zeitgeist (jesus = the sun)
quintal
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8461754114455236037&q=zeitgeist&total=464&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
part 1 : the greatest story ever told
in full here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=928518742089256264&q=zeitgeist
--
http://www.divshare.com/download/849076-9ff (Files. Fichiers.)
http://quintaldo.wordpress.com/ & http://quintaldo.stumbleupon.com/
boson boss
> francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,alt.conspiracy,alt.magick
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8461754114455236037&q=zeitge...
> part 1 : the greatest story ever told
>
> in full here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=928518742089256264&q=zeitgeist
>
> --http://www.divshare.com/download/849076-9ff (Files. Fichiers.)http://quintaldo.wordpress.com/&http://quintaldo.stumbleupon.com/
You should see the "Sunshine".
CoreyWhite
> francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,alt.conspiracy,alt.magick
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8461754114455236037&q=zeitge...
>
> in full here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=928518742089256264&q=zeitgeist
>
I'll take it.
seon ferguson
good one. Also have you visited http://www.jesusneverexisted.com there's a
lot of great articles about the God-man.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
news:sf6973pnp6sf1c0ur...@4ax.com...
> francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,alt.conspiracy,alt.magick
>
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8461754114455236037&q=zeitgeist&total=464&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
> part 1 : the greatest story ever told
I got a good laugh out of the crackpot mythology in which the sun is
identified with Horus. In fact, the *rising* sun is identified with Horus,
the midday sun with Ra, and the setting sun with Osiris. Three different
gods, each related to a *position* of the sun, not to the sun itself. I
snorted in derision when the narrator tried to declare that "sunset" had
something to do with the god Set. It was all downhill from there.
quintal
<se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>I may have seen that. Have you seen the God who wasn't there?
nope
> That's another
>good one. Also have you visited http://www.jesusneverexisted.com there's a
>lot of great articles about the God-man.
satanists may be fun as lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
(atheism is an aspect of satanism)
seon ferguson
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:18:41 +1000, "seon ferguson"
> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I may have seen that. Have you seen the God who wasn't there?
>
> nope
>
>> That's another
>>good one. Also have you visited http://www.jesusneverexisted.com there's a
>>lot of great articles about the God-man.
>
> satanists may be fun as lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
> (atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>
>
>
Oh i assumed you knew that jesus was a myth. Look if there really is a world
wide conspiracy isnt it possible religion is another thing controlled by the
new world order?
Also Atheists have every right to their beliefs. After all God cant be
scientificly proven so why believe in something with no evidence to support
its existance? I have my reasons but thats just faith.
quintal
<se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>news:38a973hcdrc38hqm0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:18:41 +1000, "seon ferguson"
>> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>I may have seen that. Have you seen the God who wasn't there?
>>
>> nope
>>
>You should.
>
>>> That's another
>>>good one. Also have you visited http://www.jesusneverexisted.com there's a
>>>lot of great articles about the God-man.
>>
>> satanists may be fun as lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
>> (atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>>
>>
>>
>Oh i assumed you knew that jesus was a myth.
I do, why do you think I dont? what did I say that made you assume I
dont?
It's the solar god, the sun/son god, it's old and obviously if there
was a guy at that time in that place that had some prophetic life, it
surely wasnt the one that is told about in the bible and has been told
about dozens of times previously under other names (mithra, dionysios,
krishna, horus, etc etc)
>Look if there really is a world
>wide conspiracy isnt it possible religion is another thing controlled by the
>new world order?
religion is the first level of the conspiracy.
It starts with religion.
And religion is still at the top today.
For example you dont understand nazism until you know it's a religious
order, and only secundarily a political and governmental movement.
>Also Atheists have every right to their beliefs. After all God cant be
>scientificly proven so why believe in something with no evidence to support
>its existance? I have my reasons but thats just faith.
I've been an atheist so I'm talking from experience.
The problem is not about believing there is no god, it is about
militating so that others do not believe in god anymore.
It is about thinking that atheism is the only rational outlook at the
world. It is waging war (as war is trying to force people to think as
you want them to think).
I'm critic of atheism because I've been raised an atheist in an
atheist society. If I was under theocratic rule I might fight against
theocracy.
The current religious tyranny of the society I live in is Secular
Humanism, which is a code world for luciferianism.
The state wants me to swallow either stupīd atheism or stupid
religious beliefs that are just as controlling and limitating.
Truth and freedom as always are in the middle : between science and
religion, combining the two. This is forbidden knowledge, carefully
restrained to the fringe, unspoken of and so on.
You dont give power to the masses, and if the cat is out of the bag
(as it is in our age of free information) you make sure most people
wont be able to understand what it is about.
Look at the shills here, they are unable to think analogically.
Impaired. And the fact they they believe themselves to be superior and
rational prevents them from seeing their bias and their huge blind
spot. They'll probably die that way, unless some major upheaval in
their lives takes them to stop thinking like robotic assholes.
I've been raised that way and have seen the ill effects of it in my
teen years, so I have diverted my course in time. I'll take a nutjob
anytime over a robotic mind. At least they are creative.
seon ferguson
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
Oh I thought you were religious when you said satanists may be fun as
lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
(atheism is an aspect of satanism)
But now I understand where you're coming from.
I'm not an atheist. I just don't buy into all this religion stuff. I believe
we can find God without man made religion. I also believe he communicates
with us on a daily basis, we just don't know how to listen.
But if an Atheist in this group asks me to prove without a doubt God exists
I wouldn't be able to give him or her the proof they seek.
As for the solar God/son God thing I think either a. there was a 1st century
rabbi but the disciples (if they existed. It's possible they could be a
symbol for the 12 months of the solar year) borrowed from other myths of the
ancient world to make people think he was this savior figure or b. Jesus was
completely a mythical figure.
