the top. I'm distracted by the libretto; I "get" more from the music by itself without cluttering it with needless and, in my opinion, ugly words. To me, music is the most beautiful language in the world; in comparison, all spoken languages are course and vulgar.

Thoughout the years, I've noticed something about most people; the regular folks. They don't, or can't "hear" music. They can't really distiguish one note from another, or pick out an instrument from the rest of the ensemble. They recognize words, though. This really hit home the first time I heard the live version of "Stairway to Heaven", a song that, at the time, had been played to death on the radio. Of course, the song begins with a long instrumental intro, then finally "There's a lady who's sure" ...you know the rest. What struck me was the response of the audience. There was some recognition by a few when the first guitar notes started, but the crowd went wild when Plant started singing, as if to say "Oh!! I know that song!!"

So, when the gospel of John starts with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" — well, I cringe at that. Now, we can try to deconstruct that and say that they meant something else, but then we're second-guessing the author. One of the reasons there are as many different sects of Christianity as there are is because of the interpretation of words, which always have a cultural bent to them. Indeed, culture resides in the language.

I found your comments on the Turkish bards and their absolute dedication to repeating the words, even though they may not have a modern equivalent. This is because the culture from which they came has greatly diminished or disappeared altogether. Yet, the important question remains — is the message then lost?

It's in words that the separation comes, the false separation from "The Mind of God" and consciousness of any sort. Words make us distinguish one thing from another. Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. To distinguish it as separate from you is a false image.

There is only one.

There is only now.

[tinmenace]

It seems that religions at least begin with truth....

For me to fully understand your post, I need to understand the following:


On what do you base your above statement, and...
How do you define religion?

[awakensong]

Thank you very much, Spectator, and my apologies as well for not understanding that I was misunderstood. http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/notworthy.gif

Words are a difficult way to express ourselves, and the worst way possible is probably electronically, since the best form of communication requires visual contact as well. A person's facial expressions, voice intonation and hand gestures are as important as their actual words, and that is sadly left out on the internet. Emoticons don't quite suffice, though they are as close as we come so far. :D

[awakensong]

Awakensong, I sympathize with your frustation at attempting to get your excellent points across using words. You, of course, are not the first to disparage the use of words to describe these things. Here, the first page of the Tao Te Ching:

ONE

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.


What a very superb way to describe it, yes. Thank you for sharing this! http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/clap.gif

[spectator]

Greetings, Awakenson, howlingmad, and tinmenace,

howlingmad, I'm not surprised you feel the way you do about opera as a whole. Many instrumentalists I have met feel the same way. Opera is a taste that doesn't come naturally to most people. It didn't come naturally even to ME! Though I've spent most of my adult life singing in productions, when I was first introduced to operatic singing, my reaction was, "Oh, come ON!" It grows on you, though, or at least it CAN.

That is an interesting quotation you posted, regarding the TAO. It is beautifully poetic. but rather obscure. I suppose it is designed to be obscure, like much oriental poetry I've read. Plato had somewhat the same idea, namely, that the "world of ideal forms," as he called it, true reality, was accessible to people only rarely, at times of extraordinary insight. I would argue, however, that it is now available to some people - the saints - in the Kingdom of Heaven.

awakensong, you are absolutely right about electronic communication as a means to carry on a conversation. Perhaps the computers of the future will al come equipped with cameras and video screens, but if they do, we shall all have to get dressed and groomed in order to go online! I don't like that idea very much.

Tinmenace, I understand your contempt for religion. So many abuses and crimes have been commited in its' name, particularly the name of Christianity, that it would be surprising if people DIDN'T feel that way! However, we are naive if we think that religion has not accomplished anything positive in the world. One need only think of the Third Reich, in which the Nazis attempted to suppress all religion except their own neo-Germanic paganism. It could be argued that the horrors committed by that regime might have been mitigated, or even halted, if more Germans had felt restrained by Christianity. The New World Order is now attempting to accomplish the same thing. There is a concerted effort in the Media to villify, condemn and discredit religion, particularly Christianity, and particularly Catholicism. If it succeeds, the horrors that may ensue will put those of Nazi Germany to shame!

At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that Christianityas we have it today is only partly related to what Jesus taught. My experiences living among people of undoubted holiness have convinced me that they are living what He taught every day. They are living the Kingdom of Heaven. As I've said here before, true Christianity should rightly be called the Kingdom of Heaven. That is what Christ called it, and that is what He taught. However, it is not only Christians who are living in the Kingdom, but people belonging to every other religion on Earth as well! There are not many of them. There never have been many at any one time on Earth, but it is striking how similar they are in their mode of living. I have long thought, as I've said here before, that if it were possible to gather all the saints from all the religions into one place, that there would be no disagreements among them. I think that is because they have all reached similar conclusions about life, existence, wisdom, and to a great degree, God. Really, if one looks at all the great teachings of all the religions, they are strikingly similar.

Therefore, tinmenace, whatever the crimes and abuses of religion in general and Christianity in particular, have been, it is simplistic and naive to say that the world would be better off without it, or any of the other religions!

[awakensong]

awakensong, you are absolutely right about electronic communication as a means to carry on a conversation. Perhaps the computers of the future will al come equipped with cameras and video screens, but if they do, we shall all have to get dressed and groomed in order to go online! I don't like that idea very much.
That's probably when the internet would become almost empty, if that ever happened. lol

Not only because of the getting dressed and grooming, but because of the privacy and anonimity issues. Maybe all that would be left would be the hackers and spammers. lol

[howlingmad]

That is an interesting quotation you posted, regarding the TAO. It is beautifully poetic. but rather obscure. I suppose it is designed to be obscure, like much oriental poetry I've read. Plato had somewhat the same idea, namely, that the "world of ideal forms," as he called it, true reality, was accessible to people only rarely, at times of extraordinary insight. I would argue, however, that it is now available to some people - the saints - in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Right, the Tao Te Ching seems obscure, but that passage is simply saying that words are used to define things. You simply cannot de-fine the in-finite. The infinite (~Tao) cannot be grasped. It is intangible. It cannot be seen — it is beyond form. It cannot be heard — it is beyond sound. These three are indefinable, therefore they are joined as one. A description of the Tao seems without substance or flavor. It cannot be seen, it cannot be heard, it cannot be held. And yet it cannot be exhausted.

I think I differ with you when you make references to 'rare moments of extraordinary insight', or 'altered states of consciousness', etc. when discussing the state of mind that I regard as closer to the original and unblemished mind that we were all born with. It's through the years of mind-control and conditioning that we've arrived at this altered, and distorted, state of consciousness; quite unnatural.

One need only think of the Third Reich, in which the Nazis attempted to suppress all religion except their own neo-Germanic paganism. It could be argued that the horrors committed by that regime might have been mitigated, or even halted, if more Germans had felt restrained by Christianity...and particularly Catholicism. If it succeeds, the horrors that may ensue will put those of Nazi Germany to shame!

I'm not so sure about the Nazis attempting to suppress Christianity. Historical documents indicate that the Lutheran church was quite supportive of Hitler. Artists portrayed Hitler as the second coming of Christ, by painting images of Jesus around a central portrait of Der Führer. And there is the glaring silence from the Vatican when the Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. were oppressed. Finally, after some 50 years, the pope apologized for this, but the harm was already done. I've seen documents (hard to find on the web these days, but I'll look in my records) of Lutheran deacons keeping prisoners for the Nazis. No, my friend, they were in collusion with the Nazis. The neo-pagan stuff was simply myth building, much like the myths of American 'heroes', like John Wayne or Roy Rogers (both were drunks).

Therefore, tinmenace, whatever the crimes and abuses of religion in general and Christianity in particular, have been, it is simplistic and naive to say that the world would be better off without it, or any of the other religions!

Here, I'd have to say that the religions derived from the Tanakh (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) have been the most bloodthirsty of the world's religions. This because the God that's represented in the Tanakh is a bloodthirsty God. See Deuteronomy 20:12 as a start. Gideon (for whom the motel-room Bibles are named for) was said to have personally killed thousands of men, women and children. King David, even more. The revolting stories of sawing live people in half, or throwing them live into the kiln (including infants) are not love-inspiring. Read Psalms 137:9. What's worse, these stories were the blueprint for the devastation that ravaged the native peoples on the continents of the Western hemisphere.

The teachings of Jesus seem to be saying something along the lines of Eastern philosophy, but perhaps simply because of the cultural environment from which these stories originated, they are distorted enough to give rise to what can only be called religious fascism, especially after the Romans got hold of it.

Spectator, I understand the points you are trying to make, but I question your defense of Christianity, particularly Catholicism. The Catholic church is getting bad press, not because the New World Order is trying to bring it down, but because it is finally being revealed (a long time coming) that the church has been a source of great evil perpetrated on humanity by being the so-called moral compass for those that insist on imposing their belief system upon others.

In my opinion, there is no rescuing Christianity. It is so dysfunctional that simply creating a new-improved sect of Christianity brings more of the same dogma and distortion of truth. You'd really have to throw out the Bible for a start, and then where are you? A religion of no religion. It's already been done.

[i am all i am]

INTRODUCTION

Real issues withheld from the people

This book presents an overview of the Christian church's untruthful presentation of the story of Jesus Christ and was initiated by the discovery of ancient scrolls in secret Vatican archives. It states its proofs and demonstrates from historical records, ecclesiastical confessions, archival manuscripts, oldest Bibles, published church admissions and acknowledged academic authorities, that:
1. The New Testament, in the strictest legal and moralsense, is a forgery; every Gospel and booklet it carries is falsified; and significant passages upon which the fabric of the church and its principal dogmas were founded are fictitious narratives.
2. Christianity originated and flourished on dishonesty, false pretence, deception, and feigned piety, and in ensuing centuries its leaders industriously engaged in the cover-up of information that exposed the real nature of clergy and their false doctrine.
3. Church history was knowingly falsified with deliberate fabrication of a whole Christian literature, manipulated to hide the true nature of Christian beginings; the church concealed the essence of the truth of its origins and matters where self-interest of the priesthood were concerned; and for 1700 years perpetrated the frauds herein revealed, and was their chief beneficiary.

- The Crucifiction of Truth, by Tony Bushby, page 22.


'The Bible Fraud', 'The Secret in the Bible' and 'Crucifixion of Truth' are books by Tony Bushby.

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors."
- Pope Leo X.


G'day one and all.

Spectator, I offer you the above as a resource for you to understand the truth behind christianity. Please understand that I don't expect you to alter your views, but I make this offer for your further understanding and expansion of what it is that you already know. I encourage the reading of these books because Tony Bushby has researched this topic for most of his life and gives full documentation of all the evidence set out within the books.


With LOVE.
____________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[awakensong]

Isn't Bushby also the author who says there was a Rabbi Jesus and a Judas Khrestus which the Vatican decided to 'combine' into one 'godman'? One was a peace-loving, gentle, pacifistic teacher and the other was an insurgent and a rebel - the one with the apostle carrying a sword when they came for him.

The story goes that at the Council of Nicea, they VOTED on who would be the new 'godman' since they were taking over from paganism. The Vatican actually sits on the VERY SITE that the original pagan temples sat, and there are sites which are very revealing with pictures of the interior. The entire ceiling above where the pope stands is painted in gold and has an opening at the top for the Sun-God to shine through right at noonday. There are astrology signs all over the Vatican. They moved right in and didn't change a thing; they just revamped the religion.

Here's a site with lots of good info and pics: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/dome-1.jpg
Here you see a photo looking up into the dome of St. Peter's. Notice the very obvious 16 ray sun wheel. Indeed the light from the sun streams into the center hub of the dome making a genuine sun-lit sunburst image at the center of the wheel.

As you can see from the Bible verses quoted above, these symbols were associated with sun worship, which is strongly condemned in scripture. So why are they so prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church, if they are associated with paganism and apostasy?

[tinmenace]

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/dome-1.jpg






I've always thought it looked like a space ship.


:rolleyes:

[i am all i am]

Isn't Bushby also the author who says there was a Rabbi Jesus and a Judas Khrestus which the Vatican decided to 'combine' into one 'godman'? One was a peace-loving, gentle, pacifistic teacher and the other was an insurgent and a rebel - the one with the apostle carrying a sword when they came for him.

The story goes that at the Council of Nicea, they VOTED on who would be the new 'godman' since they were taking over from paganism. The Vatican actually sits on the VERY SITE that the original pagan temples sat, and there are sites which are very revealing with pictures of the interior. The entire ceiling above where the pope stands is painted in gold and has an opening at the top for the Sun-God to shine through right at noonday. There are astrology signs all over the Vatican. They moved right in and didn't change a thing; they just revamped the religion.

Here's a site with lots of good info and pics: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/wheel.htm

http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/dome-1.jpg
Here you see a photo looking up into the dome of St. Peter's. Notice the very obvious 16 ray sun wheel. Indeed the light from the sun streams into the center hub of the dome making a genuine sun-lit sunburst image at the center of the wheel.

As you can see from the Bible verses quoted above, these symbols were associated with sun worship, which is strongly condemned in scripture. So why are they so prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church, if they are associated with paganism and apostasy?

G'day Awakensong,

I don't have a copy of 'The Bible Fraud' anymore, but here is a quote from 'The Crucifixion of Truth', page 82.

