5.) Undefined - This can
describe anything or anyone which cannot be fully covered by a single
category. It can also describe cults and gurus whose entire purpose
originally was to defraud members, but have morphed or splintered into
cults that do have a somewhat acceptable theology of sorts. I know a lot
of people will point at Scientology in this regards, but to solely
point at Scientology is just plain wrong. People should examine the
period of ca. 1890-1955 (and onwards) and see the cults, organisations,
gurus, etc. that came about and why they did. And question whether they
have had any influence in todays society.
In the period of 1890-1955 we saw the likes of Scientology, Oahspe, the
Urantia Book, Unarius, the Order of the Goldern Dawn, Rosicrucianism,
Wicca, Aleister Crowley, various UFO cults, etc.
But are they religious based practices? Or are they scams? Or can they simply not be defined?
Well let me take a chapter of a book that I'm currently writing and you can decide for yourself.
.........................................................
Have you heard of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEM)? Or
maybe the Church of Euthanasia (COE)? No they are not joke movements or
April Fools gags.
They in fact do exist and their basis came from the environmentalist
movements of the 1970s, which in turn branched off from the hippie
movements of the 1960s. Marxism, elitism and sexual perversion are the
core ingredients of these types of movements, but people seem to think
they are each separate movements which are unrelated to each other. Then
again most people have never heard of them and will just palm it off as
an internet invention, but VHEM and COE came into being as separate
organisations in 1991 and 1992 respectively. So they cannot be written
off as an internet invention exclusively but they have used the internet
as a way to deliver propaganda. And that's only what I know of, we do
not know if there are any other death cults or individual members
propagating their deeds under the guise of 'spiritual mental health
workers' or doing it by trolling. But history has shown there have been
death cults as in the example of self proclaimed 'reverend' Jim Jones
with the mass murder and suicide at 'Jonestown' in Guyana (South
America) in 1977.
History has shown there have been similar situations where gullible
people has been swept up into cult type situations which were supposedly
of a spiritual basis but were nothing more than psychology power cults
which were indeed based on atheism, apostasy and criminality. The Order
of the Solar Temple and Heavens Gate are just two further examples of
psychological mind control cults which ended in death for its members
and yet were supposedly of a spiritual basis. But what constitutes
spirituality these days? Indeed what constitutes a human being for that
matter? We have various self proclaimed 'media personalities' and
'experts' handing out their various musings as established fact, which
is accepted and repeated by those who live their existence by the media.
The level of complacent stupidity is astounding. I remember in school
being taught 'evolution' and that by some sort of miracle somehow chimps
turned into human beings. Supposedly all human life can from Africa and
this is accepted as an educational and scientific fact. No evidence
whatsoever and based on a few bones found in random locations on the
African continent, which have been carbon dated so therefore it must be
true. Despite the fact that carbon dating can only reasonably date bones
and other once living matter up to approximately 3000 years, techniques
in radioactive dating are said to estimate up to 6000 years. Even if
that is accepted the same sorts of politically motivated and appointed
scientists will vehemently exclaim that the universe is four and a half
billion years old (4,500,000,000) and that the science is settled!!!
They have no evidence whatsoever and can only offer countless theories in which terms and formula are constantly redefined.
However the "out of Africa" theory is also propagated by the NoI or
"Nation of Islam" which is a black supremacist cult in the United States
of America. The NoI believes that all white people were created by an
evil black scientist named "Yakub" (yes the Biblical and Koranic Jacob)
and that all black people collectively are 'Allah' or 'god'. This is
definitely not Islam; it is apostasy because it is fair to say it is
atheist. But try to get on TV to say that, it would never happen.
You would see both black supremacists and evolutionary scientists
combining to first stop you from being acknowledged by any media or "no
platforming". Then you would be facing an endless series of lawsuits
designed to bankrupt you (known as lawfare). Ultimately these types of
people want to see you in prison or homeless on the street, and they
want to see you utterly destitute and dead.
This is what motivates these people, and state educational facilities
have become factories which manufacture these sorts of people. And
everyday there is always the screaming and finger point at anyone who
disagrees with these sorts of people along with the claim of "YOU'RE
RACIST!" Now on top of that you are accused of being homophobic,
transphobic, antisemitic, islamophobic etc. and whatever buzzwords are
fashionable or politically correct.
However you have to understand that this is not a recent phenomena,
there was a long lead up into what we are seeing and unfortunately
experiencing today.
Have you heard of the Urantia Book? Or Oahspe? What about the occult
orders of the Golden Dawn and Ordo Templis Orientis (OTO)? Maybe
Aleister Crowley, Jack Parsons and Thelema? You've certainly heard of L.
Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Have you heard of terms such as the
"Maitreya" or the "Cosmic Christ"? Do you know about Theosophy or ever
heard of Alice Bailey?
As the musings of Charles Darwin and his evolution thesis quackery have
become embedded into human consciousness today through state education,
the concepts and beliefs from the people and books I just mentioned have
done so in a very, very subtle way. So if you didn't come from apes
then you came from aliens, and if you don't believe either you must have
'mental illness'. Indeed if we look at the period between World War 1
and World War 2 we see where the likes of psychiatry and psychology set
up their foundation for today. From this we now see how these fractions
complement and supplement each other in order to make a greater whole.
Let us briefly examine the various 'new age' factors from back then and see where they go in this jigsaw puzzle.
Aetherius Society
Formed in 1955
Components: UFO/Alien beliefs, various fragments of Christianity,
Hinduism, Buddhism and Theosophy. Incorporates varying beliefs in karma,
yoga, altruism, reincarnation, environmentalism, channeling and
evolution.
Unarius Academy of Science
Formed in 1954
Components: UFO/Alien beliefs, channeling, reincarnation and evolution.
Nation of Islam
Formed in 1930
Components: UFO/Alien beliefs, Black supremacy, various fragments and
reinterpretations of Christianity and Islam. Since 2010 the Nation of
Islam has incorporated the subject of Dianetics from Scientology.
Scientology
Formed in 1952
Components: UFO/Alien beliefs, is essentially atheist because its
definition of God is the "eighth dynamic" which is not defined. Is based
around mental health but has a disdain for psychiatry and psychology,
something to note - L. Ron Hubbard was associated with John "Jack"
Parsons who was in the O.T.O and a practitioner of Thelema.
Urantia Book
Published in 1955
Components: UFO/Alien beliefs, this is a book that was composed of
supposedly 20 years of records of an involuntary channeler. To explain
further you need to look the life of William Samuel Sadler who was an
'usher' in a mental hospital/sanatorium at the age of 15. He then went
on to be a psychiatrist and the Urantia Book is the result of notes
taken while a patient (known as the 'sleeping subject') channeled this
information while sleeping or otherwise unconscious. The Urantia Book is
just over 2000 pages long and delves into multiple galaxies which
compose the "greater galaxy" in which are multiple inhabited planets.
The writing down/recording of these channeled messages came about from
meeting between members of what can be called "rich white upper class"
members of society and mental patients. Indeed William Samuel Sadler
married Lena Kellogg (yes the Corn Flakes family) who also became a
psychiatrist. An interesting thing to note is that they see the Lord
Jesus Christ returning not under that name but as a “Michael of
Nebulon”. Compare that to the Jehovahs Witnesses who believe that the
Lord Jesus Christ was really the Archangel Michael.