But if he was who started Christianity? There are a lot of theories out
there but I don't see any evidence to support any of them. At the same time
the lack of evidence to support a historical Jesus is the reason I don't
repent and buy into the religious nonsense.
GovShill
> I'm not an atheist. I just don't buy into all this religion stuff. I believe
> we can find God without man made religion. I also believe he communicates
> with us on a daily basis, we just don't know how to listen.
"There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he doesn't know whether he
believes in anything or not"
Monty Python
seon ferguson
"GovShill" <Gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182128757....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
MASH
quintal
<se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
they are really fun and I do like a satanist now and then especially
to counteract religious fanaticism.
Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
But I was referring to the birth of the "humanist" atheistic movement
and the people who support it.
>But now I understand where you're coming from.
>
>I'm not an atheist. I just don't buy into all this religion stuff. I believe
>we can find God without man made religion. I also believe he communicates
>with us on a daily basis, we just don't know how to listen.
agreed, it's as universal and natural as water is to a fish.
>But if an Atheist in this group asks me to prove without a doubt God exists
>I wouldn't be able to give him or her the proof they seek.
it's a two-pronged fork : on one side you got a satanistic religion
that paints a god like some moron sending everyone to hell and on the
other side you got shiny atheistic scientists who are so proud of
their reasonning skills and so oblivous to the impairment of their
intuitive and emotional intelligence.
And in the middle you cant but reject the two sides of this same
alienating coin.
But of course if an atheist asks you to prove the existence of god he
is refering to the definition of it that's given by these religions
that come from the same groups which manufacture his atheistic
philosophy. He just cannot imagine that god can be something else than
what's taught in religious school. That makes him a believer in his
unbelief, an anti-religious that has nothing to offer to replace
religion but denial of it. Precisely like satanists define themselves
by opposition to christianity.
It's like cogwheels. It's an old technique of manipulation. Take them
left or take them right, but prevent them from being in the center and
getting out of that prison.
>As for the solar God/son God thing I think either a. there was a 1st century
>rabbi but the disciples (if they existed. It's possible they could be a
>symbol for the 12 months of the solar year) borrowed from other myths of the
>ancient world to make people think he was this savior figure or b. Jesus was
>completely a mythical figure.
>
>But if he was who started Christianity? There are a lot of theories out
>there but I don't see any evidence to support any of them. At the same time
>the lack of evidence to support a historical Jesus is the reason I don't
>repent and buy into the religious nonsense.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:50:39 +1000, "seon ferguson"
> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>Oh I thought you were religious when you said satanists may be fun as
>>lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
>>(atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>
> they are really fun and I do like a satanist now and then especially
> to counteract religious fanaticism.
> Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
I'm not at all sure what the hell either of you mean by "satanism", given
that you seem to think that any religion or even no religion at all is
satanism. Maybe it just means "bad".
>>I'm not an atheist. I just don't buy into all this religion stuff. I
>>believe
>>we can find God without man made religion. I also believe he communicates
>>with us on a daily basis, we just don't know how to listen.
>
> agreed, it's as universal and natural as water is to a fish.
You guys are deists. Isn't it nice to have a label? Now, get back to work,
both of you.
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>news:ja4d73tgbd0tghstl...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:50:39 +1000, "seon ferguson"
>> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Oh I thought you were religious when you said satanists may be fun as
>>>lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
>>>(atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>>
>> they are really fun and I do like a satanist now and then especially
>> to counteract religious fanaticism.
>> Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
>
>I'm not at all sure what the hell either of you mean by "satanism", given
>that you seem to think that any religion or even no religion at all is
>satanism.
I don't.
Any institutional and hierarchical religion based on patriarchy, as we
know them religions. But there is another religion and civilization
out there, although its existence is doubted or ignored by most.
> Maybe it just means "bad".
It means the worship of satan under its many guises.
Satan being the prison warden of this solar system. The master of time
and death. Saturn.
Saturn being related to the black aspect of the Sun, by the way.
>>>I'm not an atheist. I just don't buy into all this religion stuff. I
>>>believe
>>>we can find God without man made religion. I also believe he communicates
>>>with us on a daily basis, we just don't know how to listen.
>>
>> agreed, it's as universal and natural as water is to a fish.
>
>You guys are deists. Isn't it nice to have a label? Now, get back to work,
>both of you.
deist or theist, but not according to the definition of god that you
can find in the usual satanist religions.
quintal
it happens to be that it is with a scientific outlook that some of the
best definitions of the divinity can be found in our culture, by the
way.
Some kind of universal consciousness that permeates everything and
arises from association : associating elemental particles create atoms
which manifest properties which are out of reach of these particles
when unassociated.
Atoms associate to form molecules, etc and so on
At each level of association a greater consciousness can appear and
manifest greater abilities than those of the simpler level of
association.
But what is consciousness? You gotta shift your focus out of
day-to-day matter to describe that one. And there again the
science-inclined give interesting definitions, "morphogenetic field"
and the like. They're the experimental metaphysicists of our society,
much more than the religion-involved.
--
http://www.divshare.com/download/849076-9ff (Files. Fichiers.)
seon ferguson
> to counteract religious fanaticism.
> Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
> But I was referring to the birth of the "humanist" atheistic movement
> and the people who support it.
>
be sure of is Satan is a myth and the church should thank him because he's
one of the reasons the church has survived to this day.
As for the rest I agree. People think just because religion has been
disproved you don't have to believe in what people call God. they also think
that evolution and science proves there is no God, something I strongly
disagree with.
True next time I'm going to ask the Atheist to give his definition of God
first and if he says the religious God I'll say I don't believe in him.