"He (Constantine) determined that the names of his two first century descendants Jesu Cunobeline and Judas Krestus be joined as one, Jesu Krestus, and that would be the official name of the new Roman God. A vote was subsequently taken and it was with a majority show of hands that both men became one God...161 votes to 157."

Jesu Cunobeline was the peaceful one, although, from memory, I think he sold Judas into slavery (it's in 'The Bible Fraud' and I can't check for you). Judas Krestus was the rebel who was inciting the population against Roman rule.

Here's a cross reference for you from 'The Greatest Spiritual Secret of the Century', by Thom Hartmann, pages 161, 162, 163 and 164. It probably refers to Judas Krestus.

" Joshua raised his left hand. "Two thousand years ago, before toilet paper was invented, people used their left hands to clean themselves. They'd then dip their fingers into a bowl of water to clean them, but their left hands were never really clean and they knew it. You know that?"
"I never thought about it," Paul said, dizzied by the sudden change of topic.
"It's true," Joshua said, putting his hand back on the arm of his chair. "In fact, it's still that way in most of the Third World. Today, this is how about four billion people live, without toilet paper. And in those lands today, as back then in Israel, the most terrible and vicious way you could insult a person would be to touch him with your left hand. Even gesturing with the left hand was banned in most societies. Among the Jewish Essenes, gesturing with the left hand would earn you a week's banishment from the community. And if you wanted to really insult somebody, to totally humiliate him, particularly in public, you would slap him with your left hand. You understand?"
"Yes," Paul said. "Like giving somebody the finger today."
"More like giving them the finger and spitting in their face," Joshua said. "Or throwing urine on them. Remember where that hand was. You'd only do that to a person you knew couldn't retaliate, right?"
"Unless you wanted your butt kicked."
"Right. So slapping somebody with your left hand, in ancient Roman society, was both the ultimate insult,and also something that was only done to the most powerless people. The Jews whose land was occupied by the Romans, for example. There was no recourse for them, unless it was to punch that person, which would mean they'd get the death penalty for hitting a Roman citizen. You understand?"
"Yes," Paul said.
"Unless they could get that Roman to hit them with his right hand, which meant that a fight was engaged. Then they'd be justified to fight back. But the Romans didn't hit slaves with their right hands, they insulted them by slapping them with their left hands and then laughed at the humiliated slave who couldn't slap back."
"Got it."
"So," Joshua said, "which cheek would I strike you on if I wanted to humiliate you by slapping your face with my unclean left hand?"
Paul looked at Joshua's left hand, and then visualised it moving through the air, imagining where Joshua's left palm would fall. "You'd hit my right cheek if you swung your left hand."
"The ultimate vicious and humiliating insult, hitting your right cheek with my left hand,"
"Yes."
"And if you then challenged me to hit you with my right hand, that would be a challenge to my authority if I was a slave holder or a powerful person in your society, right?"
"Absolutely. You'd be saying, 'If you have any courage, you'll start a legal fight with me where I can fight back. You'll hit me with your right hand. I dare you'"
"And yet it would not be hitting back, it would be merely exposing the evil of the left-handed slap for what it was."
"I understand," Paul said.
Joshua said, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That resist not evil with evil: but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn and offer him the other also." "

With LOVE.
_________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

Thanks for sharing the above, I_am.

Darnit why do you two have to have similar names?


very confuzzling.


s

[awakensong]

And they always taught it meant "Become a doormat".

[i am all i am]

And they always taught it meant "Become a doormat".

Yes, they totally twisted the meaning to suit there own purpose.

The next one that is explained is about the saying, "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two". Roman soldiers and citizens, by law, were allowed to force a resident of an ocupied country to carry something for up to a mile. The soldier or citizen could lose their citizenship, becoming a slave, if they forced the resident to carry anything for more than a mile, under the anti-exploitation laws.

And then you have the saying, "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also". At the time most slaves only had a couple of items for clothing. When a Roman citizen wanted some work done, they applied to the local magistrate to get a lawful order that the slave(s) work for them. The court order stipulated that each morning the slave gave the Roman citizen their coat for safekeeping and as evidence of ownership, then it was given back at night so the slave could sleep in it and stay warm. If, as a slave, you give up both articles of clothing and was naked, then the Roman citizen could be seen as exploiting you, thus breaking the anti-exploitation laws and be sent to prison.

I'd always wondered why it was the Roman Catholic church, when apparently, it was the Romans that fed the christians to the lions and crucified Jesus, that was the first christian denomination. Anyway, it's good to share some knowledge about the oppressors.


With LOVE.
___________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[i_am]

Thanks for sharing the above, I_am.

Darnit why do you two have to have similar names?


very confuzzling.

s

hehe. Sorry seamus. they (am) are my initials and I just added the i_ bit as my email address. When I first joined as a Premier Subscriber my user name was sunshine (as in Qld - The sunshine state) however, I renewed my membership by fax and they gave me a new user name i_am :confused:

[i am all i am]

Thanks for sharing the above, I_am.

Darnit why do you two have to have similar names?


very confuzzling.


s

You are welcome Seamus, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I don't go by the name I was given at birth. I've named my mind, body and soul and using three names is too long. I AM ALL I AM comes from something I was working on when I found out that the interpretation of the Hebrew word for God could be translated as, I AM THAT I AM, I AM WHICH I AM and I AM WHO I AM. So I AM ALL I AM is my interpretation of how to unite all three interpretations. It is also a way to remind me of who I truly am and keep connected. If you'd like you can call me 'all' to avoid any 'confuzzling'.

With LOVE.
___________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[spectator]

howlingmad, I would like to know what "historical documents" you refer to in reference to the collusion of the Church with the Nazis. It is true that some in the Catholic Church's hierarchy in Germany were openly supportive of the Nazis and all that they stood for, as were many in the Protestant hierarchy. With what you now know about the Illuminati, would you expect anything different? It is also true, however, that individual priests, nuns, and protestant clergymen were starved to death and executed in the death camps along with the people they were trying to protect from the Nazis. The church hierarchy even handed some of them over to the Gestapo! Again, isn't that predictable, knowing the modus operandi of the Illuminati? As I keep trying to comjunicate here, the hierarchy of Christianity is not ALL THERE IS to the Church, which, as I have said, I define as the community of all those who believe in Christ. Throughout recorded history, the Church's elite has acted as agents for despotic and tyrannical governments. That's because most of them are Illuminati or their toadies. These people, however, are not "The Church."

It is also true, however, that some in the Church's hierarchy were silent about what the Nazis were doing, even though they suspected it, mainly because they were afraid of Nazi reprisals against their parisioners! It is easier, howlingmand, to be courageous when one only has his own life to think about. It is quite another matter when one has the responsibility for thousands, or even millions, of believers! It is also easy to condemn churchmen in hindsight for failing to show courage, when one doesn't have to fear the knock on the door in the middle of the night! What would you have done if you were there?

Many, many in the church's officialdom (who were not Illuminati!) pretended to go along with the Nazis while secretly supporting their enemies. They were playing a dangerous game, and they knew it. But, after the war, they were condemned as collaborators because there was no record of what they had done secretly against the Nazis!

Then there are the saints. As I've tried to communicate here many, many times, The saints are almost always persecuted by their own religious communities and churches, because they are often perceived, at least at first, as charlatans and frauds whose activities threaten the church's reputation. Many, many of the saints now revered in the Catholic Church were imprisoned by it during their lifetimes, and some were even executed as heretics! Joan of Arc was one of these. In times of persecution or political upheaval, they are treated with even more circumspection than is usual, and are hidden away by the official church, which sees them as lightning rods for official persecution. They keep practicing their saintliness, of course, but under layers and layers of official denial and secrecy.

The real story about all this, as you can see, is quite complex, but "collaboration" and "collusion" is an easy charge to level against people who are now dead and can't defend themselves! It's a facile way to condemn Christianity as a whole. However, to do so is propagandistic. It seeks to reduce to a "sound bite" what is a very complicated story.

I agree, howlingmad, that there are brutal, bloodthirsty accounts in the Old Testament, but have you ever read the Old Testament to see what ethical and religious meaning there was in these stories? Despite all their gore, these stories teach things like faithfulness to God and one's spouse, consequences of dissolute living and debauchery, courage in the face of adversity, perseverence, longsuffering, consequences of envy, adultery and murder, etc. etc. THAT'S why they're included in the Old Testament, because HUNDREDS OF GENERATIONS of human beings who were interested in finding God saw something in them worth preserving, something that helped them in that quest. Of course, it isn't fashionable to point these things out today, because people would rather live debauched and sinful lives; they would rather embrace "religious" systems that ask nothing of them; that don't require them to change their lives in any way, since they have been conditioned to believe that they are PERJECT and need do nothing to improve themselves!

The history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, is filled with violence and atrocity, but, again, that is not the full story about these religions, is it? These religions have fostered societal tranquility, order and peace; they have fostered and preserved education when they were the only institutions who could do so; Christianity, not ancient Greece, gave rise to the concepts that later became part of Western democracy; Islam fostered religious tolerance and scientific inquiry; Judaism fostered literacy and individual scholarship; and on, and on. None of that is spoken about these days, because there IS a concerted effort by the Illuminati to make these religions go away. They, like the United States of America, have served their purpose, and now they are to be eliminated, even as they are used to draw the world into one last horrific conflict. But, guess what! Many, many believers, as was true of many generations of believers before them, would rather die than give up their faith. To these people, their faith IS their life!

I am all I am, awakensong and tinmenace, I have a book that I think you may enjoy. I call it the ultimate in hateful propaganda against Christianity, and I heartily recommend that all of you get it! I first read about it in David Icke, so, of course, I had to get it. It is called, "The True Authorship of the New Testament," by Abelard Reuchlin. Reuchlin's thesis is that one Arius Calpurnius Piso and his family were the true authors of the New Testament, and he offers an astonishing array of documentary, mathematical, and cryptological evidence to support this assertion. He, (rather, his estate, since he is now deceased) even offers his readers a reward if they can prove him wrong! The Piso (pronounced Peezo) family were a noble Roman family who were related by marriage to Julius Caesar. The family patriarch , Lucius, was married to a granddaughter of Herod the Great, which made his son Arius half Jewish. It was this Arius who, with his sons and grandsons, and their family friend, Pliny, the Roman historian, not only wrote the New Testament, but also all the works of another fictional character, Jewish first-century historian Flavius Josephus!

My opinion of this book however, is that claiming that a gaggle of debauched Roman nobles wrote the New Testament is like claiming that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by Harpo Marx!

[i am all i am]

G'day Spectator,

Where to start. I'll start with the saints. How about Bishop and Saint Cyril of Alexandria (d.444) who publicly proclaimed, "Thou must hate all heretics". In fact he did follow his own belief. St Cyril personally led a mob of churchmen into the library of Alexandria and dragged Hypatia (a pagan scientist and philosopher) into a church. They then clubbed her to death, scraped the flesh off her bones with oyster shells, beheaded her, cut her corpse into pieces and cast the remnants into a fire.

How about St Dominic (1170-1221), who so ordered by Pope Innocent III, formed the 'Catholic Army'. St Dominic deemed them to be the 'Militia of Jesus Christ'. They were specifically established to 'cut the throats of disbelievers when the priesthood was preaching the Lord's Gospel'. The 'throat-cutters' (as they were known to the general populace) contributed to the total extinction of the Cathari (also known as the Albigensians). St Dominic's followers were formerly called the Dominicans, or the friars of the Order of the Dominicans and, in England, the Black Friars.

Now let us take a journey through the Old Testament shall we.

"Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them commited, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand" - 1 Corinthians 10:8

"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel, And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it. . .And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. . .So the Lord sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men" - 1 Corinthians 21:1-14

"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritence, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" - Deutronomy 20:16

"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" - 1 Samuel 15:3

Of course there are many more examples, but that is probably enough to show a good example. Obviously great religious and ethical meaning within the text, but somehow I can't seem to find it. The Lord thy God appears to be inflicted with a lot of human traits (mainly the sinful and destructive ones).

Well, thanks for the book recommendation Spectator. As well as the Tony Bushby books, allow me to recommend 'The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read' and the landoverbaptist.org site. If you would like any further evidence, please feel free to post your queries and I'll endeavour to answer you.


With LOVE.
_____________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[awakensong]

Over the last week or so I've been having some email conversations with the author of the site http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/jesusoutline.html

He has sent me the preview of something he hasn't yet posted to his site, but is going to soon, and I'd like to share it on this thread.

First of all, I had asked him why he says on his site that Jesus' ministry lasted only one year, when I had thought it was 3 years. He replies:


The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) imply Jesus' ministry lasted one year, while the fourth gospel, John, implies Jesus' ministry lasted 3 years (which is why it's not synoptic. It contradicts Matthew-Mark-Luke all over the place).

And why are there four Gospels? Here is a quote from A Short History of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585092053/daviddeleysho-20) (1881)(pg.88)

But why should there be just four Gospels? Why not five, or six, or a dozen? Irenæus, who was, as I have said, the real founder of the canon, and who spent his life in endeavoring to establish the Catholic Church and the Bible, determined this matter, and the church has followed him. Whatever reason he gives, therefore, for the present number of Gospels, will be the reason why we have that number. Fortunately, he is very explicit on this point, and we know exactly what decided him. He said that there were four quarters of the earth, and four universal winds, and that animals were four-legged, or four-formed, and therefore there should be four Gospels. His words are:

"It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. . . . Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things. . . . For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform. . . . These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those (I mean) who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer."