Oahspe
Published in 1882 then republished (and reedited) in 1891. The book is
supposedly of "automatic writing" (or more accurately typing), and can
be said to be a stepping point from which various forms of channelling
came from (or at least an example of).
It took in various pagan theologies, has a form of evolution in which
veganism plays a dominant part. I also note some talismans from Oahspe
which are similar (if not the same) to those used in Black magic and
demonic spirit working.
So far with these organisations we have seen the alien/UFO tenet of
their beliefs as being a central part. We see that the subject of
evolution is a factor as well, but with the alien/UFO part we see that
it is not so much to do with little green men and flying saucers;
instead it is to do with 'spiritual' evolution. There is also splitting
and grafting bits and pieces from various religions as well as the
reinterpreting of central beliefs and dogma. But the most striking in
all this is the use of channeling which has an equal value in these
groups (and their splinter groups, imitators, deviations, etc).
Back to the present, we see the likes of evolution being propagated as
spiritual and physical 'progress' and this does include atheism (defined
as proof of no single identifiable creator entity) in relation to God.
And the physical evolution progress includes people (especially white
women) who produce mixed race children; it also includes children who
are reaching puberty at earlier ages (try food additives) and men who
identify as "transgender". Yet those who advocate this 'progress' have
no non-white members in their family, feed their children exclusively
organic food and would expel anyone from the family if it was suspected
they were gay.
These are the sort of people who believe in preserving their bloodline
as an exclusive and elite entity much like royal bloodlines. Really when
you look at this situation this is how the Egyptian gods of ancient
times functioned. They were depicted with animal heads to disguise the
fact that when the holder of a god status died they would be replaced by
one of their children. If this seems to you to be a plot from a bad
science fiction show or a vision of some dystopia world, well it is and
you are the background and cameo actors. God created mankind in his
image but now we are being remolded in someone elses'.
I cannot say that every person who got involved in these sorts of
religions/organisation/beliefs is utterly evil, they may have joined
because they had unanswered questions and thought they could find an
answer in these types of groups. Maybe they wanted to believe in UFOs,
aliens and occult practices. Or maybe the church took them for granted
so they were fed any old slop, after all I became a theistic Satanist
because I wanted to believe in magic and I didn't care where it came
from. I left Satanism and returned to it because I couldn't get a decent
explanation about God and was sick of being taken for granted and
served slop. This is how I know and recognise the motivations of people
joining these types of groups, but I also recognise how they are
attacking mainstream religions and especially Christianity. A reversal
of order is taking place; the concrete has been laid but hasn't yet
dried. But it will unless we can disrupt its elements and stop them
supplementing each other.
This is a war being waged on all spiritual, mental and physical levels,
and it's obvious to say sex is a good motivator. Let me introduce you to
these two perverted monsters, Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey.
Wilhelm Reich: Even as a child he had fantasies of having sex with
servants and his mother (his mother committed suicide after Reich told
his father she was having an affair). Reich then partnered up with
Sigmund Freud and Isidor Sadger in "psychoanalysing" of female mental
patients, he married one named Annie Pink (he was married twice and had
numerous affairs which usually ended with abortion) and they both became
doctors and psychoanalysts (much like William Samuel Sadler).
He was a member of the communist party and he linked psychoanalysis,
Marxism, child sex and sexual revolution so blatantly that even
communist groups avoided publishing his essays. One of his works was
"The Mass Psychology of Fascism" in addition to his promoting child sex,
abortion and molesting his patients or else having affairs and just
plain sex with them. Reich moved to the United States of America where
he established the Orgonomic Infant Research Center (OIRC) in 1950,
although Reich didn't sexually assault children his "therapists" did.
The story of Wilhelm Reich is worthy of being that of a bad guy in a
James Bond 007 movie, but you should research it yourself. He died in
prison in 1957.
Alfred Kinsey: A bisexual man in an open marriage who had an interest in
children, made numerous sexual studies in which the majority were
prisoners or ex-prisoners, or else were prostitutes and altered records
to claim that homosexuals were just "single". He was the author of the
Kinsey reports and developed the Kinsey scale in which the number zero
(0) means that you are exclusively heterosexual while the number six (6)
means you are exclusively homosexual. This was a forerunner for the
numerous "genders" we have today and Kinseys' "research" was used in the
"sexual revolution" in the 1960s. Kinsey was also an atheist and this
vile bastard died in 1956.
When you look at all the forms of "sexual liberation" today it is fair
to say that the work of Reich and Kinsey played a part in their
formation, most notably in the 'sexual revolution' of the 1960s. Indeed
the flow on effects to this day can be seen in the likes of pornography,
abortion, third wave feminism and general sexual narcissism. But
another (and probably the worst) flow on effect is the countless number
of children who grow up never knowing who their father is, and most
likely never will. Yet unbelievably among academics, feminists, and
intellectuals these two are considered revolutionaries and have a cult
like status. Much like the leaders of the Marxist era in Eastern Europe
and the third world during the time of the Soviet Union such as Lenin,
Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Castro, and of course Che Guevara and Trotsky
who are still worshiped today at the altar of atheism (note: Che Guevara
supposedly practiced Condomble, a type of voodoo but I have no evidence
on that).
Remember there were two revolutions in Russia, the first one overthrew
the Czar and established a provisional government. The second one was
the Bolshevik revolution which would be better called the Jewish
revolution which overthrew the provisional government and was meant to
take all of Europe. The chaos caused by the like of Leon Trotsky, Bela
Kun, Rosa Luxembourg (all Jewish) and others like Reich (again Jewish)
was about establishing a nominal religious caste supremacy on an ethnic
basis. It continues on today, aided and abetted by governments around
the world. Don't worry I will expose the Jewish Sabbatean movement in
further chapters.
You probably are thinking right now "well... where do the demon or djinn or whatever you want call them come into it?!?”
Well let's look at the metaphysical workings of the times. You had the
"New Thought" era in the late 1800s and the UFO and Alien cults which
set themselves up in the 1950s. Remember the people of that time had
never seen the likes of warfare from WWI or WWII before, so everything
was turned on its head. During that time people did not find solace in
established religions and turned to the likes of clairvoyants, mediums,
and the spiritist/spiritualism realm in order to find out what happened
to missing relatives in war zones and so on.
Todays' people do not care or just seem to think life was simple and
easy back then, it wasn't. There were two world wars and the very real
possibility of further wars, revolutions and insurgencies, basic and
somewhat expensive medical treatments, poor anesthetics and painkillers
compared to today, the great depression, etc. Along with religions which
expected compliance and never expected to be challenged, so they took
everyone for granted. People lived and survived through that period. And
the knowledge of what they experienced and learned has been made
available and passed on to further generations, and its influence in
modern life has existed in various forms.
The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley, the Rosicrucian
AMORC organisation, Thelema, Wicca, have you heard of these? Wicca
wasn't invented yesterday nor is it anything to do with the Druids, it
is merely the experiences of Gerald Gardner made into a system by
Aleister Crowley. What about Thelema? Try a combination of ancient
Egyptian magic and yoga again by Aleister Crowley. Ever noticed the
cross used by the Church of Scientology? The one which looks like a
crucifix with a St.Andrews' type cross at the centre join, it's the same
cross used by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Did you know L.
Ron Hubbard was supposedly in AMORC? (No big deal so was I) What about
Karl Marx? He was just an atheist... right!? No he wasn't, I learned in
my Satanist days that Karl Marx was indeed one of us.