There's also agnosticism but there is even an alternative tot hat. I broke
out of the "you have to be a democrat or republican" mindset years ago just
like with the religious mindset.
seon ferguson
"Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k6OdnSFGhoVZC-vb...@comcast.com...
beliefs.
I suppose if you had to label me the Deist label would probably fit.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:30:55 -0700, "Tom"
> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>news:ja4d73tgbd0tghstl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:50:39 +1000, "seon ferguson"
>>> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh I thought you were religious when you said satanists may be fun as
>>>>lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
>>>>(atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>>>
>>> they are really fun and I do like a satanist now and then especially
>>> to counteract religious fanaticism.
>>> Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
>>
>>I'm not at all sure what the hell either of you mean by "satanism", given
>>that you seem to think that any religion or even no religion at all is
>>satanism.
>
> I don't.
You do. "Religions also are a form of satanism in my book."
> Any institutional and hierarchical religion based on patriarchy, as we
> know them religions.
But not matriarchy? So the worship of Krishna is satanic but the worship of
Kali is not? And just how big an "institution" does a group have to be in
order to become satanic? And any religion that has a priesthood or allows a
recognition of the superior spiritual insight greater in some beings than in
other beings could be labelled "hierarchical", and thus would be satanic.
What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
> But there is another religion and civilization
> out there, although its existence is doubted or ignored by most.
Oh, there are bound to be people who believe damn near any fucking thing, no
matter how stupid or crazy it sounds. Most people don't doubt that at all.
> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
> The master of time and death. Saturn.
No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of a
loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>>You guys are deists. Isn't it nice to have a label? Now, get back to
>>work,
>>both of you.
>
> deist or theist, but not according to the definition of god that you
> can find in the usual satanist religions.
Ge, what a shock it is to discover that usually people don't agree with your
private conceptualization of god.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>
> it happens to be that it is with a scientific outlook that some of the
> best definitions of the divinity can be found in our culture, by the
> way.
Care to cite a couple examples and explain why they are "best" and have a
"scientific outlook"?
> Some kind of universal consciousness that permeates everything and
> arises from association : associating elemental particles create atoms
> which manifest properties which are out of reach of these particles
> when unassociated.
> Atoms associate to form molecules, etc and so on
> At each level of association a greater consciousness can appear and
> manifest greater abilities than those of the simpler level of
> association.
Care to demonstrate experimentally that a molecule has "greater
consciousness" than an atom?
> But what is consciousness? You gotta shift your focus out of
> day-to-day matter to describe that one.
If you have to shift your focus away from matter, there go all those
conscious molecules you were just talking about. Molecules are, without
exception, composed of matter (of the day-to-day sort).
> And there again the
> science-inclined give interesting definitions, "morphogenetic field"
> and the like.
You're confusing science with pseudoscience. There is no replicable
experimental evidence for the existence of any "morphogenetic field."
> They're the experimental metaphysicists of our society,
> much more than the religion-involved.
"Experimental metaphysicist" is an oxymoron.
Bassos
>
> "quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message What's so satanic
> about daddies anyway?
they sting with responsibility.
>> But there is another religion and civilization
>> out there, although its existence is doubted or ignored by most.
>
> Oh, there are bound to be people who believe damn near any fucking thing,
> no matter how stupid or crazy it sounds. Most people don't doubt that at
> all.
>
>> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
>
> Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>
>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>
> No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of a
> loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
Well, saturn is the big malefic in astrology.
Giving a hard time when affairs are left out of order, but rewards if they
are.
Slackers prolly feel that having to get y'r stuff in order is quite
oppressive.
(or if ya prefer, 'adversarial')
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Experimental metaphysicist" is an oxymoron.
yet it's the definition of an occultist.
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>news:f3nd73l687o6u97d7...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:30:55 -0700, "Tom"
>> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>>news:ja4d73tgbd0tghstl...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:50:39 +1000, "seon ferguson"
>>>> <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh I thought you were religious when you said satanists may be fun as
>>>>>lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
>>>>>(atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>>>>
>>>> they are really fun and I do like a satanist now and then especially
>>>> to counteract religious fanaticism.
>>>> Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
>>>
>>>I'm not at all sure what the hell either of you mean by "satanism", given
>>>that you seem to think that any religion or even no religion at all is
>>>satanism.
>>
>> I don't.
>
>You do. "Religions also are a form of satanism in my book."
I don't. In that sentence I meant the usual religions, the ones we
hear and know about, the institutional ones, the usually-accepted
meaning of the word.
>> Any institutional and hierarchical religion based on patriarchy, as we
>> know them religions.
>
>But not matriarchy? So the worship of Krishna is satanic but the worship of
>Kali is not? And just how big an "institution" does a group have to be in
>order to become satanic? And any religion that has a priesthood or allows a
>recognition of the superior spiritual insight greater in some beings than in
>other beings could be labelled "hierarchical", and thus would be satanic.
>
>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
>
>> But there is another religion and civilization
>> out there, although its existence is doubted or ignored by most.
>
>Oh, there are bound to be people who believe damn near any fucking thing, no
>matter how stupid or crazy it sounds. Most people don't doubt that at all.
>
>> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
>
>Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>
>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>
>No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of a
>loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>
>>>You guys are deists. Isn't it nice to have a label? Now, get back to
>>>work,
>>>both of you.
>>
>> deist or theist, but not according to the definition of god that you
>> can find in the usual satanist religions.
>
>Ge, what a shock it is to discover that usually people don't agree with your
>private conceptualization of god.
oh, this is Tom again.
Sorry I thought it was the guy I was talking with.
Keep trolling Tom, I know you.
--
http://www.divshare.com/download/849076-9ff (Files. Fichiers.)
Tom
"seon ferguson" <se...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:46771af5$0$22413$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> work, both of you.
>>
>>
> Sorry I don't believe in labels.