Is it just me, or does that sound strange? Especially since he's correct about John contradicting all the other books, especially if I remember correctly, the account of the crucifixion.

Here is the part he has not posted yet to his website, where he explains that the story of Jesus is the story of the Sun walking through the Zodiac:


The first two premises, that 1) There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever existed, and 2) The story existed before the alleged time of Jesus, are solid. The third premise, that the Jesus story parallels the sun's annual journey, is something that could be further worked on. There are an astonishing number of parallels, but sometimes it doesn't quite fit, suggesting it started as a solar myth story but got modified along the way to it's present form.

Solar Mythology and the Jesus Story I suppose as is typical of my personality when I finish learning or figuring out something I turn to something else. I haven't done any further research on religion in awhile. I know my lessons on solar mythology and the Jesus story ends with "Working. Under Construction." but I actually only have a summary page left which maybe someday I'll post but for now I just add it to email when people inquire, so here's my summary of problems with the theory. In my reading of 19'th century books on Christianity I've come across references that other people in the 19'th century also tried to draw a parallel between the Gospels and astrotheology. Nothing of their work seems to have survived, at least I've never come across any writing that lays it out as I have, I've only come across references that this is a direction to look into.

Robert Taylor in his sermons on astrotheology (The Devil's Pulpit vols. 1 & 2, 1830-1) goes over various pieces, making the connection. Charles Dupuis in 1798 claimed Christianity was a sun religion, but his argument was the fall of man is just astrotheology, with Eve being Virgo and Adam one of those handsome men next to Virgo, and since Christian theology rests on their being a fall, hence the need for a savior, but if there never was a fall, it's just a story in the stars, then there is no need for a savior and Christianity need not be examined further, so says Dupuis. (Dupuis chapters 9 and 12 are on my website.)

So for Solar Mythology in the Jesus Story, though enough of the pieces fit that I see a parallel, there are also pieces lacking and sometimes the timing is off. For example, I equate Jesus entering Jerusalem riding two donkeys with the sun passing the two donkey stars in Cancer (in Cancer the star gamma is named Asellus Borealis, or 'northern donkey', and the star delta is named Asellus Australis, or 'southern donkey'), but next Jesus curses the fig tree, which I equate to mid-autumn, leaving an unexplained gap of several months.I talked with Acharya S about this and she writes, "The fig tree cursing is--intelligently, I opine --perceived as the usurpation of the goddess, who was represented by the fig tree. In fact, that was one of the people's favorite symbols for the goddess, and this story seems aimed at the goddess-worshipping people. I cover this in Christ Con, as does Barbara Walker abundantly." Barbara Walker has a thick book The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets where she says, "The Gospels say Jesus cursed the fig tree and made it forever barren because it refused to produce fruit for him out of its season. The story probably was intended to express hostility to a well-known Goddess-symbol." But not enough is further said to explain to my satisfaction.So now I've moved on to trying to understand people who think differently. This leads to the Cognitive Science books of George Lakoff and the character & temperament books of Myers-Briggs and David Keirsey.

A New Christianity for a New Era
I just finished reading Prof. George Lakoff's latest book, Whose Freedom? And wow, what an important book he's written! I now finally understand the origin and roots of my progressive beliefs. He once again has a chapter on the two completely different types of Christianity: Progressive Christianity, and Conservative Christianity.Progressive Christianity focuses on the message Jesus preached, that we should all be nice to one another and nurture one another. Jesus was the epitome of a nurturing parent. He cared for all of us, his metaphorical 'children', he healed people when they were sick, he talked to people considered 'them, not one of us'. He really promoted the belief that a parent should be nurturing.Conservative Christianity instead focuses on how you'd better follow the rules. God is a strict father in this version, and you'd better do what he says. If you toe the line and do what he says, everything will be OK. God knows better. Your father knows better. You should always follow authority and do what they say. This is the "strict father" belief.

I talk about this briefly at: Two Models of Christianity: http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/twomodels.html which is from Lakoff's previous book Moral Politics. So I'm now just beginning to see that Progressive Christianity could survive and even thrive, because Progressive Christians won't mind if it turns out Jesus is just a myth, because it doesn't change the message that Jesus taught, that we should all be nice to one another and adopt the "nurturing parent" approach, and it's the message that they focus on. This is a far different message than the one conservative Christians focus on, so I believe it's important that we promote our progressive beliefs to counter those of the conservatives. And with this I believe it's a person's inner orientation, toward either "nurturing parent" or "strict father", which comes first, and people then go looking for churches which teach what they already believe. So religion itself is not the origin. There's something deeper within us. Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,
-David Deley
"I would rather know a fearful truth than remain deceived by comforting falsehoods."
http://members.cox.net/deleyd/


Spectator,
I have heard that story before about the Piza family. It's possible for that to be as true as any other possibility, but it really doesn't help all that much as to whether a real Jesus ever existed, because nothing was recorded in "his own" handwriting. We all know how messages can get passed around and by the time the 10th person has heard it, many essential pieces have changed drastically. These things remain a mystery, but one thing that doesn't, in a way, is Consciousness. If Jesus existed, He was an aspect of That, and so are We.

[awakensong]

I am all I am, awakensong and tinmenace, I have a book that I think you may enjoy. I call it the ultimate in hateful propaganda against Christianity, and I heartily recommend that all of you get it! I first read about it in David Icke, so, of course, I had to get it. It is called, "The True Authorship of the New Testament," by Abelard Reuchlin. Reuchlin's thesis is that one Arius Calpurnius Piso and his family were the true authors of the New Testament, and he offers an astonishing array of documentary, mathematical, and cryptological evidence to support this assertion. He, (rather, his estate, since he is now deceased) even offers his readers a reward if they can prove him wrong! The Piso (pronounced Peezo) family were a noble Roman family who were related by marriage to Julius Caesar. The family patriarch , Lucius, was married to a granddaughter of Herod the Great, which made his son Arius half Jewish. It was this Arius who, with his sons and grandsons, and their family friend, Pliny, the Roman historian, not only wrote the New Testament, but also all the works of another fictional character, Jewish first-century historian Flavius Josephus!
If all of the New Testament was written by this one Piso family, why do all 4 gospels contradict each other, give different timelines, etc?

Would this be saying the 'entire' NT? Why would they author Jesus as having taken people away from the god of the OT and then also author Paul into looping people back around to this same god?

Surely it wouldn't be saying that the Book of the Revelation was also written by this family? Why would they write such a bizarre piece to keep people in such confusion?

[spectator]

i am all i am, Hypatia was an elderly, highly respected and virtuous teacher of neo-platonism among the world-renowned scholars at Alexandria in the 5th century. She was highly respected and even revered among educated Christians. Some fanatical Chiristians, however, considered all pagans to be servants of the Devil. One of these fanatics, a lector (reader of Scripture at Christian services, NOT a clergyman) incited a riot of some of these fanatics and carried out Hypatia's murder. St. Cyril, a high church official in Alexandria at the time, was NOT involved, and condemned the actions of the mob. The murder of Hypatia brought about universal censure of the Alexandrians among the communities of Christians throughout the Mediterranean, and the Christians there were held in disgrace for many years because of it.

St. Dominic, born in Spain, was the founder of the Dominican Order, that's true, but the Dominicans WERE NOT instituted to "cut the throats of disbelievers," as you say., but to convert unbelievers to Christ through good works, prayer and sacrifice. St. Dominic did participate in the crusade against the Albigensians (Cathars) in 1208, but he sought to aid those who suffered because of the military expedition with water, food, clothing and prayer. One doesn't convert people with the sword, iam all i am, but with prayer and good works. The Dominicans were called "Blackfriars" in England because they wore black habits. St. Dominic is known today chiefly because of a devotion to the Virgin Mary he helped institute and promote: the Rosary.

You seem to take the quotations you cite out of the context which gives their true meaning. Your first quotation is from the New Testament, not the Old Testament, and in it St. Paul is warning the Corinthian community to shun lewdness and fornication, reminding them that God delivers fornicators over to the sword. He is referring to the fate of the Israelites who rejected God in the wilderness of Sinai during the Exodus from Egypt.

Your second quotation is from the Old Testament, not the New one. In it, God punishes David's disobedience as King of Israel by letting a pestilence destroy seventy thousand men. The lesson here is obedience to God's commandments, not, as you seem to suggest, sheer bloodthirstiness and arbitrariness on the part of God.

Your third quotation is from Deuteronomy. God is instructing the children of Srael on how they must treat the idolatrous people of Canaan when they enter the land. They are harsh instructions, but the POINT of them is to teach a LESSON: God is very harsh with idolators.

Your fourth quotation is from 1st Samuel. God is giving harsh instructions to King Saul to destroy the Amalekites, bitter enemies of Israel, utterly, BECAUSE they are idolators and He wants to prevent their idolatry from corrupting Israel. If you read further, you see that Saul disobeys God's command and tries to save the valuable booty of the Amalekites for himself, for which God severely rebukes him and promises to remove him from the Kingship. The lesson of this story is, once again, obedience to God's commands. It is also intended to serve as an example of how severely God punishes idolatry!

All of these stories are intended to teach lessons on how to relate to God. They are harsher, more stringent stories than the parables of Jesus, but they have the same purpose: to teach how to attain holiness. They are NOT intended to excuse or promote aggression, military occupation, genocide, or murder, although that is how fanatics and literalists have interpreted them thoughout history! Of course, they are also among those quotations always siezed upon by those who wish to villify Christianity and Judaism, (and Islam as well. because Muslims also revere and teach the Jewish Old Testament, and most of the New Testament).

awakensong, I don't recall how Reuchlin explains the differences among the Gospels, except that he says each of them was written by a different Piso family member. You should get the book and find out! He does say that Revelation was also written by a Piso family member, and that that person was in conflict with the rest of the family, so that he uses bizarre symbolism to pillory those siblings and others whom he dislikes. My view on Reuchlin's thesis is that the Piso family were almost certainly the Illuminati representatives who redacted and edited the original Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. As I've said here before, I believe that the New Testment was altered by the Illuminati. They did not WRITE the New Testament, however! From what I know about the Pisos, they were conniving Roman aristocrats, interested primarily in power and wealth, and not much given to writing or scholorship. If that is true, it is unlikely they would have been capable writing what has been called one of the greatest, if not THE greatest document in Western Civilization!

[howlingmad]

howlingmad, I would like to know what "historical documents" you refer to in reference to the collusion of the Church with the Nazis. It is true that some in the Catholic Church's hierarchy in Germany were openly supportive of the Nazis and all that they stood for, as were many in the Protestant hierarchy.

There used to be a website called "Why Christians Suck", which began as a series of hilarious rants by a college student. He gave it over to a more serious student of Christian history.

But some of the information has been saved, and appears here:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/christnazis.html

Note pope Pius XI's declaration of Mussolini, "a man sent by divine providence."

I agree, howlingmad, that there are brutal, bloodthirsty accounts in the Old Testament, but have you ever read the Old Testament to see what ethical and religious meaning there was in these stories? Despite all their gore, these stories teach things like faithfulness to God and one's spouse, consequences of dissolute living and debauchery, courage in the face of adversity, perseverence, longsuffering, consequences of envy, adultery and murder, etc. etc. THAT'S why they're included in the Old Testament, because HUNDREDS OF GENERATIONS of human beings who were interested in finding God saw something in them worth preserving, something that helped them in that quest.

I hope I'm misinterpreting your meaning here. When you say "consequences of dissolute living and debauchery", are you refering to the people that were slain by Yaweh's followers; every man woman, child, and everything that breathes? Is this "faithfulness to God"?

As far as preserving the texts of the Bible, up until relatively recently, one would have been burned alive (out of compassion) to suggest that we might exclude some. That's the biggest reason they have survived to this day.

The history of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, is filled with violence and atrocity, but, again, that is not the full story about these religions, is it? These religions have fostered societal tranquility, order and peace; they have fostered and preserved education when they were the only institutions who could do so...

I'm afraid you'll have to bring up some references that support that notion. I believe most of us here consider that statement to be rather ludicrous.

[QUOTE=spectator;15935]I am all I am, awakensong and tinmenace, I have a book that I think you may enjoy. I call it the ultimate in hateful propaganda against Christianity, and I heartily recommend that all of you get it! I first read about it in David Icke, so, of course, I had to get it. It is called, "The True Authorship of the New Testament," by Abelard Reuchlin.QUOTE]

I've heard of this book; have read a little from it. I never could find a copy. It didn't have enough to substantiate it's claims, in my opinion. It stretched pretty far to make some points.

But some of the details surrounding the story of Jesus simply lack any historical support. For one thing, there is no record of Rome compelling anyone to return to their homeland for census and taxation, as was said of Joseph and Mary. What a messy way to handle things. For what purpose?There is no record of Jewish or Roman law providing for the release of prisoners in honor of Passover, especially one like Barrabas.

I think you are near the right track in your spiritual quest, I just think you want too desperately to hang on to your family tradition, converting it into something more palatable. Like I've said, There is no salvaging Christianity. The weight of the baggage is too great.

Here's an article that you might like. It isn't perfectly relevent, but you will probably enjoy it. It was written by the late Alan Watts in 1973, so there are little anachronisms, but still worth the read. It's called "The Worlds Most Dangerous Book". Some of the pictures that are there I got from the "Why Christians Suck" website (2nd version).

http://northwest.741.com/

[i am all i am]

G'day Awakensong,

Thanks for the information. Here is a quote from 'Retractions' by St Augustine of Hippo that corresponds with some of what you have posted.