I know you were expecting me to give you instant solutions to the issues
of possession and exorcism, but unless you fully understand the problem
and its history then you will never be fully confident that you have
eradicated that problem on a permanent basis. So we are not just dealing
with a few people possessed by a few demons, we are dealing with mass
possession by various parties working to a common aim whether or not
they realise or know it.
The human vehicles for setting up the conditions and transporting
possession are atheism, various designer mental
conditions/syndromes/illnesses, various politically correct forms of
indoctrination, psychology and psychiatry, etc. These are only minor
assaults compared to spiritual possession, really they are just a
'softening up' of a target before the main offensive. But the minor
assaults accumulating are in themselves a momentary major offensive, but
with no established end goal. Or the goal is unknown to those who
launch and fight them; it doesn't matter because they are disposable.
This is a satanic offensive and atheists are just cannon fodder. There
is no contract between atheists and the Satanic realm, the enemy of my
enemy is not a friend but just another enemy in this case.
Here are a few things for you; the Urantia book teaches that children do
not possess souls until the ages of five or six. Post-birth abortion
advocates currently advocate “that children are not self conscious until
the ages of five or six” as the excuse of justifying child murder.
Professor Peter Singer is one of them and I do not doubt that this comes
from the Urantia Book. I also point the finger at William Samuel Sadler
in regards to the “sleeping subject”. A mental hospital full of
neglected and abandoned people would have provided a perfect opportunity
for someone in his position to perform human experiments.
Especially in relation to occult matters, the patients could have been
subject to ceremonies and rituals in order to get them possessed. And
from there information would have been gained from the djinni or djinn
doing the possession. William Samuel Sadler was nothing more than the
Josef Mengele of the spiritual world.
The Nation of Islam believes all white people are devils on both an individual and collective basis.
The “Reverend” and founder of the Church of Euthanasia (Chris Korda) is a transsexual.
The Ancient Mystical Order of the Rosy Cross (AMORC) or Rosicrucianism
as it is commonly known has no relationship with Christianity. In fact
Rosicrucianism, Enochian Magic and Thelema all claim ancestry from
ancient Egyptian magic and practices. Freemasonry calls its 'god'
Jahbulon, which is a syncretisation of three different entities. They
are Jah (the God aspect of the Kabbalah Tree of Life, from the sephira
of Chokmah. Bul, to supposedly to mean Baal. However it is the name Bael
which I think is more correct; Baal simply means "lord" while Bael is
the name of a djinni (or demon if you like). On is meant to name Osirus,
so we have Jah-Bul-On or Jahbulon. The name is made in the same way
other 'gods' were syncretised in ancient Egypt, most probably the result
of marriages between the families of title holders. And another part to
the jigsaw is that Moses was an Egyptian prince and would have been
taught the magical practices of back then.
Today we have the likes of psychiatry, psychology, and social justice
being touted as secular instruments of 'logic' and 'reason' and
'progress'. However from what you have just read do you hold that to be
true?
Sunday 28 June 2020
Saturday 27 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (IId)
4.) Solipsists/Mentally ill - In
all honesty solipsism is a psychosis, the belief that all reality
exists inside your head. Thus nothing is real and its all your own
imaging or dreaming. To be a solipsist is to have a god like view of
reality as well as a psychotic one because you believe that everything
you see or encounter is the result of your mental processes. Logic has
no place for the solipsist, if something happens which they cannot
explain it is simply put down as something that was pre-planned after
which they programmed themselves to have amnesia regarding that
pre-planned event. I suppose it could be said that is how God makes
things interesting for itself. But to act in this way would mean you
believe that you are God and you would have the view that the Abrahamic
God is either non-existant or a competitor.
With the run of the mill mentally ill we see a similar picture, whether they see themself as God or see Donald Duck as God is not really relevant. They will see people 'acting' in similar and uniform ways to each other and themselves and believe this is how they planned it. Solipsists (who are mentally ill anyway) do have a belief in their God like psychosis and do view themselves as a Jesus Christ figure or else view the actions of others as an abuse of the autonomy that 'they' have given to the imaginary people in their imaginary world.
Solipsists come under the following categories;
1. Atheists -(because they view themselves as God, therefore there is no need to worship themselves, though their narcissism would compel them to)
2. Satanists -(this is more to do how they see people who hate and dislike them, these types of people are viewed as satanic because they have abused their autonomy in hating and disliking the solipsist or 'god' and therefore are demons. People who do not give them the time of day are viewed as atheists and need 'saving', this shows solipsists have a Jesus Christ view of themselves.)
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general -If a solipsist likes someone and if the person is reciprocal then the solipsist might 'promote' them to the level of a 'lesser god' or saint.
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill -Solipsists will view other solipsists as utterly evil and therefore satanic because that solipsist does not view the other solipsist as the 'first among equals'
5. Undefined -How does one solipsist view another solipsist? As in category 4. but it cannot be defined because they would at some point might recognise the rival as a mirror image.
6. Non-Theists -This would probably be a better category to place a solipsist in what regards they view themself rather than category 1. Things like astrological laws and cycles of time are just a natural effect from the motions of their 'essence'.
Psychotic and crazy.... nothing else to add really... in relation to solipsists.
With the run of the mill mentally ill we see a similar picture, whether they see themself as God or see Donald Duck as God is not really relevant. They will see people 'acting' in similar and uniform ways to each other and themselves and believe this is how they planned it. Solipsists (who are mentally ill anyway) do have a belief in their God like psychosis and do view themselves as a Jesus Christ figure or else view the actions of others as an abuse of the autonomy that 'they' have given to the imaginary people in their imaginary world.
Solipsists come under the following categories;
1. Atheists -(because they view themselves as God, therefore there is no need to worship themselves, though their narcissism would compel them to)
2. Satanists -(this is more to do how they see people who hate and dislike them, these types of people are viewed as satanic because they have abused their autonomy in hating and disliking the solipsist or 'god' and therefore are demons. People who do not give them the time of day are viewed as atheists and need 'saving', this shows solipsists have a Jesus Christ view of themselves.)
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general -If a solipsist likes someone and if the person is reciprocal then the solipsist might 'promote' them to the level of a 'lesser god' or saint.
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill -Solipsists will view other solipsists as utterly evil and therefore satanic because that solipsist does not view the other solipsist as the 'first among equals'
5. Undefined -How does one solipsist view another solipsist? As in category 4. but it cannot be defined because they would at some point might recognise the rival as a mirror image.
6. Non-Theists -This would probably be a better category to place a solipsist in what regards they view themself rather than category 1. Things like astrological laws and cycles of time are just a natural effect from the motions of their 'essence'.
Psychotic and crazy.... nothing else to add really... in relation to solipsists.
Wednesday 24 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (IIc.)
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general - I don't know if I can accurately say
that polytheists/pagans believe in one God but address it through
different aspects.
Much like the God aspects found in the sephiroth on the Tree of Life or even the Father, Son, Holy Spirit combo in the Trinity, however this cannot be said to be polytheism because both Judaism/Kabbala and Christianity in that God despite the different aspects has a unity of one. It is more to do with differing personality aspects which people can relate to and approach rather than God creating these aspects so it can relate to people. So there are so called polytheists who are actually monotheists, they just haven't examined their actual beliefs and 'gods'
If a polytheist does actually worship different gods, then do they hold them all as equal? If not, then can they explain why this isn't the case? After all if they are viewed as a god wouldn't this make them all equals? But as we examine any particular branch of mythology we will see these 'gods' do things like marrying, having children, engaging in personal beefs and indeed all manner of emotional based behaviour commonly associated with humans.