You must accept labels into your heart as your personal savior. Otherwise,
you go to hell forever. You don't want that, now, do you? I should hope
not.
> I'm just someone who has a set of personal beliefs.
"I'm just a human who breathes."
> I suppose if you had to label me the Deist label would probably fit.
Yes, it's a fine fit. Try walking around in it for a while; see if it
pinches anywhere.
Tom
"Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:4677590c$0$331$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:y6KdnfCoLpEItOrb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message What's so satanic
>> about daddies anyway?
>
> they sting with responsibility.
Ooo. That's a good one.
>>> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
>>
>> Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>>
>>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>>
>> No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of a
>> loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>
> Well, saturn is the big malefic in astrology.
Depends on whose astrology you're talking about.
> Slackers prolly feel that having to get y'r stuff in order is quite
> oppressive.
> (or if ya prefer, 'adversarial')
Ho, ho! Another goodie.
Yer onna roll.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
Yes, the usually-accepted meaning of the word. You do.
>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
>>
I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those "patriarchal"
religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic about daddies?
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:08:16 -0700, "Tom"
> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Experimental metaphysicist" is an oxymoron.
>
> yet it's the definition of an occultist.
Another of those private definitions. Are you just making them up as you go
along? Or can you actually establish any anybody but you personally has
defined the word "occultist" to mean "experimental metaphysicist"?
seon ferguson
Bassos
>>>
>>> Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>>>
>>>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>>>
>>> No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of a
>>> loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>>
>> Well, saturn is the big malefic in astrology.
>
> Depends on whose astrology you're talking about.
from ptolemy onwards
the jyotish crowd agrees too.
you are quite right not everyone thinks of saturn as malefic.
quintal
wrote:
the sphere of saturn is the sphere of karma.
check franz bardon's "the practice of magical evocation".
--
http://www.divshare.com/download/849076-9ff (Files. Fichiers.)
quintal
the point has been addressed already by the same contributors.
http://groups.google.fr/group/francom.esoterisme/browse_frm/thread/a1ffcd3a3ef1540/8c9d9f62a83950e7?tvc=1#8c9d9f62a83950e7
or
http://w3t.org/u/3p49
nearly a year ago.
yawn.
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
troll.
>>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
>>>
>
>I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those "patriarchal"
>religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic about daddies?
troll.
loll
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iKKdnUuaHpW4peXb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4677590c$0$331$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>>> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>>>>
>>>>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>>>>
>>>> No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of
>>>> a loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>>>
>>> Well, saturn is the big malefic in astrology.
>>
>> Depends on whose astrology you're talking about.
>
> from ptolemy onwards
Ah, the late-comers. Already steeped in Roman mythology and all too willing
to impose it on the pre-existing structure of astrology. Forget the
Sumerians, forget the Chinese. All astrological attriubution begins with
the Roman pantheon.
> the jyotish crowd agrees too.
Another system hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman mythology.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:28:46 +0200, "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>you are quite right not everyone thinks of saturn as malefic.
>
> the sphere of saturn is the sphere of karma.
There is one, simple, observable fact about the planet Saturn that
determines every astrological intepretation of it. Its apparent movement is
slower than any other planet that can be seen with the unaided eye. So
every interpretation of the astrological influence of Saturn is based upon
slowness.
And that's it. That's the one thing all astrological systems have in common
regarding the planet Saturn.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:18:37 -0700, "Tom"
> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>news:e55g735ogjnceg0k5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:08:16 -0700, "Tom"
>>> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Experimental metaphysicist" is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>> yet it's the definition of an occultist.
>>
>>Another of those private definitions. Are you just making them up as you
>>go
>>along? Or can you actually establish any anybody but you personally has
>>defined the word "occultist" to mean "experimental metaphysicist"?
>>
>
> the point has been addressed already by the same contributors.
And demonstrates that nobody but you, and you alone, has defined occultism
as "experimental metaphysics".
"Experiments" done by occultists are, without exception, shoddily and
amateurishly done. The plain fact is that real experiments don't give
occultists the results they want, so they never do any real experimenting at
all.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
Delusional moron.
>>>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
>>>>
>>
>>I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those "patriarchal"
>>religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic about daddies?
>
> troll.
Still no answer. I now strongly suspect that issues with your own daddy are
the main driving force behind your crackpot personal version of occultism.
And *that's* why you think daddy-gods and any institution which acknowledges
authority over individuals is "satanic". It's just your prolonged
adolescent rebellion.
You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
forever. You dipshit.
mika
> "quintal" wrote
> > "Tom" wrote:
> >>>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
> >>I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those "patriarchal"
> >>religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic about daddies?
>
> > troll.
>
> Still no answer. I now strongly suspect that issues with your own daddy are
> the main driving force behind your crackpot personal version of occultism.
> And *that's* why you think daddy-gods and any institution which acknowledges
> authority over individuals is "satanic". It's just your prolonged
> adolescent rebellion.
>
> You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
> forever. You dipshit.
Naturally. Daddy = authority = adversary = Satan. If that weren't
the case, it would imply obedience rather than rebellion, and what
kewl magick-y witchypoo boy obeys authority?
Matriarchal religions are ok though, because Mommy = nurturer =
abundance = Gaia, and what kewl magick-y witchypoo boy doesn't want
some big tittied virgin/whore mother/lover to run to when faced with
the scary shadows that go boo in the night?
Rufus Opus
>
> You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
> forever. You dipshit.
Neh, these days daddy's don't spank, they just leave. Daddy's satan
because Daddy wasn't there when he needed him.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:4678e55d$0$69886$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:iKKdnUuaHpW4peXb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:4677590c$0$331$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>>>> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside of
>>>>> a loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>>>>
>>>> Well, saturn is the big malefic in astrology.