"That which is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the begining of the human race until Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion which already existed began to be called Christianity."

I think what sounds strange to you is that there appears to be an overtone of 'freemasonry' thought within the text (the pillars of freemsonry is described often in masonry texts). Well, it feels and reads that way to me. I once found a book on numerology (which I gave away to someone) that was written by a mason, in which he described each number and its virtues. The number 4 was described in a similar manner to the text. He also stated that until Christianity, all names used to describe The Creator, only used four letters. For example, Dues, Odin, Orsi, Atum, and quite a few others that I am not recalling at the moment, but I am sure you get the idea.

In 'The Bible Fraud', Tony Bushby discusses the council of Nicea and the bringing together of the many texts that the Presbyters and others used to preach with. Apparently there were many different versions of the same material before it was fused into one piece, with Jesu Krestus becoming the central figure and Son of God (Sun of God). Jordan Maxwell is a great source for correlations between the Bible and astrology (Astrotheology).

Thanks again for the information and the link.


With LOVE.
________________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

Does anyone have a concise list of the debunktions of Christ? I mean, I have seen hour-long videos where is is mentioned in passing that there were 13 other ancient avatars who were crucified, and another web site in which it is mentioned that Isis, Ra and El were combined to make Israel. and a piece here and a piece there.

Is there a good all-round smackdown of the Jesus myth that focuses on points, and leaves the references in footnotes? Or is it up to me to make one?

I will if I have to...

s

[awakensong]

Hi seamus,

If I understand correctly what you're looking for, I would recommend the book "The World's 16 Crucified Saviors" by Kelsey Grammer. I'm not exactly sure why it goes by that title because I think he listed more like 2 dozen or so during known world history. One was even a woman! ;)

Also his other book "Bible of Bibles" shows all the similarities between each religion, plus the discrepancies within each.

Also, have you read the books by Acharya S? She has a different take than Grammer, but in many ways they end up telling us much the same thing.

[seamus]

Thanks awakensong. That's just the kind of tip I needed. Kelsey Grammer, as in the actor? Neat. I'll have to check it out. I have been to Acharya S' website and seen some of her videos. She's a great resource.

Thank you once again

s

[awakensong]

Oops, my mistake, hehe -- it is Kersey Graves - lol --- too jumbled up today from oral surgery yesterday.

[i am all i am]

Does anyone have a concise list of the debunktions of Christ? I mean, I have seen hour-long videos where is is mentioned in passing that there were 13 other ancient avatars who were crucified, and another web site in which it is mentioned that Isis, Ra and El were combined to make Israel. and a piece here and a piece there.

Is there a good all-round smackdown of the Jesus myth that focuses on points, and leaves the references in footnotes? Or is it up to me to make one?

I will if I have to...

s

G'day Seamus,

Tony Bushby - The Bible Fraud, The Secret in the Bible, The Crucifixion of Truth.

These are all good books detailing the Christ fraud. The front cover of The Bible Fraud has the quote from Pope Leo X, "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.".

The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read is another great resource.


With LOVE.
__________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[awakensong]

Hi seamus,

Here is a site dedicated to the book by Graves, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity Before Christ": http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/

[awakensong]

I've heard the Pope Leo X quote a lot, and then once when I was searching for the exact wording, I found a lot of [Catholic, I'm sure] sites that debunk the fact that he ever said it. Don't know what to think anymore on this.

[seamus]

ooh thank you thank you thank you!

s

[spectator]

Hello, howlingmsd,

I looked at the site you gave in your last post, and I was aware of most of it. With regard to Pius' XI's endorsement of Mussolini, does it really surprise you that he would describe Mussolini that way, given the fact that, as I have admitted in many previous posts, the Church has been controlled by the Illuminati for nearly all of Its existence? Beisdes, what would you have had him do? Should he have attacked Mussolini publically and risk coming under virtual siege in the Vatican? The Church has always had a cozy relationship with authority (too cozy!). That began with the Emperor Constantine, it's partly due to a sense of self-preservation, partly to a conviction, enshrined in the Church's teachings for nearly two millennia, that God institutes the leadership of countries and peoples, and that therefore the people are obliged to obey them as duly constituted authorities, and partly to loyalty to the Illuminati agenda of global domination.

But, as I've tried to explain time and time again on this thread, the institutional Church is not "The Church," which I define as the community of all believers in Christ. Nor is it the saints, who share saintliness with the saints of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, and who are often at odds with their own iInstitutional Church and are sometimes even executed by it! Nor does it even speak for all the ordinary believers who are members of the Institutional Church, many of whom have sacrificed everything down through the Church's history, even their lives, to oppose evils which the Institutional Church, for the forgoing reasons, either would not, or could not sufficiently oppose.

The opponents and enemies of Christianity, of course, always seize upon the sins of the Institutional Church as the sins of the WHOLE of Christianity! For propaganda purposes, it is better for them to pretend that Christianity is the monolithic incarnation of Evil. The reality is far, far different!

Regarding the second quote you cite from my previous post, I am trying to say here that the stories of the Old Testament have been preserved there in order to teach religious truth, NOT to condone or promote invasion and occupation of a neighboriing country, massacre, looting, genocide, murder and other mayhem, although all those things are elements in the stories! Those ancient stories are like the Parables of Jesus, in the sense that they illustrate a religious teaching, or even several teachings. Long before comic books and action movies, children and youths thrilled to the exploits of the heroes of the Old Testament, and wanted to emulate those heroes. The heroes' violent deeds and experiences made for exciting reading and flights of imagination. It was up to the childrens' parents to clarify the details of the stories, and explain the meaning they were intended to convey, as I'm doing here! That isn't to say that the stories weren't true! I'm convinced that they are real events from Israel's history, as passed down through a long, but fairly accurate, oral tradition.

The fact that some of the stories show God instructing kings and even the people of Israel as a whole to exterminate a whole people is meant to illustrate God's wrath against people for "lewdness" (fornication) and idolatry, and the importance for kings as well as ordinary Jews to obey God's commandments. It is NOT intended to promote genocide, although fanatical Jews, Christians and Muslims have always interpreted it that way. The parents of the children who heard and studied the stories, and their rabbis, would have explained all this to them. The Jews, after all, lived, for most of their history in Palestine before the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, among "idolators:" Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, among many other pagans. The childrens' parents and their elders explained to them that they were always to treat ALL others with respect, but never to forget God's injunctions against these sins. If the people among whom they lived indulged in them, Jews were strictly forbidden to do so, and the stories told them why!

The reason the Bible has survived so long has little to do with official sanctions and oppression. People are devoted to the Bible because it guides them in their search for God, and has always done so. Only those for whom faith has no importance can fail to see that. For the majority of people faith is the most important thing in their life, other than their family.

As far as references are concerned for the role of the three great Western Religions in civilization, you can trace that role in most university-level history texts. I know that David Icke believes that "history is bollocks," because of the influence of the Illuminati. I believe he's largely correct. However, one can still glean much good information from such texts. As I say, there are many many texts to choose from, but I recommend "Medieval Europe," by John Francis Burns and Jeremiah O'Sullivan; "Medieval Jewish Civilization," by Norman Roth; and "Medieval Islamic Cultures," on Horace Mann's website.

I got my copy of Reuchlin's book by ordering it from Amazon.com. I don't know if it's still offered there.

Of course, youre right about the fact that nothing about the life and death of Jesus can be verified from sources independent of the Gospels. The references that are usually quoted to substantiate the existence of Jesus, such as that in Josephus (one sentence), and (I think) in the Roman historian Pliny (again, one sentence), are probably fraudulent later additions. I do not believe that the "Teacher" referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls is Jesus, either. I believe that the Illuminati have hidden away all independent evidence of His existence in order to absolutely control what is believed about Him. I do believe that such evidence exists, however, because Illuminati "insiders" who I think are telling the truth say it does.

I am not "hanging on to my family tradition" by defending Christianity (The Kingdom of Heaven) here. I was an only child, my father is an Atheist, and my mother is an Agnostic! My parents thought I should be esposed to some religion, exactly why, I have never been able to tell, so I was instructed in the Presbyterian Church (Calvinism) as a boy. While I was in Rome as a young man, I converted to Catholicism, but I have been in out of the Church since then. I've been trying to find out the truth about Christianity, at least to my own satisfaction.

I looked at the article on the link you gave me. I have read many things like it in my life. Despite whatever criticisms and condemnations people level at the Faith, however, many experiences in my life have shown me that the Bible is only dangerous for those for those who do not read it with faith and humility, and who use it to justify their evil passions.

[seamus]

Hello, howlingmsd,


The opponents and enemies of Christianity, of course, always seize upon the sins of the Institutional Church as the sins of the WHOLE of Christianity! For propaganda purposes, it is better for them to pretend that Christianity is the monolithic incarnation of Evil. The reality is far, far different!



Have you never read the words of Christ, "How can a good tree bear bad fruit, or a bad tree bear good fruit" and "If salt loses its savor, it is good for nothing except to be thrown out and trampled by men".

I say the Church lost its savor (if it ever really had any), oh, by the turn of the first century. The dire warning tone of Revelation, and 1,2, and 3 John, as well as James, are clear indications the plane was about to crash.

s

[awakensong]

The fact that some of the stories show God instructing kings and even the people of Israel as a whole to exterminate a whole people is meant to illustrate God's wrath against people for "lewdness" (fornication) and idolatry, and the importance for kings as well as ordinary Jews to obey God's commandments. It is NOT intended to promote genocide, although fanatical Jews, Christians and Muslims have always interpreted it that way. The parents of the children who heard and studied the stories, and their rabbis, would have explained all this to them.

Spectator, What about the many passages where God told "his people" to rape and kill the women, but to take as concubines all young virgins? Is that a good example for parents to explain to their children? Is that what his "holy wars" were for: to kill people for lewdness and fornication and then to commit it themselves in a most treacherous and disgusting way?

That just doesn't work anyway. You say on the one hand that God instructed them to commit genocide for certain 'justifiable' reasons and then you also say on the other hand that it is NOT intended to promote genocide today. We see that it DOES do this! It's very easy to understand the how and why of it.

Take a look at this from EvilBible.com (http://www.evilbible.com)

1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

[Website author]: Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approve of rape of virgins.

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

[author quote]: What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

[author quote]What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

[author quote]It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

6) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

[website author]: This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

[author quote]: Once again God approves of forcible rape.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Well, judge for yourself as to whether any or ALL of that is lewd and an activity of fornication, and is worthy of one "point of awareness within the One Consciousness" to be enacting upon its own Otherselves. Remember that Jesus said not to judge another until we had first judged ourselves. The parable of the beam in another's eye and the plank in our own. Well, I think all of the above comes under that category quite nicely.

]The childrens' parents and their elders explained to them that they were always to treat ALL others with respect, but never to forget God's injunctions against these sins. If the people among whom they lived indulged in them, Jews were strictly forbidden to do so, and the stories told them why!

Does it look to you like God instructed them to treat people with respect? Isn't that what the Inquisition was about, and isn't that how they justified it? To kill people for a "lack of faith in the One True God"? Is that respectful of a person's mind and intelligence and the sovereignty of their personhood? Whos IS God except One Consciousness which is Unconditional Love for All, and is All Of Us. Anyone, anyone at ALL, who is NOT operating in total unconditional love for ALL, is not in Godhood or Christhood.

Is it respectful for God to instruct "his people" to crush babies and tear women limb from limb just because they happened to be born into a race that wasn't even allowed to serve him, and otherwise were doing nothing wrong? What do you define as "lewdness" and immorality? Who has the right to say what that is? Sounds like quite a bit of schizophrenia there for those poor people to act in such a dishonorable way to other points of awareness within the One Divine Consciousness.

I have come to fully understand that the bible is a book of astrology, endeavoring to explain the origin and creation of this cosmos, through natural means. Names and forms have been given to planets, comets, stars, asteroids, etc., in order to "tell the story" comprehensibly. THAT is why it's dangerous in the wrong hands, because people take it literally as if it's the story of human against human, when what it was about was the planets in collision with each other and "at war with each other" for their position in the universe. The planet Saturn was the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, because it is what gave us our Sun (God - the "consuming fire), and Saturn is also referred to as "El" or "Jehovah". Venus was the Mother, the Goddess, and so on. When it is understood that the bible is a history book of astronomy and astrology, which the ancients used in order to decipher the universe and human life, it is no longer dangerous and does not need to serve in creating 'holy wars' on earth. I'm going to start a thread soon about this word "holy" and I think some people will be extremely surprised to find out its origin and true meaning.

Despite whatever criticisms and condemnations people level at the Faith, however, many experiences in my life have shown me that the Bible is only dangerous for those for those who do not read it with faith and humility, and who use it to justify their evil passions.Again, where was the humility and how do they justify their own evil passions at pillaging and plundering innocent victims? They didn't ONLY kill those who were "sinners", if even that is justification to do so, they killed absolutely everyone and took over their towns and property. How is that justifiable? How is that divine or "holy"? This is all so clearly a case of God not even obeying his own commandments.