We can look at the likes of the ancient Egyptian gods which had animal heads as well as other non-human forms (you know Kek). Does the polytheist actually believe these gods were actually partly or wholly the creatures they have been depicted as?
Some probably would but mostly polytheists would accept the paintings and other artworks depicting these gods as symbolic. Ancient Egyptian art was symbolic, in addition the pharaoh was held to be a descendant of the gods but should he not have had an animal head or something? And why do bloodlines come into it.
I believe that the different gods were different human families and that the head of a family was portrayed in artwork with an animal head so that when that person died they could be replaced with little effort. Indeed as we have seen in all manner of polytheistic and occult rituals the leader of a coven or temple had their face covered. Did wearing a mask give them super dooper powers? No. In searching for where they got their occult knowledge inevitably leads back to the nephilim/djinn/demons/rogue angels/etc.
Again staying in ancient Egypt we see that its occult influence lingers today, Moses was an Egyptian prince and would have been taught the occult practices that were the domain of the 'god' families and bloodlines. We also have to list Rosicrucianism, Enochian magic, Thelema and I very strongly suspect Freemasonry. I was a Rosicrucian (AMORC) and the more you get into it you see the ancient Egyptian factor and it cannot be denied. Enochian magic does reference ancient Egyptian 'gods' as a factor in various practices, Thelema is just ancient Egyptian magical practices mixed in with yoga and was cooked up by Aleister Crowley. Freemasonry does have a 'god' but it is a syncretisation of Jah, Bael and Osirus, its name is Jahbulon. Syncretisation of gods is an ancient Egyptian practice, although some will say that the followers of these gods would agree to syncretise them if the numbers dedicated to these gods fell away due to other gods gaining more popularity. But I would tend to say that it was the intermarriage of certain bloodlines which caused the syncretisation as no one wanted to relinquish their bloodline name. Much like the way when upper class members intermarry, so if let's say a member of an elite family with the surname of Jones marries a member of an elite family called Smith then the surname that the couple will use is Jones-Smith.
So far I have been referring to ancient Egypt, but what of ancient Rome, Greece and other groups such as the Etruscans, Vikings and Celts. What differentiates them from the Egyptians is that they largely portrayed their gods as human beings, sure they were portrayed as above average humans but humans never the less. But these mythologies were also known to clone each others gods, all they did was rename them in their language and nothing else. The occult aspect was rather poor and was easily swept away by Christianity.
I will mention Hinduism which to me comes across as a free choice polytheism, you can add or subtract gods. Even Jesus Christ is accepted as a god by some Hindus but not especially a prominent or highly ranked one. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has been factored into not Hinduism per se but into the cultural beliefs/practices of the Indian sub-continent. This is because of the 'lost' years of Jesus Christ where it is believed that he travelled to India and took in the culture before returning to ancient Israel/Judea. Some say that he was close to Krishna but I never was concerned about this and I don't have an opinion either way.
With voodoo although we have the loas/lwas who interact with humans there is an actual chief God called Bon Dieu or some spell it Bondye. Bon Dieu has nothing to do with humans but will do on occasion, so it has delegated things concerning humans to the loas. I suppose it could be said that the same situation exists with the Holy Trinity, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah delegating certain responsibilities to the various rankings of angels. The same should also be said for the God of Deism as well.
The real nutjobs concerning polytheism are the likes of Wiccans, chaos magicians and eris followers.
All wicca is just bits and pieces of magical beliefs and superstitions picked up by Gerald Gardiner, it was Aleister Crowley who formulated these bits and pieces into a basic occult system......of sorts. Crowley only met Gardiner once, so apart from setting up a bare bones system for occult practice it was Gardiner and his nutjob followers who tacked on all sorts of crap and make believe to produce the instant insanity that is called wicca today. Oh... it was Gardiner who introduced the 'skyclad' practice, yes he was just a dirty old man.
Chaos magic? Along the same lines of wicca, you can add or subtract gods from anywhere on earth or in history and mix them together and just add ritual. You can throw eris worship into the mix, although eris and discordianism is just a joke even to its 'followers' the same cannot be said for chaos magic 'practitioners'.
Atheist? Solipsist? Hardcore nutjob? Doesn't matter chaos magic can cater for anyone because (in the words of Hasan of Alamut) nothing is true; all is permitted.
Much like the God aspects found in the sephiroth on the Tree of Life or even the Father, Son, Holy Spirit combo in the Trinity, however this cannot be said to be polytheism because both Judaism/Kabbala and Christianity in that God despite the different aspects has a unity of one. It is more to do with differing personality aspects which people can relate to and approach rather than God creating these aspects so it can relate to people. So there are so called polytheists who are actually monotheists, they just haven't examined their actual beliefs and 'gods'
If a polytheist does actually worship different gods, then do they hold them all as equal? If not, then can they explain why this isn't the case? After all if they are viewed as a god wouldn't this make them all equals? But as we examine any particular branch of mythology we will see these 'gods' do things like marrying, having children, engaging in personal beefs and indeed all manner of emotional based behaviour commonly associated with humans.
We can look at the likes of the ancient Egyptian gods which had animal heads as well as other non-human forms (you know Kek). Does the polytheist actually believe these gods were actually partly or wholly the creatures they have been depicted as?
Some probably would but mostly polytheists would accept the paintings and other artworks depicting these gods as symbolic. Ancient Egyptian art was symbolic, in addition the pharaoh was held to be a descendant of the gods but should he not have had an animal head or something? And why do bloodlines come into it.
I believe that the different gods were different human families and that the head of a family was portrayed in artwork with an animal head so that when that person died they could be replaced with little effort. Indeed as we have seen in all manner of polytheistic and occult rituals the leader of a coven or temple had their face covered. Did wearing a mask give them super dooper powers? No. In searching for where they got their occult knowledge inevitably leads back to the nephilim/djinn/demons/rogue angels/etc.
Again staying in ancient Egypt we see that its occult influence lingers today, Moses was an Egyptian prince and would have been taught the occult practices that were the domain of the 'god' families and bloodlines. We also have to list Rosicrucianism, Enochian magic, Thelema and I very strongly suspect Freemasonry. I was a Rosicrucian (AMORC) and the more you get into it you see the ancient Egyptian factor and it cannot be denied. Enochian magic does reference ancient Egyptian 'gods' as a factor in various practices, Thelema is just ancient Egyptian magical practices mixed in with yoga and was cooked up by Aleister Crowley. Freemasonry does have a 'god' but it is a syncretisation of Jah, Bael and Osirus, its name is Jahbulon. Syncretisation of gods is an ancient Egyptian practice, although some will say that the followers of these gods would agree to syncretise them if the numbers dedicated to these gods fell away due to other gods gaining more popularity. But I would tend to say that it was the intermarriage of certain bloodlines which caused the syncretisation as no one wanted to relinquish their bloodline name. Much like the way when upper class members intermarry, so if let's say a member of an elite family with the surname of Jones marries a member of an elite family called Smith then the surname that the couple will use is Jones-Smith.