>>>
>>> Depends on whose astrology you're talking about.
>>
>> from ptolemy onwards
>
> Ah, the late-comers.
You, sir, have completely and utterly bested my response.
> Already steeped in Roman mythology and all too willing to impose it on the
> pre-existing structure of astrology. Forget the Sumerians, forget the
> Chinese. All astrological attriubution begins with the Roman pantheon.
The chinese attribute saturn with earth.
I agree.
So does western/tropical astrology, by making saturn ruler of capricorn.
A comment about the cultural influence on astrology does not invalidate it.
>> the jyotish crowd agrees too.
>
> Another system hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman mythology.
Here you claim that the vedas are 'hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman
mythology' ?
Methinks not.
The vedas predate greek and roman mythology.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:dv6dnVfOg-Jz1eTb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4678e55d$0$69886$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:iKKdnUuaHpW4peXb...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>>> news:4677590c$0$331$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Satan being the prison warden of this solar system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I get it. This is Urantia Book stuff. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The master of time and death. Saturn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Saturn was never Satan. There is no correlation at all outside
>>>>>> of a loose and coincidental phonetic similarity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, saturn is the big malefic in astrology.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on whose astrology you're talking about.
>>>
>>> from ptolemy onwards
>>
>> Ah, the late-comers.
>
> You, sir, have completely and utterly bested my response.
>
>> Already steeped in Roman mythology and all too willing to impose it on
>> the pre-existing structure of astrology. Forget the Sumerians, forget
>> the Chinese. All astrological attriubution begins with the Roman
>> pantheon.
>
> The chinese attribute saturn with earth.
> I agree.
No, you don't. In the sort of Western astrology you use, Saturn is not
attributed to earth. In Roman myth, Saturn is not attributed to earth.
> So does western/tropical astrology, by making saturn ruler of capricorn.
That's not the same thing at all. You really have to stretch to force-fit
that attribution.
> A comment about the cultural influence on astrology does not invalidate
> it.
Astrology is nothing but cultural influence. Imposing meaning on the
apparent position of stars is entirely, completely, utterly, and thoroughly
a matter of culture.
>> Another system hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman mythology.
>
> Here you claim that the vedas are 'hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman
> mythology' ?
No, read what I wrote, not what you'd like to argue with. The Vedas are not
a "system", especially they are not a system of divination.
> The vedas predate greek and roman mythology.
But the modern attributions of jyotish astrology do not.
Bassos
Yes i do.
> In the sort of Western astrology you use, Saturn is not attributed to
> earth.
Yes it is.
> In Roman myth, Saturn is not attributed to earth.
I am not roman.
Kronos devouring a rock.
Even in roman myth saturn is atributed to earth.
Earth is also the slow and stable, like saturn.
>> So does western/tropical astrology, by making saturn ruler of capricorn.
>
> That's not the same thing at all.
I am not claiming it is equal.
It is the same though.
>You really have to stretch to force-fit that attribution.
Nonsense.
Nothing force fit about noting capricorn is an earthsign and is ruled by
saturn, the earthiest of all the earthsign rulers.
Much earthier than venus or mercury.
>> A comment about the cultural influence on astrology does not invalidate
>> it.
>
> Astrology is nothing but cultural influence.
Or so you like to think.
> Imposing meaning on the apparent position of stars is entirely,
> completely, utterly, and thoroughly a matter of culture.
Nope, it is a matter of experience, stuff like it being better to sow plants
in spring instead of fall.
Btw, it is hardly about them stars.
>>> Another system hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman mythology.
>>
>> Here you claim that the vedas are 'hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman
>> mythology' ?
>
> No, read what I wrote, not what you'd like to argue with.
I did.
> The Vedas are not a "system", especially they are not a system of
> divination.
They are what Jyotish is based upon.
(despite your claim to the contrary)
>> The vedas predate greek and roman mythology.
>
> But the modern attributions of jyotish astrology do not.
Yes they do.
How could you even claim it is not ?
seon ferguson
"Rufus Opus" <FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182364154.7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 11:58 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
>> forever. You dipshit.
>
themselves. They should forgive themselves for feeling that way and being
the victim. Just my attempt at psychology. Maybe I should leave that to the
pro's like Tom ;)
seon ferguson
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
should know I've talked to him before.
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>news:siai73d85ug1ncfu3...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:18:37 -0700, "Tom"
>> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>>news:e55g735ogjnceg0k5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:08:16 -0700, "Tom"
>>>> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Experimental metaphysicist" is an oxymoron.
>>>>
>>>> yet it's the definition of an occultist.
>>>
>>>Another of those private definitions. Are you just making them up as you
>>>go
>>>along? Or can you actually establish any anybody but you personally has
>>>defined the word "occultist" to mean "experimental metaphysicist"?
>>>
>>
>> the point has been addressed already by the same contributors.
>
>And demonstrates that nobody but you, and you alone, has defined occultism
>as "experimental metaphysics".
still trolling, Tom?
>"Experiments" done by occultists are, without exception, shoddily and
>amateurishly done. The plain fact is that real experiments don't give
>occultists the results they want, so they never do any real experimenting at
>all.
Oh you had an opinion to state. Great. We're all happy that you've
taken this out of your chest lol
But of course your opinion is a proven fact, whereas mine is a made up
delusion. What a restricted world you live in in your mind, Tom. You
cant even stand that others are expressing opinions that disagree with
yours. You have to troll and troll and each time repeat your old
thoughts and programmations like a robot. You've been doing it for how
many years on alt.magick? Have you learned anything? Changed in any
way? What do you think you're doing, when you repeat your old thoughts
over and over, and resist others who do different things than you,
when you refuse to hear them or listen or understand but you try to
prevent them from saying these things you disagree with?