[spectator]

Yes, Seamus, I have read those words many times. Here Jesus likens those who hear his teachings and do not do them to salt that has lost its' saltiness and is then good for nothing, and to a tree that bears bad fruit., and thus is good for nothing but firewood. The Institutional Church pretty much never had any savor, because it was created by the Illuminati to accomplish their agenda for global control. However, as I have said here many times, there are people within the Institutional Church (the Community of all believers in Christ) that DO "have savor," if you will. That is, they do follow the teachings of Christ and consequently live in the Kingdom of Heaven.

awakensong, regarding the "many parssages" where God tells His people to commit atrocities, let's confine ourselves to specific cases, shall we? The reason I say that is that I think you'll find the CONTEXT of the passage in question very illuminating. The first passage you cite, from Judges (21: 10-24). First of all, the Book of Judges chronicles a time BEFORE the establishment of the Kingdom of Israel, from about 1130 B.C.E. (Before the Christian Era) to about 1020 B.C.E. or about 110 years.. It was a chaotic time in which the twelve tribes of Israel were in nearly constant conflict with each other. There was no central government, so the only "order" was loosely kept by a succession of "Judges." These were essentially warlords who were only able to keep a semblance of order through their military strength in comparison to the other warlords in Israel. There were six "major" Judges who held sway in succession: Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Jephtah, and Samson. Interspersed with these were six "minor" judges,who I won't name here. At the end of this period, just before Israel was united under its first king, Saul, there were two Judges who appear to have had authority over all Israel for a time: Eli and Samuel. The PURPOSE of the Book of Judges is to show that Israel's fortunes depended upon their faithfulness to God. When Israel disobeyed Him, He gave them over to pagan oppressors. When they obeyed Him, He provided them with Judges to deliver them from their oppressors.

A useful thing to keep in mind is that during this time, Isreal's territory was divided into small regions, each having one or more villages, which were named for the twelve tribes. Each of the tribes was named for one of the original Partriarchs of Israel, and were largely made up of that Patriarch's descendants.

The immediate backgrouhnd of the passage in question is that a Levite (a member of the priestly class of Israel, descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses, entrusted with service before God in His Tabernacle) Journeyed from his home in the area of Ephraim, with his concubine and a servant, through the area of Benjamin and decided to rest for one night in a town of Benjamin, Gibeah. The concubine had run away from him, a capital offense in Israel at the time, and returned to her father, but the Levite followed her there to persuade her to return with him, and to forgive her. The Levite and his small party found lodging for the night with an old man of the town who welcomed them as his guests. During the night, some wicked men of the town surrounded the old man's house and said they wanted him to send the Levite out to them, so they could beat him up, and probably kill him! These men, although Israelites and Benjaminites, apparently had become Satanists ("sons of Belial") and wanted to kill the Levite because he was a priest of God. The old man refused to give the Levite up, but when the men started breaking into the house, the Levite, in an act of unforgiveable (to us, at least), but understandable, cowardice, sent his concubine out to them. The men raped and beat her all night, and finally killed her.

The outraged, distraught Levite carried her body back to his home and cut it into twelve pieces, sent each piece to a different territory in Israel, (except for Benjamin!) and appealed to all Israel for justice. An assembly was called at a place called Mizpah, where the leaders of the eleven other tribes decided to send representatives to the territory of Benjamin, and the town of Gibeah, demanding that they give up the Satanists to face justice. The Benjaminites refused and prepared for war.

The war began outside of Gibeah and thousands of Israelites on both sides were killed and wounded. Mianwhile, all Israel mourned that brothers were slaying each other and never ceased appealing to God for peace at His Tabernacle (Tent where the Ark was kept), which was then at Bethel. Battles raged in many different places around Gibeah for weeks. At the final battle, a group of Israelites rushed Gibeah and breached its defences. They killed everyone they could find in the town. When they realiozed what had become of the town, the Benjaminites bergan retreating, with the Israelites in pursuit. All but a few Benjaminites who escaped to a place called Rimmon were slain. The Isrealites withdrew through the rest of Benjaminite territory, destroying everything and killing all the inhabitants they could find.

When it was all over, the Israelites went to Bethel, to the Tabernacle, mourniing and lamenting that now one of the twelve tribes was gone. They had taken an oath before the war that no one from any of the eleven tribes which had prosecuted the war would ever marry anyone from Benjamin, so, they reasoned, Benjamin would cease to exist. That appalled them, because there had always been twelve tribes of Israel, from the earliest times. Then someone remembered that they had also sworn that anyone who had not met with the other tribes at Mizpah would be executed. They discovered that the men of Jabesh-gilead had not come to the meeting, so a contingent was sent, and they were executed. Still desiring to find some way to assure the survival of the tribe of Benjamin, they decided to spare four hundred young virgins from Jabesh-gilead in order to marry then to the the surviving Benjaminite warriors who had fled to Rimmon, but there were not enough virgins for all the survivors, so the Israelites sent the Benjaminite survivors who did not have prospective wives to kidnap more virgins from Shiloh. In this way, Israel assured that the tribe of Benjamin would survive!

Though the Israelites said that "the Lord had made a breach among the tribes of Israel" with the war, according to the text, at NO TIME did God tell them to start a war with Benjamin, to swear oaths to never marry Benjaminites or to kill those who didn't come to their meeting at Mizpah, to decimate the territory of Benjamin, to slay all the people of that tribe (and the other towns) or to kidnap virgins from Shiloh! All of that was THEIR idea, even though, as people often do, they blamed God for it when it was all over!

Now, is the tale brutal and horrific? YES! Is it barbaric? YES! This was the tenth century B.C., folks! It was about one hundred years after the Trojan War! People were barbaric then, and so was Israel! Was God responsible for what happened? NO!

I don't have time to analyze the other quotations, but if you look at their context and do a little research, a different picture emerges from that provided by the anti-religion polemicists

[awakensong]

When a literal scenario is made out of something always intended to be maintained as allegorical, it becomes too absurd to continue to discuss.

Spectator, I have post traumatic stress disorder and panic syndrome because of growing up catholic with a fiersome, punishing, vengeful god always ready to pounce on me for my every thought, word or action.

You can try and justify all this however you wish, but it doesn't change the fact of how many people have been irreparably and irreversibly injured and their lives ruined by what is presented by the church as truth, or believed by individuals like yourself.

It causes me no end of insult, harm and damage to read anyone defending the possibility of anything like a god like that, "in" or "out of" context, I do not care. The point is, it's not LITERAL, but I was raised as though it was. Context doesn't mean squat to me now. Besides, who are you to personally decide context and meaning? I know what the priests, nuns and pastors have told me through the years, and I reject it all now. Every bit of it.

Not to mention the fact that IN CONTEXT it says no illegitimate child was to enter "his temple". I have friends who have been insulted and psychologically injured by that; who have been ousted and rejected by communities on such a basis. It's all an absurdity with no end of harm and damage to humans against humans.

[awakensong]

Just this one more thing and then I'm finished with my rant.
It is NOT intended to promote genocide, although fanatical Jews, Christians and Muslims have always interpreted it that way. The parents of the children who heard and studied the stories, and their rabbis, would have explained all this to them.
Yes, don't they, though? The world is the result of how well they've done their jobs of explaining "all this" to them.

And it must be remembered that Catholics and Protestants learn these same stories, and there will continue to be wars and hurting people as long as ANY of this is taken as literal.

[spectator]

awakensong, my father was a Seargent in the U. S. Army in WWII, Pacific Theatre. When he returned from the war in 1945, he married my mother, and settled down here in El Paso, Texas. i was born two years later, in 1947. I was an only child.

My father was raised in a very strict, Protestant farming household in East Texas. Both his father and his mother spoke of practiaclly nothing but religion, day in and day out. He struggled against that upbringing for years, and was actually relieved when war seemed imminent. He enlisted in the Army in 1941, before Pearl Harbor. When he found out that he was being deployed to the Pacific (to Australia, first) he was elated! At last, he would get away from home! He had always been skeptical about religion and God, but his experiences in the War convinced him that there WAS no God, and that we human beings are animals. "How could there be a God," he often told me, "when the world is as it is?"

My mother is not religious, either. (Both my father and mother are still alive. He is 89 and she is 91,) However, she thought it best that I be exposed to religious doctrine, though my father did not. She won out, and we all began attending a Presbyterian church here in town. The Presbyterian Church is a Protestant sect derived from the teachings of John Calvin, one of the leading theologians of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Calvinism was at first very anti-Cahtolic, though time has moderated that vehemence somewhat.

As a boy, I didn't know what to make of religion. It seemed very strange to me. Perhaps because my mother and father weren't reiligious, and never prayed or observed any sort of devotions at home, I was able to view religion from the outside, as a spectator, so to speak. What the minister spoke about in his Sunday sermons seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with the real world. Indeed, it was as though religion was a completely different world, within the real world, yet completely separate from it.

In school, I became fascinated with History. At the University, I studied it enthusiastically. I read about the Crusades, the Catholic Inquisition, and the horrific European religious wars in the 16th and 17th centuries. Perhaps my father was right, I thought. Religion seemed to have cause nothing but war and conflict throughout history! Perhaps it was, indeed, a dangerous delusion; one that humanity would be better off without.

I had also become interested in singing. I had been encouraged by several people to pursue it, and that led me to study and sing opera at the University. Then I went to Rome, Italy to study and sing at the St. Cecilia Conservatory., for four years. Rome (in Italian and Latin, Roma) is an amazing city. At that time it was the dirtiest city I had ever seen. I understand that has changed, somewhat, but I would be very surprised if it has changed very much! Even though it was filthy, Rome had a kind of beauty I had never experienced before. There are at least ten thousannd churches there, and of course the Vatican. Many of the buildings are enormous, impressive, and beautiful. There are archaeological digs everywhere; almost around every corner, yet they are kept as unobtrusive as possible, so as not to spoil the scenery too much for the tourists, of whom there are MANY! The sense of the depth and breadth of History there is almost oppressive. It is as though Rome is the world in microcosm. Perhaps that is the source of the legend that says that while Rome stands, the world will stand, and when Rome is gone, the world will be gone. She is like a dangerous, corrupt, filthy whore; fat, gross and ancient beyond imagination, yet seductive, passionate and beautiful at the same time! Italians say that one cannot love Rome without hating Her, and cannot hate Her without loving Her! I think She must have been that way in Roman times, as well. She has ALWAYS been that way! It's no wonder to me that the ancient Christians could imagine Rome to be the Whore of Babylon! She IS! I think the only artist that has even come close to capturing that side of Her was the brilliant Italian movie director (and Athiest!), Federico Fellini.

But I also came in contact with something else in Roma: truly ancient Christianity, and individual people who, I was and am convinced, are saints. The Institutional Church is there, of course, but, in a City like Roma, it is almost insignificant! Roma has seen so much for so long - BEEN so much - that The Church of today is like a society of Lilliputians, living under Gulliver's shadow and peeking up at him timidly, wondering when he will roll over on them! When one visits places like the Catacombs, where generations of Roman and Jewish Christians worshipped and even lived, underground, amid even more ancient tombs, one is overwhelmed with their simple faith, hope and charity. THERE, in places like the Catacombs, is the ancient home of Christianity, where the spirit of Christian faith still lives. It is not dead, or even sleeping. It is WAITING.

[howlingmad]

Spectator, I have post traumatic stress disorder and panic syndrome because of growing up catholic with a fiersome, punishing, vengeful god always ready to pounce on me for my every thought, word or action.

You can try and justify all this however you wish, but it doesn't change the fact of how many people have been irreparably and irreversibly injured and their lives ruined by what is presented by the church as truth, or believed by individuals like yourself.

awakensong, I'm so sorry for you. I feel very lucky to have grown up without religion and being in a position to make this very personal decision without undue influence from adult authority figures. Catholics, whether recovered or not, are fairly easy to spot because of the PTSD symptoms they display. They are crippled in a way that perhaps may not heal.

I think I do understand you spectator; that the purported teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth do compare well with what can best be defined as the essence of Eastern philosophy, while still retaining the anthropomorphic figure of God the Father — which I find to be a contradiction. The essence of the doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus (the Romanized form) IS God, as one part of the trilogy. What you seem to be putting forth is that through Christ-consciousness we also can connect with that part of ourselves — our divinity. Correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

Now, what I'm saying (and others here) is that we can connect to our divinity because, in essence we ARE divinity. We are a "physical" expression of the divine essence. Since there is only one energy source that is this divine essence, then we can logically say that we ARE God. God is NOT a separate entity from us, but IS our ESSENCE. These "physical" bodies are an illusion, just as everything else we perceive to be real. The ancients called it maya.

I'd like to correct you on what may be a trivial matter. You refered to B.C.E. as "Before the Christian Era", when it is more properly interpreted as "Before the Common Era". This distinction should be made, since the calendar we use today didn't go into effect until February of 1582, long after the Christian Era began. One could, I suppose, say that since it was instituted by an ostensible Christian (Pope Gregory XIII) you could call it a Christian calendar, but, of course, most of it was instituted by Julius Caesar (the Julian calendar).

Which leads me to another observation about Christians in general, and it seems you, too. Most Christians regard the history in the Bible as being the history of the whole world, necessarily excluding activities of other civilizations because of their lack of knowledge of them. There was a whole world going on outside of the Bible stories, stories that are not so full of the gruesome barbarism presented there. I'm thinking more along the lines of the civilizations of North America, China, India, Australia. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find example after example of complete annhilation of neighboring communities; women, children, infants, livestock — "anything that breathes".