So far I have been referring to ancient Egypt, but what of ancient Rome, Greece and other groups such as the Etruscans, Vikings and Celts. What differentiates them from the Egyptians is that they largely portrayed their gods as human beings, sure they were portrayed as above average humans but humans never the less. But these mythologies were also known to clone each others gods, all they did was rename them in their language and nothing else. The occult aspect was rather poor and was easily swept away by Christianity.
I will mention Hinduism which to me comes across as a free choice polytheism, you can add or subtract gods. Even Jesus Christ is accepted as a god by some Hindus but not especially a prominent or highly ranked one. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has been factored into not Hinduism per se but into the cultural beliefs/practices of the Indian sub-continent. This is because of the 'lost' years of Jesus Christ where it is believed that he travelled to India and took in the culture before returning to ancient Israel/Judea. Some say that he was close to Krishna but I never was concerned about this and I don't have an opinion either way.
With voodoo although we have the loas/lwas who interact with humans there is an actual chief God called Bon Dieu or some spell it Bondye. Bon Dieu has nothing to do with humans but will do on occasion, so it has delegated things concerning humans to the loas. I suppose it could be said that the same situation exists with the Holy Trinity, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah delegating certain responsibilities to the various rankings of angels. The same should also be said for the God of Deism as well.
The real nutjobs concerning polytheism are the likes of Wiccans, chaos magicians and eris followers.
All wicca is just bits and pieces of magical beliefs and superstitions picked up by Gerald Gardiner, it was Aleister Crowley who formulated these bits and pieces into a basic occult system......of sorts. Crowley only met Gardiner once, so apart from setting up a bare bones system for occult practice it was Gardiner and his nutjob followers who tacked on all sorts of crap and make believe to produce the instant insanity that is called wicca today. Oh... it was Gardiner who introduced the 'skyclad' practice, yes he was just a dirty old man.
Chaos magic? Along the same lines of wicca, you can add or subtract gods from anywhere on earth or in history and mix them together and just add ritual. You can throw eris worship into the mix, although eris and discordianism is just a joke even to its 'followers' the same cannot be said for chaos magic 'practitioners'.
Atheist? Solipsist? Hardcore nutjob? Doesn't matter chaos magic can cater for anyone because (in the words of Hasan of Alamut) nothing is true; all is permitted.
My argument to prove God exists (IIb.)
2.) Satanists
- The irony and hypocrisy of the majority of those who call themselves
"satanists", is that they are not satanists but are atheists who use
that description. There are Theistic Satanists who do worship the
'Satan' (Satan is actually a title not a name) and actually believe in
the existance of God. Their aim is to reverse the roles and the titles
that the other holds at the current time. Essentially they want Lucifer
to be the new 'god' and the one we call God would be the adversary of
the 'new order'. The 'atheist satanists' actually be default serve the
other contender of the title of Satan, that being Moloch (and I believe
Lucifer has lost the title).
Just as there is the Tree of Life, there is a Tree of Death. It has sephiroth like the Tree of Life but the virtues and vices have been reversed. Example: In the sephira of Malkuth the virtue is 'discrimination' and the vice is 'inertia'. As we see today discrimination is outlawed and inertia is an enforced lifestyle, and there will be people reading this going on about racism, homophobia, etc. But discrimination is also to do about who you decide to associate with, who you choose to have sex with, who you choose to work for, etc. And we have inertia as an accepted mindset; don't aim high, go with the flow, you can't change anything, why bother, and so on.
On the Tree of Death the highest sephira is 'Thaumiel' in which both Lucifer and Moloch are joint rulers and the 'first among equals' holds the title "Satan". The Tree of Death only exists in Assiah, aka the 'world of action' which is the physical realm of existance which consists of both immanent and transcendental properties. Seeing as the immanent is the non animated (such as rocks, concrete, etc) and the transcendental is animated (humans, djinn, NB.-Angels are not native to Assiah), if the transcendental aspect is lost to the Satan then it is fair to say that the Earth is lost. Now you know where the phrase "Hell on Earth" comes from.
But how does Moloch come into this and how can it be the Satan? Easy... if you look into the ancient practices concerning Moloch you will find that the acceptable form of worship was child sacrifice. This involved sacrificing one of your children and in return you would get material gain. The method of sacrifice was to incinerate children alive in a furnace shaped like Moloch or else dedicated to it. The ages of the sacrificed children were approximately 2-5 years old. But how is that relevant today? Simple... "post-birth abortion", there are those who wish to impose this practice. The "rational" being that this is acceptable because children are not self aware until the ages of 5/6 years old. There are only 3 groups of 'people' who have this 'logic', the 1st is those who adhere to the Urantia Book (seriously cracked and perverted people) and the 2nd are atheists (such as Peter Singer) then there is Moloch worshipers. We see constant protests, marches, and demands from the pro-abortion lobby. People seem to think the aborted babies are put into sweet, loving graves with pretty flowers growing on top of them.
Nothing of the sort! If they are not being chopped up for Planned Parenthood to sell (you can find clips on YouTube doing undercover stings), then they are incinerated (a hospital in Britain was caught incinerating aborted babies to 'heat the hospital'). The same M.O. from ancient times, a roundabout but acceptable sacrifice. Moloch has every reason to assume the title "Satan" because whether by design or default people are serving and sacrificing to it. A state that allows this sort of practice can be said to be at best practicing 'moral relativism' and even that description is being charitable.
So from the categories I listed at the beginning of "Argument from opposition"
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
In this section on Satanism have dealt with;
1. Atheists (Some may use the term 'satanist' but they are atheist)
2. Satanists (atheists who call themselves satanists, Moloch worshipers whether bt design or default)
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill (what else could you be if you are into this???)
5. Undefined (the urantia book is something that resulted from 'mental health professionals' using some guy is a sanitarium as a channel of some sort... oh just check it out... rich, elite academics from the 1920s and 30s.)
I could throw in 3. Polytheists/Pagans in general but in regards to Theistic Satanism this is actually not the case, much like in voodoo the 1st respect has to be given to Papa Legba and then you can act with your preferred loa/lwa.
And how do I know all this?
I was one of the black faithful.... and we hated atheists too, they can call themselves 'satanists' as much as they want it makes no difference.
We found that quite insulting actually.
Just as there is the Tree of Life, there is a Tree of Death. It has sephiroth like the Tree of Life but the virtues and vices have been reversed. Example: In the sephira of Malkuth the virtue is 'discrimination' and the vice is 'inertia'. As we see today discrimination is outlawed and inertia is an enforced lifestyle, and there will be people reading this going on about racism, homophobia, etc. But discrimination is also to do about who you decide to associate with, who you choose to have sex with, who you choose to work for, etc. And we have inertia as an accepted mindset; don't aim high, go with the flow, you can't change anything, why bother, and so on.
On the Tree of Death the highest sephira is 'Thaumiel' in which both Lucifer and Moloch are joint rulers and the 'first among equals' holds the title "Satan". The Tree of Death only exists in Assiah, aka the 'world of action' which is the physical realm of existance which consists of both immanent and transcendental properties. Seeing as the immanent is the non animated (such as rocks, concrete, etc) and the transcendental is animated (humans, djinn, NB.-Angels are not native to Assiah), if the transcendental aspect is lost to the Satan then it is fair to say that the Earth is lost. Now you know where the phrase "Hell on Earth" comes from.