And all in the name of reason, of course.
Can't you see your ego playing with you, your mind dominating you?
Can't you let go? Accept? Yeah the world is full of many things, that
your thoughts dont account for, that your mind doesnt want to hear
about, that irritate your sense of self and so on. Accepting is being
open to change and learning.
Other people do not see the world as you do. They're not dumlb or
deluded. But you are if you believe that they must be, just because
they dont fit with your preconceived categories.
Not to make a cheap shot, but I wonder how you do with women. We men
can all experience with women how they have another way of looking at
reality, another way of thinking. Some conclude that women are dumb.
They're deluded. I hope you can understand that looking at things
differently is not a lesser way of looking at things, but on the
contrary, some point of view that can enrich yours and increase it.
You've stated above that expriments done byoccultists are, withotu
exception, shoddily and amateurishly done.
You're forgetting some obvious rational point here. You cannot prove
the inexistence of anything, with analytical reasonning. Heh... You
can't tell Tom, and you can't know either when you believe it doesnt
exist to start with.
And you know well that I'm not the only one to define "occultism" as
experimental metaphysics. You're just trolling, lying and
misrepresenting in order to try to inflame the one you're talking to.
Kindergaten level of discussion. No evolution in sight, Tom !
lol
your mind uses you !
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
troll... nice to see you revealing your colors by insults and trollish
misrepresentations.
It's your world Tom, your painting, your own look at yourself.
>>>>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
>>>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those "patriarchal"
>>>religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic about daddies?
>>
>> troll.
>
>Still no answer. I now strongly suspect that issues with your own daddy are
>the main driving force behind your crackpot personal version of occultism.
>And *that's* why you think daddy-gods and any institution which acknowledges
>authority over individuals is "satanic". It's just your prolonged
>adolescent rebellion.
you're just trolling. I'm not responding because I didnt say what
you're claiming I have said. You're misreading and misrepresenting,
then calling me a moron on the basis of what you claim I have said.
You're talking to your own shadow, Tom. It's been going on for years.
>You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
>forever. You dipshit.
Have a mirror. You really need it.
quintal
how interesting that two people (you and "mika") are expressing
agreement with Tom's delusional misrepresentations of my statements,
as well as adding to his insults which he justifies by his projective
misrepresentations.
Are you people that delusional? Or do you just like to cheer at
unfairness and gratuitous violence?
As you seem or pretend to be oblivious to Tom's misrepresentations
I'll assume that they are not so obvious as I thought and I'll go back
and quote what has been written, and show how and where he is
misrepresenting and trolling.
And whoever wants to read and understand, will do.
there we go:
Q is for quintal, T for Tom
reconstructed thead:
----------------------
Q
>>>>>>>> Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
T
>>>>>>>I'm not at all sure what the hell either of you mean by "satanism",
>>>>>>>given that you seem to think that any religion or even no religion
>>>>>>>at all is satanism.
Q
>>>>>>I don't.
T
>>>>>You do. "Religions also are a form of satanism in my book."
Q
>>>I don't. In that sentence I meant the usual religions, the ones we
>>>hear and know about, the institutional ones, the usually-accepted
>>>meaning of the word.
T
>>Yes, the usually-accepted meaning of the word. You do.
Q
>troll.
T
Delusional moron.
Q
>>>>>Any institutional and hierarchical religion based on patriarchy, as we
>>>>>know them religions.
T
>>>>But not matriarchy? So the worship of Krishna is satanic but the
>>>>worship of Kali is not? And just how big an "institution" does a
>>>>group have to be in order to become satanic? And any religion
>>>>that has a priesthood or allows a recognition of the superior
>>>>spiritual insight greater in some beings than in other beings could
>>>>be labelled "hierarchical", and thus would be satanic.
>>>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
T
>>I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those
>>"patriarchal" religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic
>>about daddies?
Q
>troll.
T
Still no answer. I now strongly suspect that issues with your own
daddy are the main driving force behind your crackpot personal version
of occultism.
And *that's* why you think daddy-gods and any institution which
acknowledges authority over individuals is "satanic". It's just your
prolonged adolescent rebellion.
You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
forever. You dipshit.
Q
>>>>>But there is another religion and civilization
>>>>>out there, although its existence is doubted or ignored by most.
T
>>>>>>Maybe it just means "bad".
Q
>>>>>It means the worship of satan under its many guises.
>>>>>Satan being the prison warden of this solar system. The master of time
>>>>>and death. Saturn.
>>>>>Saturn being related to the black aspect of the Sun, by the way.
---------------------------------------------
end of quotes
There we come to the end of Tom's argueing, which was his objective
from the onset : insulting some random guy on usenet.
(thereby trying to unload on someone his own (Tom's) charge of
humiliation and feeling better for it, if I may allow myself this wild
interpretation;-))
But read with attention.
First I didnt say that ANY religion is satanist, but Tom claimed I
did.
This one is simple : He claims I said something. I didnt say it.
Characterized misrepresentation.
Then I said that religions based on patriarchy are satanist, and Tom
assumed and claimed that I said that religions based on matriarchy are
not satanist. From this he concludes that I think daddies are
satanist. (And you people swallow that one line, hook and sinker
right?)
But I didn't say any of that, nor even thought it.
If some have a hard time understanding, let me explain more in
details:
proposition A:
patriarchal religions are satanist
proposition B
matriarchal religions are not satanist
The point is: B cannot be deduced from A.
I might believe that A is true and B is false. Who knows? Who cares?
Who asks? Who listens? Who gives a shit? What's your point? What's
your agenda?
He assumes then claims that I think such things. Then he believes he's
got ground to insult me, imagining that I would have trouble with
father and would be a "delusional moron" because my whole religious
view would be based on such and yada yada etc.