The stories from these other civilizations have just as much in the way of important meaning to derive from them, but they are different in the way that they are told. They generally are not meant to portray history as much as an allegorical life lesson, and were therefore rejected as having academic worth, since they are not a precise history. This is probably the case because historians of the past were likely a bunch of treasure-hunters, seeking to plunder the vast wealth of lost civilizations.

So, we should keep the Bible for it's history, but take the greatest lesson of all from it — that greedy people invent anthropomorphic superior beings for the purpose of manipulating others into violently overcoming weaker communities and plundering their wealth.

[i am all i am]

Not to mention the fact that IN CONTEXT it says no illegitimate child was to enter "his temple". I have friends who have been insulted and psychologically injured by that; who have been ousted and rejected by communities on such a basis. It's all an absurdity with no end of harm and damage to humans against humans.


G'day Awakensong,

Would this mean, "IN CONTEXT", that as Mary was not legally married to the Holy Spirit or God, that Jesus was illegitimate, and therefore not allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven ???



With LOVE.
___________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

He shoots... He scores!

It also says no one with any physical defect (albinoism, giantism, dwarfism, huntington's disease, mangioma, freckles, moles, club foot, blind, deaf, cerebral palsy, lupus, psoriasis, diabetes - all things given to a person by God, within that paradigm) shall ever serve in his oh-so-holy temple.

s

[rebel ins]

I was raised in Roman catholic way, but then I realized that all religions are invented

[i am all i am]

He shoots... He scores!

It also says no one with any physical defect (albinoism, giantism, dwarfism, huntington's disease, mangioma, freckles, moles, club foot, blind, deaf, cerebral palsy, lupus, psoriasis, diabetes - all things given to a person by God, within that paradigm) shall ever serve in his oh-so-holy temple.

s


G'day Seamus,

The 'bicycle' kick comes in handy at times.

You forgot that a man that has his testicles crushed cannot enter either. If you were playing cricket this would be a 'no-ball' given by the umpire (GOD).



With LOVE.
______________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

G'day Seamus,

The 'bicycle' kick comes in handy at times.

You forgot that a man that has his testicles crushed cannot enter either. If you were playing cricket this would be a 'no-ball' given by the umpire (GOD).


ROFLMAO
Did you mean to make me think of Mortal Kombat II's Liu Kang "turkey kick"?
ermmm... I skipped that testicle one on purpose :p

*highfive*
s

[spectator]

Greetiings, howlingmad,

As I'm sure you're aware, some have claimed that Jesus was influenced by Eastern philosophy during His "lost years:" from the age of 12, when the Gospels recount His "Bar Mitzvah" in the Temple, until around the age of thirty, when He was baptized by John. Those eighteen years have bothered many people by their absence from the Gospels, and they are one of the reasons I think the Gospels have been heavily redacted, and augmented with events and sayings that never happened. I think this redaction and editing was done by the Pisos. If Jesus was, in fact, a "Sun god," as Icke and others have claimed, one would think that those years would be represented in some way. It's very strange, and has led to many theories about what happened during that time: that He journeyed, or was taken to the Great Pyramid at Gizeh to be instructed in the "mysteries" of the Egyptian mystery cults; that He journeyed to India and lived there for a time, that He toured ancient Europe and learned the lore of Atlantis from the Celtic shamans, that He went to Britain ... We probably shall never know, unless the original versions of the Gospels surface. David Icke would probably say that Jesus let his cousin Horus take His place as the Sun during that time ...

I can agree with what you state you gather from my writing with regard to Jesus being God Himself. The "anthropomorphism" of God you mention, however. is evidence, in my view, that we are made in God's image as the Bible states, not He in ours! I don't know if I believe in the Trinity, however. The Triune God concept strikes me as very likely an Illuminati invention, given their obsession with the symbolism of pyramids, triangles, tridents, etc. The Trinity appears designed to make God more remote from us than He really is, and than Jesus taught. Personally, I have no problem with the idea that the Infinite God of the Universe could incarnate Himself as a man and still "run" the Cosmos!

As I've stated before, I very much subscribe to the idea of "Christ Conciousness," However, I believe that that Consciousness was part of our original heritage ass the sons and daughters of God, that it was made less accessible to us by our "Fall From Grace," ("Original Sin,"), which darkened our consiousnesss, imprisoned us mentally in physical existence, and gave us the illusion of separation from God, and that it was restored to us by God through His Incarnation as one of us, and His teachings regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence, I agree with you that NOW we ARE divinity, NOW, we can recognize that God IS our essence, but I think that has come about because of the action of God Himself. I believe further that that restoration is not complete, but is nearing completion. As St. Paul says,

"For behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the Last Trumpet. For the
Trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible; and we shall
be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal,
immortality."

I interpret that passage as meaning that we shall not all die before the change Paul is talking about, but we shall all be changed, suddenly, "in the twinkling of an eye," into the likeness of Christ Himself; with His powers, Consciousness, and physical immortality. That, I believe is what He came in human flesh to accomplish, and it is almost finished! What is the meaning of the "Last Trumpet?" Ostensibly, it refers to the Trumpets blown by the angels at the Las Judgement (whatever THAT is!). However, I'm sure ther is more to it than that. I don't know. It's a mystery! After all, Paul says he is telling us a mystery, and that is what it appears to be. We won't know until it happens.

You are right, of course, about the abbreviation B.C.E.! It IS, "before the common era. Sorry!

I really don't regard the Bible as the history of the whole world, however, the THEMES of human exixtence narrated there I consider to be universal. Is the Bible bloodier and more savage than stories from other cultures,? Possibly, but I'm inclined to the opinion that the Bronze Age (when the stories in the Book of Judges, for example, occurred) was brutal everywhere! Remember the Trojan War, the Ionian invasion of Doric Greece, the Egyptian battles with the "Peoples of the Sea, the battles to extablish the First Chinese Empire? The indigenous Australian culture, and the Native American cultures of North America at the time didn't have written records, and their social organization , after all, didn't allow for atrocities on such a broad scale. apart from the Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Olmecs and the Maya. If the Spanish hadn't been so assiduous in destroying ancient Maya and Aztec texts, we would of course know much more about what went on there during the Bronze Age in Europe. The more organized, urban cultures of Europe, the Middle East and Asie, at the time, however, were uniformly brutal, at least as far as I know.

Really, there WAS no history in the Bronze Age, at least as far as we know. That's why the only record we have of the Trojan War, for instance, is a work of art: an epic poem, The Iliand of Homer. The Bible, even though it recounts events in some detail, and some of those events have been confirmed by archaology, is not history, either. Rather, it is an oral tradition written down long after the events happened. In previous posts, however, I've tried to show that oral traditions can be very accurate!

In conclusion, I would say that the culture of Bronze Age Israel was no better and no worse than other cultures of the time, probably anywhere.

[i am all i am]

Why do you refer to God as "He" ?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that the Infinite God of the Universe could incarnate Himself as a man and still "run" the Cosmos!

If you believe God to be infinite, therefore able to do everything simultaenously, why would the "Infinite God" require anyone to preach, or do anything, in Gods name ?

I interpret that passage as meaning that we shall not all die before the change Paul is talking about, but we shall all be changed, suddenly, "in the twinkling of an eye," into the likeness of Christ Himself; with His powers, Consciousness, and physical immortality.

If Christ has physical immortality, where is he ?

Is the Bible bloodier and more savage than stories from other cultures,?

The Aborigines of Australia have a culture that extends bakwards beyond 30,000 years and at no time did they invade another land or attack another culture, let alone kill every man, woman and child of a community. So, yes the Bible is bloodier and more savage.

Really, there WAS no history in the Bronze Age, at least as far as we know.

History is recorded in the cuniform tablets of Sumeria. Mesopotamian, Babylonian and Egytian histories are also recorded prior to the Bible.

In conclusion, I would say that the culture of Bronze Age Israel was no better and no worse than other cultures of the time, probably anywhere.

What evidence are you basing this conclusion upon ?



With LOVE.
____________________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

Why do you refer to God as "He" ?

Because he obviously missed my post about the biblical proof that God is a woman! It's all right there in Job 38! http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1530

If you believe God to be infinite, therefore able to do everything simultaenously, why would the "Infinite God" require anyone to preach, or do anything, in Gods name ?

I'll answer for the christians here, formerly having been a rather zealous one. He needs to accomplish the building of His kingdom through willing human agency, who will consistently misunderstand what He meant and therefore universally misrepresent Him, thus making the conversions all the more valuable, since they are made on the merit of a fear of being thrown into hell forever and ever.

If Christ has physical immortality, where is he ?

Oh, uh... He, uh, went to heaven! Yeah, that's the ticket! Good thing he left the Apostolic Succession in charge. I see they have done a great job of bringing the Good News to the wretched, accursed heathen!

s

[i am all i am]

Quote:
If Christ has physical immortality, where is he ?

Oh, uh... He, uh, went to heaven! Yeah, that's the ticket! Good thing he left the Apostolic Succession in charge. I see they have done a great job of bringing the Good News to the wretched, accursed heathen!

Oh, uh, yeah... that's right... I think... no I mean yeah... God took him to Heaven to be by His right-hand side... or was it left-hand side?... no it was definitely right-hand side... and one day Christ is gonna come back and kick your heathen arse... because I can't do it !!!

Thanks for the laugh Seamus.



With LOVE.
_____________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

Do you think it's unfair to tag-team him like that? ;)


Naaaaah. Bible apologists have got it coming, after all the millions slain in the name of its God.

s

[spectator]

i am all i am, Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider God to be masculine because He has always presented Himself to men in that manner. Of course, the Infinite God really has no gender, no beginning and no end. It may be that God has presented Himself (or Herself, or Itself) that way to men in order to make Himself more easily comprehensible and "respectable" in patriarchal societies like those of the Middle East. However, one could argue that the patriarchal societies of the Middle East developed as they did BECAUSE of the idea of a "Father God." I really don't know, but we shall all have an opportunity to ask Him!

The answer to your second question is that, of course, God doesn't require anything from anyone for anything! He has made His revelations known to us only because He loves us and is willing to do anything for us.

Seamus is right, Jesus is in Heaven, but the saints, as I have said, live in the Kingdom of Heaven with Him and the angels, even though they are still alive here on Earth. That's because they have opened themselves to living in the Kingdom of Heaven and have cooperated with God's plans for them while still alive here. They walk and talk with Jesus, Mary, the angels and saints every day they live. Sometimes the saints see them physically, and sometimes not, but they are always aware of their presence.

The Aborigines, like all indigenous, "primitive" cultures, do not have complex societies based on division of labor, surplus, commerce, well-defined social hierarchies and urban living. Life for such indigenous cultures is based on cooperation in subsistence living, not competition, other than with neighboring indigenous groups, for the purpose of exploiting scarce resources. Conflict between such groups is always small-scale and typically confined to combat only between socially defined warriors, almost never involving women, children and the aged. There are documented cases, however, where modern indigenous groups have actually massacred whole villages of groups with which they are in conflict. I don't know enough about the Aborigines to say whether that has ever been documented in their case. Such massacres, however, are usually associated with cannibal groups.

The people of Bronze Age Israel, though primitive by the standards of the day, were such an urban culture. As I pointed out in my previous post, brutal, bloody conflicts, often showing no mercy at all to anyone in enemy groups, was widespread everywhere we know of during that time among what scholars refer to as "well-developed" urban groups. However, given the fact that humans have lived on Earth, at least as far as we know, far longer as "primitive hunter-gatherers" than they have as urban dwellers, and given the fact that some aspects of hunter-gatherer society is very complex, and very sophisticated, indeed, the question of whether or not hunter-gatherers are "primitive" is controversial. Perhaps, in light of the horrendous history of the twentieth- and now the twenty-first century, we should consider "modern" man to be more primitive!

There are indeed written records from the sources you mention, and they were all written before the oral tradition from which the Bible came were written down. However, scholars do not consider those documents to be historical. This is because those texts provide no documentation or verification for the events they describe, and the events are often indistinguishably interspersed with tales from folklore, religious stories, visions, and the like. History, as we have it today, is considered to date only as early as classical Greece.

I based my concluding statement on the information I discussed earlier in the post. If you would like more information on this and related subjects, I suggest you consult reference works dealing with the period in question: the Bronze Age.

I know of nothing in Chapter 38 of the Book of Job, Seamus, that indicates that God is a woman! Where did you get that idea?

God doesn't need to "build" his Kingdom ot Heaven, Seamus, it's already here, and has been since His Resurrection. It's here NOW, and the saints are living there. It's not complete for all of us yet, but it soon will be!

[seamus]

I know of nothing in Chapter 38 of the Book of Job, Seamus, that indicates that God is a woman! Where did you get that idea?Read the post I linked to :yawn:

*sniff sniff* *peer* Heyyyy... Are you Harald Kleeman? *sniff sniff* You sure smell like him.

Pure Bogus Crap. Insane delusions of grandeur and superordinance. Wrapped in an all-too-transparent layer of pseudo-scholarly, pseudo-circumspect, turgid, bombastic verbiage. Yep. Just like Harald (or is it Harold) Kleeman. Like Umberto Eco trying to write nonfiction.

No offense intended...

s

[i am all i am]

i am all i am. . . . .Seamus is right

I don't believe in right and wrong (dualities, you understand ?), but I would say that he is doin' fucking fantastic work !!!