But how does Moloch come into this and how can it be the Satan? Easy... if you look into the ancient practices concerning Moloch you will find that the acceptable form of worship was child sacrifice. This involved sacrificing one of your children and in return you would get material gain. The method of sacrifice was to incinerate children alive in a furnace shaped like Moloch or else dedicated to it. The ages of the sacrificed children were approximately 2-5 years old. But how is that relevant today? Simple... "post-birth abortion", there are those who wish to impose this practice. The "rational" being that this is acceptable because children are not self aware until the ages of 5/6 years old. There are only 3 groups of 'people' who have this 'logic', the 1st is those who adhere to the Urantia Book (seriously cracked and perverted people) and the 2nd are atheists (such as Peter Singer) then there is Moloch worshipers. We see constant protests, marches, and demands from the pro-abortion lobby. People seem to think the aborted babies are put into sweet, loving graves with pretty flowers growing on top of them.
Nothing of the sort! If they are not being chopped up for Planned Parenthood to sell (you can find clips on YouTube doing undercover stings), then they are incinerated (a hospital in Britain was caught incinerating aborted babies to 'heat the hospital'). The same M.O. from ancient times, a roundabout but acceptable sacrifice. Moloch has every reason to assume the title "Satan" because whether by design or default people are serving and sacrificing to it. A state that allows this sort of practice can be said to be at best practicing 'moral relativism' and even that description is being charitable.
So from the categories I listed at the beginning of "Argument from opposition"
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
In this section on Satanism have dealt with;
1. Atheists (Some may use the term 'satanist' but they are atheist)
2. Satanists (atheists who call themselves satanists, Moloch worshipers whether bt design or default)
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill (what else could you be if you are into this???)
5. Undefined (the urantia book is something that resulted from 'mental health professionals' using some guy is a sanitarium as a channel of some sort... oh just check it out... rich, elite academics from the 1920s and 30s.)
I could throw in 3. Polytheists/Pagans in general but in regards to Theistic Satanism this is actually not the case, much like in voodoo the 1st respect has to be given to Papa Legba and then you can act with your preferred loa/lwa.
And how do I know all this?
I was one of the black faithful.... and we hated atheists too, they can call themselves 'satanists' as much as they want it makes no difference.
We found that quite insulting actually.
|
Sunday 21 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (IIa.)
The argument from opposition
Some people would classify this as under an "argument from popularity" case, but usually such arguments can be used by either side in a subject as "arguments to present proof of God". Rhetoric aside, we should examine the parties, the aims and the methods used. As I do believe that there is God, I will present an argument that part of the evidence that proves Gods' existance is the opposition to the concept of God as an independent entity.
But first I will put forth my definition of God;
I believe God to be the highest intelligence and the infinite power, God has no exclusively set form and yet can change form as it wants because there is nothing to prevent that. As it is of infinite power and intelligence there is nothing that can force or compromise God into deviation of its plans or adopting that of another. The only God I know and accept can be best simply described as the Abrahamic God, however this can come into the category of deism. Myself, if I was to apply a label to my beliefs it would be Transdeist. God can take a physical shape if it wishes and form whole or part of a seperate individual but cannot seperate from itself (think the Holy Trinity of Christianity or the God aspects of the Kabbalistic 'Tree of Life'). We have to bear in mind what was said to Moses when he asked "Who shall I said sent me?" The answer is unfortunately simplified to "I am" or "I am what I am", but the answer in Hebrew is "Eheieh Asher Eheieh" which is translated to "I am what/that I am". However it is more correct to transliterate the name as is the usual practice in Arabic and other middle-eastern languages which results in "I am what I will be".
There is no doubt that this single God is the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Deism as well as their splinters, factions, and variations. There may be various personalities or sides of the one and only God but its unity is one and only. But who could possibly oppose God? Let's list the categories;
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
Now let's examine each listing;
1.) Atheists - If we use the 'Dawkins scale' using the levels of belief for each person (1 being true theist and 7 being utter atheist) we will see that most "committed atheists" are a 6. That is they are practicing (defacto) atheists but will not rule out the possibility that God does exist, even Dawkins himself rates himself as a 6. So that is a 14.285714% chance as far as he is concerned that there is a higher entity than mankind, or what we commonly refer to as God. Those like him are not saying that the existance of God is impossible but only improbable.
One has to question the atheist obsession with God, it does seem as though they do have a private relationship with an entity which they publicly claim does not exist. On top of that they hold a hatred for those who do believe in God, but that hatred is the same as someone who hates and is resentful of someone in a relationship with a love interest. An example would be a fat, ugly girl who hates a pretty girl because 1) She is pretty and 2) She is the girlfriend of the boy who the ugly girl wants to be hers. You could go a step further and say that the atheist has a "treat them mean to keep them keen" attitude to God, they for some unknown stupid reason believe that the more they hate and deny God the more likely it will present itself to them to prove it exists. Atheists view God as some sort of lazy butler whose first priority in existance is to pander to them above everything else.
And this isn't as far fetched as you might imagine, if the atheist is a solipsist or otherwise mentally ill there is every possibility that they have this crackpot view. Remember that an atheist sees themself as the highest form of life in their 'world' of existance. They cannot and will not see themself as a 'lesser' being, they see God believers as 'lesser' beings and they see their so called 'fellow atheists' as lesser beings. An atheist cannot see anyone else (whether they are atheist or not) as the same as themself because they see themself as a "first among equals". An atheist might be living in a rubbish tip but they will continue to see themself as 'first among equals' even though they cannot (and nor care to) explain how they are living in a rubbish tip. The belief they have that their situation is just a part of 'THEIR' greater plan simply points to delusions of grandeur and/or solipsism.
They are the worst hypocrites in addition, for as much as they will ramble on about witch burnings, persecutions of gays, etc. They never mention anything about the persecutions that occurred in marxist run nation states. Nothing mentioned about the League of Militant Atheists in the Soviet Union and similar groups in other combloc countries. State sanctioned genocidal murders (and marxist states are not fond of witches or gays).
Q.) Why did the state commit these murders
A.) Because the state was atheist.
Wherever atheists take control of the state murders inevitably follow, let's exam a list of atheist headed regimes and see for ourselves;
Stalin, Pol Pot, Ali Soilih, Mussolini, Calles, Ceausescu, the Kims of North Korea, those of Communist China, etc and those who didn't care either way and are atheist by default Hitler and Castro and others like them whether capitalist or marxist.
Q.) What explains their behaviour?
A.) Moral relativism
They could not see any entity higher than themself, not even the state because as far as they were concerned they created the state. They and they alone.
But a major question to be asked is what is the atheists' definition of God? What is their concept of it? For the most part they will simply refer to the Abrahamic notion of God because of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their derivatives), but would the likes of atheists from hinduism, zoroastrianism, deism and other non-Abrahamic beliefs/faiths hold the same definition or concept?
For as much as atheists like to 'pad up' their numbers by claiming deists, buddhists and jains under the atheist umbrella, they also have the aim of exterminating these beliefs. You could even go as far to say that the atheist end game is actually Satanic.
Some people would classify this as under an "argument from popularity" case, but usually such arguments can be used by either side in a subject as "arguments to present proof of God". Rhetoric aside, we should examine the parties, the aims and the methods used. As I do believe that there is God, I will present an argument that part of the evidence that proves Gods' existance is the opposition to the concept of God as an independent entity.