He's cheaply, like a kindergarten bully that he is revealing himself
to be once again (how many thousands of times in the past years has he
shown this mindset and modus operandi?), trying to humiliate me
for things which he claims I have said, yet I have not said them nor
even thought them.
...But the most significative thing to me in all this thread is that
two people are joining the bandwagon of the retarded schoolyard
bullying and are adding to his insults and misrepresentations.
Good job "mika" and "Rufus Opus" lol
Tom is trolling and bullying, and you're cheering! And you're
approving his delusional statements as if they were true and rational!
You're adding a choir-confirmation effect to the bullying of the lone
warrior!
P.S.
It takes much time to reconstruct a thread as I just did above. The
usenet medium lends itself well to trolling : by editing out the
sentences that prove his misrepresentations, the troll can hide his
dishonesty and fool the unwary and unaware readers.
(But some are willing to be fooled too lol)
P.P.S.
So, he was trolling, I ended up replying (which is a mistake), but
hopefully things will be clearer that way... if some people need more
clarity than just READING WHAT IS FUCKING WRITTEN AND NOT BELIEVING
WHAT OTHERS CLAIM HAS BEEN WRITTEN lol
And Tom... you'll probably keep trolling, but you'll understand that
your further cheap shots won't deserve any answer, however many people
might approve them...
In fact some people are really better in a killfile : trolls.
quintal
i'll let that one slip.
quintal
<se...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
He doesnt only troll, that's true. But he trolls a hell much. He's
acting like a mad Cerberus, trying to intimidate and humiliate anyone
he can get his claws on by unfair means.
But he's always using the same tricks, so with time anyone can see
through his lies.
Rufus Opus
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:29:14 -0000, Rufus Opus
>
> >On Jun 20, 11:58 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> You were a bad boy and daddy spanked you and now you're mad at daddy
> >> forever. You dipshit.
>
> >Neh, these days daddy's don't spank, they just leave. Daddy's satan
> >because Daddy wasn't there when he needed him.
>
> how interesting that two people (you and "mika") are expressing
> agreement with Tom's delusional misrepresentations of my statements,
> as well as adding to his insults which he justifies by his projective
> misrepresentations.
I wasn't agreeing with his representation of you, I was pointing out
that his representation of how "Daddy's" are is culturally obsolete.
It was a comment on his comment, not about you.
Besides, don't worry about it. I like your posts. I enjoyed the
Insider interview a great deal.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> He doesnt only troll, that's true. But he trolls a hell much. He's
> acting like a mad Cerberus, trying to intimidate and humiliate anyone
> he can get his claws on by unfair means.
> But he's always using the same tricks, so with time anyone can see
> through his lies.
Honestly, I think you take him too seriously. He's a voice on a
message board, nothing more or less. If you think it's really you he's
attacking, then you haven't understood that these places cannot
express the totality of who we are, they can only offer glimpses of
our thoughts on a specific subject within a particular slice of time,
in the context of one conversation. If Tom disagrees with you or mocks
you, so what? It's just Tom. Some day he'll get bored with this, and
move on. In the mean time, fuggedaboudit.
-R.O.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>
> how interesting that two people (you and "mika") are expressing
> agreement with Tom's delusional misrepresentations of my statements,
When you decide to ignore a queston that is central to your statement, you
can anticipate that people will begin to suspect your motives. If you think
you have been misrepresented, your best bet is to represent yourself
clearly. You can do this by answering the question honestly.
You have stated that patriarchal and hierarchical religions are satanic.
Patriarchies are organizations ruled by Daddy. So why do you believe
daddies are satanic? And why are you so desperate to avoid that question?
You just stated that all religions, in the usual sense of the term are
satanic and then denied doing so. I am not misrepresenting you; you are
misrepresenting yourself.
And still no answer to the question. Like I said, you can expect people to
be suspicious of your motives when you duck a reasonable question that is
central to your position.
> Q
>>>>>>But there is another religion and civilization
>>>>>>out there, although its existence is doubted or ignored by most.
>
> T
>>>>>>>Maybe it just means "bad".
You are misrepresenting me again. The response you attributed to me was not
a response to the statement you made above.
> There we come to the end of Tom's argueing, which was his objective
> from the onset : insulting some random guy on usenet.
And you keep on misrepresenting me. You just don't want to havce to explain
all your self-contradictions and factual errors. When you are confronted
with them, you start bleating "Troll! Troll!" in order to avoid answering.
> First I didnt say that ANY religion is satanist, but Tom claimed I
> did.
You said, quite clearly, that religion "in the usual sense of the term" is
satanic. Then you said you didn't.
> This one is simple : He claims I said something. I didnt say it.
> Characterized misrepresentation.
Q: Religions also are a form of satanism in my book.
T: I'm not at all sure what the hell either of you mean by "satanism",
given that you seem to think that any religion or even no religion at all is
satanism.
Q: I don't. In that sentence I meant the usual religions, the ones we hear
and know about, the institutional ones, the usually-accepted meaning of the
word.
T: Yes, the usually-accepted meaning of the word. You do.
Q: troll.
You are not misrepresented here. Instead, you are imsrepresenting me as a
"troll" rather than having to explain this blatant self-contradiction.
> Then I said that religions based on patriarchy are satanist, and Tom
> assumed and claimed that I said that religions based on matriarchy are
> not satanist.
I asked you about that. I did not claim it. Don't you understand the
meaning of a question mark?
Q: Any institutional and hierarchical religion based on patriarchy, as we
know them religions.
T: But not matriarchy? So the worship of Krishna is satanic but the worship
of Kali is not?
So there we have it again. You misrepresent a question as a statement and
thereby misrepresent me as making false claims about you. And you didn't
answer the question.
> From this he concludes that I think daddies are
> satanist. (And you people swallow that one line, hook and sinker
> right?)