(Tag - your back in Seamus)


With LOVE.
____________________________________

WHEN PAIRED OPPOSITES DEFINE YOUR BELIEFS, YOUR BELIEFS WILL IMPRISON YOU.

[seamus]

Well actually, Iaaia, I was going to let him try to get a lick in first. :)

Tee hee.... Tee hee....

s

[i am all i am]

Well actually, Iaaia, I was going to let him try to get a lick in first. :)

Tee hee.... Tee hee....

s


Ahhhh...Christ on a cross Seamus. How are we supposed to get a stamp to him to lick ???

Maybe if you post a picture of one and then he could lick the screen !!!


With LOVE.

[marguerite]

It is SO wonderful to be free of religion, free from guilt, condemnation, etc. My soul leaps for joy!!:p

[awakensong]

I just noticed this at Michael Tsarion's wonderfully informative site http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astrotheology.html#paul-servant%20of%20aton "Akhenaton, the Cult of Aton, and the Dark Side of the Moon".

I hope the reader will take special note of where he mentions the Piso family in writing the NT (highlighted below in red). I have been trying to say for a long time that Paul was an Illuminati plant who circled the people back around to the Cult of Aton, against the teachings of Jesus.

The 22 documents in the latter part of the New Testament contain roughly 80,000 words. They are the product of about a dozen different writers, Paul being the most prominent. In them, one encounters over 500 references to the object of all these writers' faith: "Jesus" or "Christ" or a combination of these names, or "the Son" plus a few to "the Lord" meaning Christ...As astonishing as such a silence may seem, an equation such as "Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and Messiah" is missing from all the early Christian correspondence. The Jesus of the epistles is not spoken of as a man who had recently lived...Thus, we are left with an entire corpus of early Christian correspondence which gives us no indication that the divine Christ these writers look to for salvation is to be identified with the man Jesus of Nazareth whom the Gospels place in the early first century - Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle)

From Tsarion:
"We are now sixty-seven years on from the death of Sigmund Freud and we feel that the time has finally come when scholars and researchers can declare openly to the world's masses, with confidence and authority, that the Jesus of the New Testament did not exist as a physical presence in the world. Search as they might the Biblicists have not found the appropriate evidence to support a real man, a carpenter's son that became the savior of the world. Every major find further decimates the theory of a Jesus of Nazareth, the worker of miracles put before the world in the New Testament.

"All the orthodox systems committed a fatal error at the outset in assuming that their religions were derived directly from God, and consequently must be perfect and unalterable, and a finality in moral and religious progress. Such an assumption will cause the downfall, sooner or later, of any religious body which persists in propagating the error. Religious institutions, like all other institutions, are subject to the laws of growth and decay - Kersey Graves (Bible of Bibles, 1923)

"Paul (for "Saul" which means "Sol" or "Sun") had never physically met the man whose life appears to have obsessed him. This fact did not deter Paul from his industry. It did not prevent him carrying on his work to create a religion largely based on pagan ideas.

"There was only one major difference between Paul’s Christianity and the pagan corpus and that involved the sanctity of the Self. Apparently, the cabal of hierarchs in Rome and Jerusalem who commissioned Paul were determined to decimate the pagan philosophy which regarded man to be his own savior. Of course, there is a great deal of doubt over the identity and even existence of this man Jesus. Can the word of Paul be accepted, given that he and the man he adores never met?"

The religious teaching presented in Paul’s Epistles is fundamentally different from what research has recognized as being authentic sayings of Jesus…What we know as Christianity today is not the teaching contained in these authentic sayings; it is the theology disseminated by Paul and the doctorers of his Epistles - Elmer H. Gruber (The Original Jesus)


http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/stpaul.jpg
Paul of Tarsus (10BC-67AD)
Agent of the Atonists

"Author Ralph Ellis believes Paul and the historian Josephus Piso to have been one and the same person." Paul and the Solar Theocracy


Also from same page at Tsarion's site:

http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/caesaraugustus2.jpg
Caesar Augustus - adopted son of Julius Caesar. Most of the key terms used for Jesus were originally attributed to him, the most important of which was "Son of God" (divi filius)


And for a last little extra "something":

http://www.lavender-rose.net/pics/jesus-bloch.jpg
Who is this man?

Through the exemplary studies and revelations of many researchers we now know that Paul modeled his “Christ” on several mythical and historical personages that had already risen to prominence and notoriety in the world. The partial list of potential candidates for Paul's elusive Jesus include:

King Hezekiah of Judah
John the Baptist
Simon Magus
Apollonius of Tyana
Simon Maccabeus
Joshua the Son of Nun
Menahem the Essene
Judas Khrestus
Joshua ben Panthera
Jesus Gamala
Caesar Augustus (Octavian)
Akhenaton
Tutankhamun
Zoroaster
Serapis
Mithras
Dionysus (Zagreus, Bacchus)
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha

[seamus]

It is SO wonderful to be free of religion, free from guilt, condemnation, etc. My soul leaps for joy!!:p

Hooray for you, Marguerite! Hooray for me! Let's dance in the ashes of religion and breathe the free air of liberty!

There can be no guilt when one takes responsibility for one's karmic debts. Nor is there place for any shame. Nor does fear of hellfire cow one who knows the insanity of one being placing himself above all others and petulantly demanding to be worshipped.

Love and Light,

s

[awakensong]

I wish I could join you two in your dance, and I can in some ways. But as I've said before, I have PTSD and Panic Disorder from religion; all things done to an impressionable, developing child which don't just 'go away' because I consciously learn none of it's true.

I wish it would, but somewhere on the deepest psychic level, the wounds are not that easily eradicated. The "effects" remain even though the beliefs are totally gone.

Does that make any sense? There is just no 'known' way to heal from all that. I actually have Complex PTSD which, if it has gone into the limbic system as mine has done, is irreversible.

I know that in my highest state and level of consciousness I'm NOT affected by any of this, but in this body in this life, it's there for sure. :(

Seamus, I like your new avatar! :D

[seamus]

I wish I could join you two in your dance, and I can in some ways. But as I've said before, I have PTSD and Panic Disorder from religion; all things done to an impressionable, developing child which don't just 'go away' because I consciously learn none of it's true.

I wish it would, but somewhere on the deepest psychic level, the wounds are not that easily eradicated. The "effects" remain even though the beliefs are totally gone.

Yes I know that. I have a blockage in my brain that is like a brick wall. It's from fear of being evil if I just do what I know will make me happy. Isn't that crazy? I wouldn't hurt a fly (figuratively) but somehow I am deeply ocnvinced that If I let myself be happy, then I'll be evil and thrown in hell. Even though I know that's complete bollocks!

YES i know exactly what you mean. But I am not going to let that stop me. As Brent Mydland put it in one of his songs, "Just a little light", "You're as mighty as the flower that will grow the stones away."

I take it as he's singing to me. :) why not?



Does that make any sense? There is just no 'known' way to heal from all that. I actually have Complex PTSD which, if it has gone into the limbic system as mine has done, is irreversible.

I know that in my highest state and level of consciousness I'm NOT affected by any of this, but in this body in this life, it's there for sure. :(

Seamus, I like your new avatar! :D

I call him "Spliffy".

Hey Awakensong, you CAN get out of that prison! While you're still in your body too, I think. I'm going to write a book about my experiences. I know there ahs to be a way to be sane.

Love and Light,

seamus o'farrelleigh (just barely not my real name ;))

[i am all i am]

I wish I could join you two in your dance, and I can in some ways. But as I've said before, I have PTSD and Panic Disorder from religion; all things done to an impressionable, developing child which don't just 'go away' because I consciously learn none of it's true.

I wish it would, but somewhere on the deepest psychic level, the wounds are not that easily eradicated. The "effects" remain even though the beliefs are totally gone.

Does that make any sense? There is just no 'known' way to heal from all that. I actually have Complex PTSD which, if it has gone into the limbic system as mine has done, is irreversible.

I know that in my highest state and level of consciousness I'm NOT affected by any of this, but in this body in this life, it's there for sure. :(

Seamus, I like your new avatar! :D

G'day Awakensong (very cool name).

I understand what it is like to have a dis-ease that is said to be incurable.

This however, is merely the establishment/system telling you that this is so. As it was the establishment/system that taught you to worship through the cristian religion.

I would love for you to have a read of a post called 'The Little Soul and the Sun' on the provided link.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1793&page=3

If you are further interested, the thread has the details of where the quote is from and I would personally recommend the source material as being of great benefit for you Awakensong.


With LOVE.

[awakensong]

Hey Awakensong, you CAN get out of that prison! While you're still in your body too, I think. I'm going to write a book about my experiences. I know there ahs to be a way to be sane.

Love and Light,

seamus o'farrelleigh (just barely not my real name ;))
Well, I know there is Psych K and NLP but I don't have access to any of that where I am, and cannot do the traveling it would take to get to them.

The problem is in the subconscious mind which, I've learned, has no one "home" to hear anything the conscious mind tries to reprogram it with.

The only answer I've ever found is that one must reprogram, or "rewrite" the tapes of the subconscious, and to do that one must access the subconscious, and there were supposed to be 3 ways, one of which was hypnosis.

[awakensong]

G'day Awakensong (very cool name).

I understand what it is like to have a dis-ease that is said to be incurable.

This however, is merely the establishment/system telling you that this is so. As it was the establishment/system that taught you to worship through the cristian religion.

I would love for you to have a read of a post called 'The Little Soul and the Sun' on the provided link.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1793&page=3

If you are further interested, the thread has the details of where the quote is from and I would personally recommend the source material as being of great benefit for you Awakensong.


With LOVE.
I'm sorry but I stay very annoyed with the CWG stuff. I've heard this man on the radio and he just isn't speaking to a person like myself.

I've improved very greatly over the years with professional help and self-help measures, but like I said, it is in the limbic system - the "fight, flight or freeze" part of the brain which is there for one purpose only: survival. It cannot be reasoned with, and no, it isn't because the matrix is just telling us there's nothing to be done. :rolleyes: If that were so, then 'nothing' anywhere could be healed or cured, and that just isn't what's happening.

[i am all i am]

I met Neale at Adyar bookstore in Sydney. I was sitting outside the store having a smoke (chop-chop straight from the farm) when he arrived with a small entourage. It was funny because he kept making eye contact with me. He'd look away and then look back, look away and look back again. Anyway, the shop was packed and Thom Hartmann was speaking first, and he went inside. I followed shortly after and sqeezed past where he was standing in the crowd to stand with a mate at the counter of the shop. After about 30 seconds, Neale walked over to stand just in front of me. This guy came up to him and asked him for an autograph. He said no as Thom was speaking and he would have to sign them for everyone then and interrupt Thom in the process, he would sign autographs at the end of his speech. The guy was cool and walked away. Of course I'm thinking that it was a bit conceited to think that everyone was going to stop listening to Thom and rush Neale for his autograph, so I said, "The price of fame.". To me it meant Fear As Monetary Energy. Neale replied, "A price I'm willing to pay.", after he had turned around with this smarmy smile on his face. Obviously he didn't pay because he didn't give the guy his autograph. After he finished his speech and had signed his autograph for everyone, I purposely waited 'til there was no-one left, I approached him. He was sitting on the edge of a stool as I walked up to him and he looked straight at me. I was carrying a 20cm Rose quartz crystal sphere, and as I stood in front of him I said that I was thankful that he had released the books and would like to give him the crystal as it represented unconditional love. With both hands he reached out to grab the crystal while he sadi, "I can't tale that.". Which is true ironically, because I was 'giving it', he couldn't 'take it'. Anyway, I told him that I knew how to heal the world by raising the concious level and asked (using the word please of course) if we could have a half an hour conversation. Well, his eye contact went all over the shop as he offered excuse after excuse, until he finally said that as he was doing a weekend workshop, I should come along and talk to him there. Of course this would cost (I think) around $800-00 for the workshop. I told him that I was living in the back of a van and he started to get a bit flustered, and then his entourage interrupted, saying that he had to go. So, no conversation

G'day Awakensong.

As you can see, Neale wasn't talking to me either. This does not mean that the message contained within the books should be judged by the messenger.

What is it about the CWG books that you are still annoyed about ?


With LOVE.

[seamus]

have you noticed that spectator has not said one word since I outed him as Harald Kleeman? LOL I guess I hit that one!

Actually I tried to read a bunch of H.K.'s claptrap on a couple of occasions (Jonathan Zap was giving him a good drubbing) but just couldn't make myself read that swollen, leaden prose! That was the tipoff to me.

Watch now he'll come back and say it's not him

;D

s

[i am all i am]

You could still post him a stamp.


With LOVE.

[spectator]

No, seamus, I am not Harold (Harald?) Kleeman. I don't even know who he is! Who is he? I am an American and live in Texas, as I have for most of my life, except for four years, when I lived in Rome, Italy.

I haven't participated in the forum for three reasons. First, I have been very, very busy. Second, you, and the group, didn't seem to be saying anything I could comment on. Namecalling and personal attacks don't leave much room for comment. Third, howlingmad hasn't been posting anything, and he is the member of the group who is the most consistent with information and comments. He is also the most respectful! I'm glad awakensong is back. Her post on the pagan aspects of Christianity is very informative, though, of course, I don't agree with most of it.