But first I will put forth my definition of God;
I believe God to be the highest intelligence and the infinite power, God has no exclusively set form and yet can change form as it wants because there is nothing to prevent that. As it is of infinite power and intelligence there is nothing that can force or compromise God into deviation of its plans or adopting that of another. The only God I know and accept can be best simply described as the Abrahamic God, however this can come into the category of deism. Myself, if I was to apply a label to my beliefs it would be Transdeist. God can take a physical shape if it wishes and form whole or part of a seperate individual but cannot seperate from itself (think the Holy Trinity of Christianity or the God aspects of the Kabbalistic 'Tree of Life'). We have to bear in mind what was said to Moses when he asked "Who shall I said sent me?" The answer is unfortunately simplified to "I am" or "I am what I am", but the answer in Hebrew is "Eheieh Asher Eheieh" which is translated to "I am what/that I am". However it is more correct to transliterate the name as is the usual practice in Arabic and other middle-eastern languages which results in "I am what I will be".
There is no doubt that this single God is the God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Deism as well as their splinters, factions, and variations. There may be various personalities or sides of the one and only God but its unity is one and only. But who could possibly oppose God? Let's list the categories;
1. Atheists
2. Satanists
3. Polytheists/Pagans in general
4. Solipsists/Mentally ill
5. Undefined
6. Non-Theists
Now let's examine each listing;
1.) Atheists - If we use the 'Dawkins scale' using the levels of belief for each person (1 being true theist and 7 being utter atheist) we will see that most "committed atheists" are a 6. That is they are practicing (defacto) atheists but will not rule out the possibility that God does exist, even Dawkins himself rates himself as a 6. So that is a 14.285714% chance as far as he is concerned that there is a higher entity than mankind, or what we commonly refer to as God. Those like him are not saying that the existance of God is impossible but only improbable.
One has to question the atheist obsession with God, it does seem as though they do have a private relationship with an entity which they publicly claim does not exist. On top of that they hold a hatred for those who do believe in God, but that hatred is the same as someone who hates and is resentful of someone in a relationship with a love interest. An example would be a fat, ugly girl who hates a pretty girl because 1) She is pretty and 2) She is the girlfriend of the boy who the ugly girl wants to be hers. You could go a step further and say that the atheist has a "treat them mean to keep them keen" attitude to God, they for some unknown stupid reason believe that the more they hate and deny God the more likely it will present itself to them to prove it exists. Atheists view God as some sort of lazy butler whose first priority in existance is to pander to them above everything else.
And this isn't as far fetched as you might imagine, if the atheist is a solipsist or otherwise mentally ill there is every possibility that they have this crackpot view. Remember that an atheist sees themself as the highest form of life in their 'world' of existance. They cannot and will not see themself as a 'lesser' being, they see God believers as 'lesser' beings and they see their so called 'fellow atheists' as lesser beings. An atheist cannot see anyone else (whether they are atheist or not) as the same as themself because they see themself as a "first among equals". An atheist might be living in a rubbish tip but they will continue to see themself as 'first among equals' even though they cannot (and nor care to) explain how they are living in a rubbish tip. The belief they have that their situation is just a part of 'THEIR' greater plan simply points to delusions of grandeur and/or solipsism.
They are the worst hypocrites in addition, for as much as they will ramble on about witch burnings, persecutions of gays, etc. They never mention anything about the persecutions that occurred in marxist run nation states. Nothing mentioned about the League of Militant Atheists in the Soviet Union and similar groups in other combloc countries. State sanctioned genocidal murders (and marxist states are not fond of witches or gays).
Q.) Why did the state commit these murders
A.) Because the state was atheist.
Wherever atheists take control of the state murders inevitably follow, let's exam a list of atheist headed regimes and see for ourselves;
Stalin, Pol Pot, Ali Soilih, Mussolini, Calles, Ceausescu, the Kims of North Korea, those of Communist China, etc and those who didn't care either way and are atheist by default Hitler and Castro and others like them whether capitalist or marxist.
Q.) What explains their behaviour?
A.) Moral relativism
They could not see any entity higher than themself, not even the state because as far as they were concerned they created the state. They and they alone.
But a major question to be asked is what is the atheists' definition of God? What is their concept of it? For the most part they will simply refer to the Abrahamic notion of God because of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their derivatives), but would the likes of atheists from hinduism, zoroastrianism, deism and other non-Abrahamic beliefs/faiths hold the same definition or concept?
For as much as atheists like to 'pad up' their numbers by claiming deists, buddhists and jains under the atheist umbrella, they also have the aim of exterminating these beliefs. You could even go as far to say that the atheist end game is actually Satanic.
Sunday 14 June 2020
Saturday 13 June 2020
My argument to prove God exists (I)
I am starting a series to show proof that God exists, although there may be many examples of cases on the internet to show proof or at least a just cause to believe there is a God I am looking beyond the usual philosophical realm. So what I will be doing is taking a look at all factors, factoring in probabilities much in the same way as gambling odds etc. Once I cannot continue further (or simply run out of ideas) I will place all that I have come up with on a MS Word document or PDF for you to download and hopefully inspire you to type down your concepts to display for others.
And hopefully we can cure atheism which is the most horrid, evil mental illness known to mankind.
Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen
The Argument From Anthropology
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary. They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants. And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented.
If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by an entity or being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God. The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a simular measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counseling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research. I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your sect.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
*i think im done with anthropology*
And hopefully we can cure atheism which is the most horrid, evil mental illness known to mankind.
Praise be upon the only God whose unity is one by all without exception. Amen
The Argument From Anthropology
(this is probably not strictly anthropology in relation to the accepted purely scientific understanding)
Although with society today we see the likes of identity politics, in that people will categorise themselves into categories not of their own choosing or creation. But rather that of the political and social establishments of the day which are not concrete, but rather temporary. They do this to be politically correct and socially compliant even though they may not personally approve of the groupthink or hivemind of these categories and their actions.
It is fair to say that all humans have a complex and individual personality, but it would be absurd to say that such a complexity could have emerged from nothing and with no cause. The atheist would claim that personalities are formed through environment, circumstances, experience and DNA, but if that was truly the complete case then personalities could be manufactured according to the states' needs and wants. And if that was the case would the individual personality simply approve of its use by the state and be in full agreeance with it? If the answer uniformly is "yes" then we are seeing slavery and moral relativism as factors. While we cannot erase the factor of fear in relation to politics (of violence and other physical harm) or social (abandonment and isolation) realms, the reality is that moral relativism cannot be enforced. Yes you can force people to obey, but you cannot force them to approve.
Whether they are bribed or whether they are terrorised they will mostly hold the same opinion, there is an individuality within them that is not a result of mental and physical circumstances, but spiritual. Whether you wish to call that factor spirit or soul it is not self made and the only reasonably logical explanation to me is that it is the result of a higher entity. Some may say that our individuality is a result of our parents along with environment, circumstances and experience but if that was the case we would be clones of our parents and indeed to an extent everyone else in our society. And indeed it would be the groupthink/hivemind society which would be continuously replicating because everyone would be predisposed to replicate their parents. There would have been no great thinkers or doers because the level of education or free thought would have never risen. Nor would the level of aspiration or even imagination, people would still believe the Earth is flat (if they had the concept of a planet) and the inventions we take for granted in modern life would never have been invented.
If the atheists and evolutionists had their way we would be still living in caves...but under their control. In fact we would be little better than baboons and feral dogs.