[seamus]

Well looks like I missed the mark :) Won't be the last time. I don't know Harald Kleeman, but if you google for his name you will probably have an orgasm at the joy of finding his writings. He's right up your alley. I don't mean that in a mean way. I just can't read your (or his) writings. It is like watching icicles melt. So I thought you were him, since your tone and content are virtually identical.

Brevity is a virtue. One that is sorely underrated.

s

[i am all i am]

No, seamus, I am not Harold (Harald?) Kleeman. I don't even know who he is! Who is he? I am an American and live in Texas, as I have for most of my life, except for four years, when I lived in Rome, Italy.

I haven't participated in the forum for three reasons. First, I have been very, very busy. Second, you, and the group, didn't seem to be saying anything I could comment on. Namecalling and personal attacks don't leave much room for comment. Third, howlingmad hasn't been posting anything, and he is the member of the group who is the most consistent with information and comments. He is also the most respectful! I'm glad awakensong is back. Her post on the pagan aspects of Christianity is very informative, though, of course, I don't agree with most of it.


G'day Spectator

See, this is the holier than thou attitude that the majority of christians maintain. They are the chosen ones and everyone else is beneath them.

The reason that you haven't patricipated in the forum is because everyone can actually think for themselves. They would show your views to be the elitist, segregating, opinions of the christian crusader.

"Of course," you won't "agree with most it", because it goes against your belief system. Anything that appears to run contrary to your belief system is to be dismissed. The good christian is always right, and even when they aren't, it must be the devil tepmting them, and they should merely dismiss it all out of mind, because we shouldn't have questions that can't be answered, or differing views that show us to be lying. Blah, blah, blah......

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of christ has been for us and our predecessors."
- Pope Leo X.

WAKE UP !!!

You have been lied to by your religion Spectator, and you are defending the lie.

WAKE UP !!!

You are a part of ALL THAT IS, and as such, you are ALL THAT IS. You have merely forgotten WHO YOU TRULY ARE.

WAKE UP !!!

It is the perfect moment for you to awaken to the truth. It is now your choice that will decide whether you wake up to your true potential, or not. Remember, you have free will.

Would you please answer this question for me Spectator ?

Who are you ?


With LOVE.

[spectator]

Well, seamus and i am all i am, if neither of you want to discuss anything and insist on continuing with personal attacks against me, I suppose there is no point in my continuing in this forum, goodbye. It was fun for awhile.

[seamus]

:( I guess he did not want to wake up yet. Give him time. It took me all of 36 years to rid myself of the JHVH virus. And I still have a headache.

Those who love the Truth will hear the Truth. Those who hate it never will. Those who are not sure... have to make their choice eventually.

s

[howlingmad]

Well, seamus and i am all i am, if neither of you want to discuss anything and insist on continuing with personal attacks against me, I suppose there is no point in my continuing in this forum, goodbye. It was fun for awhile.

Sorry to see you go, spectator. I can tell that you feel that you've been run roughshod by seamus and others. To them, I repeat what I've said before: "What the fuck do we really know, anyway?"

But in their defense, we do know that religion, particularly those that emerged from "Old Testament" stories, have been the vehicles for the most aggregious abuses of humanity throughout all of history. Does this make them false? It's hard to say. The point, really, is that whatever they are, they are heavily tainted; the danger of falling back into that destructive mindset is too great. Do think it would be possible to teach a "pure" form of Christianity without using the Bible for reference? Once you open that door, the trap is set. One could, I suppose, take the approach of disseminating information through a preisthood, as the Catholics and others have done, but then you have elite groups manipulating the ignorant masses, perhaps to everyone's benefit — but who's to judge? Is that, then, the way things ought to be? Do you see how this framework is the template for fascism?

I say abondon this paradigm. It's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater because there are other places to find this truth without the interminably corrupted scriptures to misguide the truthseeker.

People have gotten a little hostile with you mainly because they don't want that shit in here. Many have struggled long and hard to shed that early mind-control. It's a lot like someone lighting up a cigarette in a room full of ex-smokers.

Try and take the best of what you've learned from your experiences, look beneath the Christian overlay, question written accounts of other people's lives (ones you haven't personally met) and study what it is that makes them "saintly". Be mindful that a truly superior being such as the god descibed in the Bible (particularly the Tanakh) wouldn't have a need for pitting one group against another. If he wanted them dead, then *zap* — they're dead! Also, such a being would have no need for little pissant people to worship and praise him. This is the kind of crap that the lowest of humans seek to achieve (I'm describing the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rothschild, etc.)

And put that goddamn thing out! You're stinkin' up the place! :p (lighten up, friend!)

[seamus]

Sorry to see you go, spectator. I can tell that you feel that you've been run roughshod by seamus and others. To them, I repeat what I've said before: "What the fuck do we really know, anyway?"
To which I respond, "We know that the predatory, pecking-order, hierarchical mentality is evil". Do we need to know more about religions that promote such a mentality?
But in their defense, we do know that religion, particularly those that emerged from "Old Testament" stories, have been the vehicles for the most aggregious abuses of humanity throughout all of history. Does this make them false? It's hard to say. I can't believe you just said that. Their OWN superman, Jesus, said "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit". There's no wiggle-room there. Folks, this is an example of someone who can't hold a serious conviction trying to appear as being equanimous. Bull Caca. Evil is as evil does. The point, really, is that whatever they are, they are heavily tainted; the danger of falling back into that destructive mindset is too great. Do think it would be possible to teach a "pure" form of Christianity without using the Bible for reference? Once you open that door, the trap is set.

What trap, the trap of letting people decide for themselves what's right?

[..]
I say abondon this paradigm. It's not throwing the baby out with the bathwater because there are other places to find this truth without the interminably corrupted scriptures to misguide the truthseeker.
That's talking sense. Trusting your own inner guidance will get you loads farther than following what the Booble, er, Bible says. Believe me, I've just had 17 years of zealous and sincere bible-belief turn to ashes in front of a truth I was somehow enabled to remember, that I had learned BEFORE I ever cracked a Bible open.
People have gotten a little hostile with you mainly because they don't want that shit in here. Many have struggled long and hard to shed that early mind-control. It's a lot like someone lighting up a cigarette in a room full of ex-smokers.That's an understatement. We don't want our impressionable youth corrupted either ;)


s

[i am all i am]

Well, seamus and i am all i am, if neither of you want to discuss anything and insist on continuing with personal attacks against me, I suppose there is no point in my continuing in this forum, goodbye. It was fun for awhile.

G'day Spectator,

Am I supposed to beg you to stay ?

What you've attempted to do is play an energy game. Have you ever read 'The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield. You are playing the 'poor me'. If this was such a big issue for you that you would leave over it, is your above statement so you can have the last word ? or, merely an attempt at gaining everybodies attention with the grandstanding exit ? If you want to leave, leave. Take your bat and ball, spit your dummy on the ground, these are games for the seeking of attention/energy.

You are unwilling to see another view than the indoctrinated christian perspective. You repeat yourself without addressing the points made. It is you who does not discuss, you preach !!!

You are attempting to blame myself and seamus for your leaving. Fuck off. It is YOUR choice. This is merely another attempt at being the 'good guy' and blaming someone else, an energy game.

When you are through with playing games, you will look inside yourself and see that which you have been avoiding, WHO YOU TRULY ARE. This is what you are avoiding doing. This is why the last question that I asked you remains unanswered, so here I will repeat it for you...

WAKE UP !!!

You have been lied to by your religion Spectator, and you are defending the lie.

WAKE UP !!!

You are a part of ALL THAT IS, and as such, you are ALL THAT IS. You have merely forgotten WHO YOU TRULY ARE.

WAKE UP !!!

It is the perfect moment for you to awaken to the truth. It is now your choice that will decide whether you wake up to your true potential, or not. Remember, you have free will.

Would you please answer this question for me Spectator ?

Who are you ?

Whatever you choose to do Spectator, life is about BEING involved, and you will be unable to stay a spectator. Enjoy your choice, because it is your free will that makes any decisions for you.


With LOVE.

[kha zarr]

Question: Ive recently been looking at much of Michael Tsarion's material on ATON - I dont have Freud's book or Osman's - and don't have Time Loop [but have Secret and Alice, seen Agenda, Wilder also]. Read Koestler, also something albie said about genetics being wrong or something - I don't want to focus on genetics, but my question is this - how credible is the link between Akhenaten and what Tsarion says is a desire for revenge upon the world, to take over, by the ATON-ists, after they were expelled from egypt [Tsarion says the biblical exodus was expulsion of this cult, alone, which I guess Egyptians at the time found offensive??] and what is today considered orthodox Judaism? Was ATON ideology found in any discovered writings or evidece, to be deceptive and/or violent?? The link from what Ive read thus far, seems a bit tenuous in that most deal only w/symbols, which can be interpreted many ways. How does king tut fit into all this, this site says its akhenaten's son:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/akhnaton.html

I do however think it is interesting that there seem to be 'elitists' zion-[sion] ists or whatever you call it, in quotations he shows, and David touches on, today, who seem to have such a 'takeover' attitude. It just seems hard to connect it to aton-ism. Unless I suppose its some sort of revival movement??? Another interesting thing despite my skepticism is this: Tsarion mentions how the Torah is a textual representation of TAROT, which is symbolic thinking, the way humans are more naturally apt to understand reality, and that abstract writing is a foreign tool that confuses us. So how closely do these resemble each other???? I believe David said that judaism and other monotheistic religions seem to come from mesopotamia, like Rab, and you have Nimrod/Semiramis/Ninkharsag too. Shabbat being a babylonian concept also. did egypt and sumeria/babylonia retain close contact during akhenaten's time? how important is this?? While on the subject today I came across some work of Richard M. Fales, Ph.D. and the idea that Akhenaten was actually a 'henotheist' and possibly a closet monotheist.

does tales from the time loop explain some of this stuff?

[kha zarr]

and how about that Swedenborg guy? and the beliefs on vanuatu of 'tahara' creator?

[awakensong]

Question: Ive recently been looking at much of Michael Tsarion's material on ATON - I dont have Freud's book or Osman's - and don't have Time Loop [but have Secret and Alice, seen Agenda, Wilder also]. Read Koestler, also something albie said about genetics being wrong or something - I don't want to focus on genetics, but my question is this - how credible is the link between Akhenaten and what Tsarion says is a desire for revenge upon the world, to take over, by the ATON-ists, after they were expelled from egypt [Tsarion says the biblical exodus was expulsion of this cult, alone, which I guess Egyptians at the time found offensive??]

Here is the tiny bit I could contribute right now. I have worked on the Tsarion site doing proof-reading, also recently spent many weeks working in the same capacity on his book to be published soon on the Tarot. I have read slowly and thoroughly through his writings in order to pick up on any typos, etc.

What I got from reading everything was that the Egyptians who were NOT exiled from Egypt (followers of Aton) were very happy to have their land and ways returned to them. Ahkenaton had closed down all of their temples of worship as they had been Polytheists prior to his instigation of Monotheism. Ahkenaton himself had been a Hyksos invader (the Nomadic Wanderers and rebels) who had overthrown Egypt.

and what is today considered orthodox Judaism?

My understanding would be that it IS today's Judaism. Ahkenaton is supposedly the Moses of the OT.

Was ATON ideology found in any discovered writings or evidece, to be deceptive and/or violent?? The link from what Ive read thus far, seems a bit tenuous in that most deal only w/symbols, which can be interpreted many ways. How does king tut fit into all this, this site says its akhenaten's son:

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/akhnaton.html

I do however think it is interesting that there seem to be 'elitists' zion-[sion] ists or whatever you call it, in quotations he shows, and David touches on, today, who seem to have such a 'takeover' attitude. It just seems hard to connect it to aton-ism. Unless I suppose its some sort of revival movement???

I think it has been one smooth movement of continuation since then, or at least once they 'regrouped' and regained their bearings.

Another interesting thing despite my skepticism is this: Tsarion mentions how the Torah is a textual representation of TAROT, which is symbolic thinking, the way humans are more naturally apt to understand reality, and that abstract writing is a foreign tool that confuses us. So how closely do these resemble each other????

My understanding is that the esoteric teachings of the Torah, which of course are different from the exoteric, are the same. I don't have much experience with Tarot, though, except for his excellent new book which I've helped proof-read. I've learned so much from this.

I believe David said that judaism and other monotheistic religions seem to come from mesopotamia, like Rab, and you have Nimrod/Semiramis/Ninkharsag too. Shabbat being a babylonian concept also. did egypt and sumeria/babylonia retain close contact during akhenaten's time? how important is this?? While on the subject today I came across some work of Richard M. Fales, Ph.D. and the idea that Akhenaten was actually a 'henotheist' and possibly a closet monotheist.

does tales from the time loop explain some of this stuff?

All very interesting questions. I don't know what to say right now about these. I have read Michael's book "Atlantis, Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation", plus a few of Icke's books. I have also heard both on the radio. I've had the priviledge of asking Michael my own questions in emails. He does have a blog page where he will interact with people who ask him these things. It's here: http://mtsar.blogspot.com/2006/02/general-comments-blog-instructions.html

[awakensong]

How does king tut fit into all this, this site says its akhenaten's son:

Michael not only believes this was the son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, but that King Tut is one of the biggest contenders to have been the Historical Jesus. As you probably saw on his Astro-Theology pages, he references authors who have called Jesus "The Last Pharaoh".

[kha zarr]

hey awakensong thanks I appreciate your answers - ill try emailing Michael.