As we have seen in history (and indeed today) people can be compelled to act against their own beliefs, opinions, and wishes due to physical acts (whether it be of bribery or terror) but control of ones' thoughts as an individual being can never be enforced or known to be enforced. But we are seeing attempts at that with various pharmaceuticals and police looking for "thought crime". It is not the individuals' belief that is being curtailed but rather their ability to act on their individual belief.
It can be said that the human personality (that being the result of spiritual, mental and physical factors) would need to be made by an entity or being with the same and actually greater, complex personality which would have factored in autonomy. As we are created in the image of God and have the ability to aspire we would have to look at examples of a 'greater whole' of the personality of God that we can comprehend.
An example can be found on the 'Tree of Life' which gives us 10 aspects of God, there are 10 sections (or sephiroth) and each individual section is overlooked by an aspect of God. The reference to the Tree of Life can be found in Kabbalah teachings, and there are four worlds regarding the Tree of Life in the Kabbalah
They are;
Atziluth (Emanation)
Briah (Creation)
Yetzirah (Formation)
Assiah (the world of action, what we refer to as the physical)
But Assiah has Tebhel (Immanent) and Cheled (Transcendental)
There is no doubt that we are born with unique personalities, though we may have them altered or changed by the likes of environment and the people we associate with. Or else things such as mental illness, drug addiction and even peer pressure or coercion. The fact is we are born with a unique personality which existed before we were exposed to various elements which we may of interacted with. The uniqueness of the personality comes from our soul, regardless of our external appearance we will hold true what we 'feel is right' or else what our 'gut instinct' says. We all hold some thought of intuition but whether we enact on it or not is another matter depending on circumstance, but circumstances regarding our physical and mental factors can be altered.
The circumstances of spiritual factors regarding our soul cannot, even if you look at atheism you will see people hating God. The atheist will proclaim that God does not exist and yet have a hatred for this great being, this can be only said and seen in a personal relationship. To hate God makes as much sense as hating Mickey Mouse.
And yet atheists will accept Mickey Mouse as an animate being because to them Mickey Mouse can exist in psychological, aesthetical, emotional and even physical (like some guy in Disneyland dressed up in an outfit, although it cannot be THE Mickey Mouse it is a suitable proxy). But all these facets of Mickey Mouse can only be symbolic, this is because these facets do not come from or are even created by a single independant animated entity. If you examine it, the existance of Mickey Mouse came into being through the emanation, creation, and formation in the mind of Walt Disney before it 'came' into the physical realm. You also have to factor in consultants and staff who helped fine tune the final but yet evolving product.
You might argue that the existance of God came about through a simular measure, to that I would say that the existance of religion and denominations can be said to have come about through similar measures. But you cannot forget about the consultants and staff required to propagate and 'sell' the religion or denomination. A church without clergy and parishioners could not open, but a church without the support staff (whether paid or voluntary) could not survive. There would be no one to help or aid the clergy, parishioners, or maintain the church and its grounds. A belief in the existance of and in God does not require actors or an audience or stagehands or even a theatre. It does not require these things because God is infinitely greater than mankind and its inventions (whether they are psychological, aesthetical, emotional or physical).
Mankind may have a concept of something, it may visualise how that concept may look like, and it may even draw up plans on how this concept will come into the physical realm. But the reality is that these plans fail or distort from the original concept. Essentially they are plans from other plans which were from other plans. Mankind cannot create nature, yes it may corrupt, distort, imitate and re-invent nature but it cannot create nature. Mankind has yet to create a new species with an amount of chromosomes that no other species has, this shows that only a greater entity could have brought the concept of the universe into physical reality. A greater entity with greater intelligence and greater experience. Even if all the thinking abilities and intelligence of all humans were to be collectively contained within a single brain, mankind would be no better off than it is today.
Unless mankind realises that itself is a creation, indeed a self replicating creation like other mammals then it will ignore the very thing that differentiates us from the other mammals besides our physical attributes. And that thing is our soul, if we had no soul then we all would be sociopaths. And if that was the case then you and I would not be here as history would have gone extinct and disappeared some time ago.
Existance does have an "order of things" and we can see this in nature, it is mankind that is increasingly collectively seeking to alter this. In fact what we are seeing today is the collective attempt to install a new collective 'god' under the title of "humanity" and applying labels to its methods such as 'evolution' and 'progress'. But words like 'evolution' and 'progress' have been redefined into different contexts much like the word 'racism'. What is written in an English language dictionary may not be the same as taught in a university because the context has changed, their definitions may come from a political dictionary or a psychological dictionary and even then the definitions may be differing in each subject due to the vested interests. Much like the different denominations in the various religions will push their own specific beliefs, if these beliefs were not so separately specific then there would be no need for separate denominations.
A demonstration is the word "transsexual", what is its definition? Is it someone who "identifies" as the opposite gender? Is it someone who has had surgery to 'be as' the opposite gender? Or is it something different? People can make as many lofty pronouncements and definitions as they want, but at the end of the day you cannot change your sex/gender. You can have surgery, hormones and various forms of 'counseling' to help you identify as the opposite gender, but if a clone was made from your DNA it would be the same gender as you were born. In the same way that whatever lifestyle you choose to live or else are caught up in, you will have a sense of right and wrong that cannot be altered.
However that does not mean that 'mankind' will not try to 're-invent' itself, but this is not actually the case. When people scream and wail "for humanity!!!" they are only reflecting an extreme minority of human beings at any given time. As for 're-inventing'? You can only re-invent what you, yourself have actually invented. That is everything from concept to physical reality, everything from emanation to creation to formation to physical action (whether it be producing a product or implementing a method). It is easier to redefine language than to re-invent that of the physical, and that is what we are seeing today. We have no right and wrong, instead we have moral relativism which is not about "the greater good of humanity" but rather a comfort blanket for solipsists.
People whether they be of various racial groupings, ethnicities, or bloodlines will be judged to be civilised, uncivilised, or 'evolving'. However this is not likely to be a judgment based on their intelligence but rather their material gain, a city full of skyscrapers will be deemed to be more civilised than a village full of huts. Even though the city will be overpopulated, have high levels of crime and suicide in addition to isolation with the mandatory loneliness. The city will be deemed more successful and more civilised than the village, but it is the village from which the basis of civilisation came from. In regards to religion the more people that are adherants of that religion, the more prone that religion is to dissent, apostasy, fragmentation and splintering. In relation to God the best mindset is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), short, sharp answers will give people something understandable to work with as they begin their own quest or own research. I started this project to present an argument that there is a God. I do not care about how many aspects it has, how many people view God or don't view it. I suppose one of my main motivations to write this are the repeated worn out arguments used by those faithful to God in the hope of converting others to their particular faith.
To that I say:
No.1 - You are serving God, not your sect.
No.2 - Don't do something because others are doing it. I especially see this among Christians handing out CHICK Tracts on the street, don't bother because everybody has seen then, they convince no one because they are the sort of comics written for 5 year olds and you come across as arrogant because it makes it look like you think everyone is as stupid as you.
You can do better than this, did God give you a brain? THEN USE IT!
*i think im done with anthropology*
|
Friday 12 June 2020
Tuesday 9 June 2020
My video on COVID-19
I stand by what I say, Australia and especially the state of New South Wales are essentially police states. This is what fascism looks like and it's spreading throughout the Westernised world and COVID-19 is the boogyman in the room that the government will "protect" you from if you surrender your rights to a Pol Pot type police force.
I intend to continue with this
I intend to continue with this
COVID-19 NSW/Australia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)