It's a reasonable inference from your statement that patriarchal religions
are satanic. If it's untrue, please explain how it is only *patriarchal*
religions that are satanic and why they are satanic.
> If some have a hard time understanding, let me explain more in
> details:
>
> proposition A:
> patriarchal religions are satanist
>
> proposition B
> matriarchal religions are not satanist
>
> The point is: B cannot be deduced from A.
>
> I might believe that A is true and B is false.
But do you? You still haven't answered the question.
> Who knows? Who cares?
> Who asks? Who listens? Who gives a shit?
I do.
> What's your point? What's
> your agenda?
To get you to explain yourself clearly for once. What's yours?
> He assumes then claims that I think such things.
I deduce from your refusal to answer questions that you have a strong reason
to avoid those answers. I speculate on what those reasons might be.
> Then he believes he's
> got ground to insult me,
I asked you some questions you didn't feel comfortable answering, so you
called me a "troll".
> He's cheaply, like a kindergarten bully
And the name-calling continues.
> It takes much time to reconstruct a thread as I just did above.
Oh, five or ten miinutes would do it. Of course, if you have difficulty
concentrating for more than a couple of minutes at a time, it probably seems
like a long time.
> And Tom... you'll probably keep trolling, but you'll understand that
> your further cheap shots won't deserve any answer, however many people
> might approve them...
Nobody is surprised that you are still unwilling to explain your blatant
contradictions and factual errors.
quintal
excuse me? what's this?
you wrote:
"Daddy's satan because Daddy wasn't there when he needed him."
who's "he" in that sentence?
quintal
<dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>news:b5rk735h7je6dh1ln...@4ax.com...
>>
>> how interesting that two people (you and "mika") are expressing
>> agreement with Tom's delusional misrepresentations of my statements,
>
>When you decide to ignore a queston that is central to your statement, you
>can anticipate that people will begin to suspect your motives.
LOL the motive is simple, you are trolling. This question is not
central to my statements, only to yours.
By replying to that question I would fall for your trap.
>If you think
>you have been misrepresented, your best bet is to represent yourself
>clearly.
LOL it's not about me, it's about what I say. You represent what I
say, you lie, you say i said things which i didnt say. It is not by
replying by off topic questions that i would correct your
misrepresentations of what I said.
>You can do this by answering the question honestly.
Try again lol. This yet another cheap sophistic attempt has failed.
>You have stated that patriarchal and hierarchical religions are satanic.
>Patriarchies are organizations ruled by Daddy.
What do you mean by Daddy? The childhood fantasy? The statement above
is not obvious at all, it is a psychological manifesto.
>So why do you believe
>daddies are satanic?
I do not.
1/ Patriarchy does not equal "Daddy's rule".
2/ More importantly, "Patriarchal religions are satanist" doesnt imply
that "Daddies are satanic".
Enough with your trolling, Tom. Bye.
--
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:w_qdnZYVUcn3c-Tb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:4679ca07$0$333$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>
>> No, you don't.
>
> Yes i do.
>
>> In the sort of Western astrology you use, Saturn is not attributed to
>> earth.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> In Roman myth, Saturn is not attributed to earth.
>
> I am not roman.
Saturn is a Roman God.
> Kronos devouring a rock.
Kronos is a Greek god.
> Even in roman myth saturn is atributed to earth.
He's a devourer, not a rock. And the Chinese have no myth at all in which
the element of earth embodied by the planet we call Saturn devours its
children.
> Earth is also the slow and stable, like saturn.
LIke I told you, slowness is the one common feature of all myths having to
do with the planet we now call Saturn.
>>> So does western/tropical astrology, by making saturn ruler of capricorn.
>>
>> That's not the same thing at all.
>
> I am not claiming it is equal.
> It is the same though.
No, it is vaguely similar in certain respects. That's not "the same".
>>You really have to stretch to force-fit that attribution.
>
> Nonsense.
Claiming a vague similarity makes two very different concepts "the same" is
a big stretch.
>>> A comment about the cultural influence on astrology does not invalidate
>>> it.
>>
>> Astrology is nothing but cultural influence.
>
> Or so you like to think.
So all the competent research indicates.
>> Imposing meaning on the apparent position of stars is entirely,
>> completely, utterly, and thoroughly a matter of culture.
>
> Nope, it is a matter of experience,
The experience of learning one's culture. You do not experience stars
except as tiny lights in the sky lost among thousands of other tiny lights
in the sky. Our culture invents stories. Those stories are about
ourselves, but are projected upon those tiny, twinkling lights and the
patterns we imagine them making.
>>>> Another system hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman mythology.
>>>
>>> Here you claim that the vedas are 'hopelessly infected by Greek and
>>> Roman mythology' ?
>>
>> No, read what I wrote, not what you'd like to argue with.
>
> I did.
But chose to argue about something else instead.
>> The Vedas are not a "system", especially they are not a system of
>> divination.
>
> They are what Jyotish is based upon.
> (despite your claim to the contrary)
There you go again, arguing what you'd like to argue rather than arguing
with what I actually said. Quote this alleged" claim" that Jyotish
astrology was not based on the Vedas. What I actually said was that the
Vedas are not a system of divination and Jyotish astrology is. But that's
not what you want to argue about, so you pretend I said something else.
>>> The vedas predate greek and roman mythology.
>>
>> But the modern attributions of jyotish astrology do not.
>
> Yes they do.
>
> How could you even claim it is not ?
I say "They do." You claim I said "It is." When you finally decide to
stop replacing what I write with what you would like to imagine I wrote, we
can have a conversation. Until then, you're just babbling to yourself.
>
>
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:53:27 -0700, "Tom"
> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>news:siai73d85ug1ncfu3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:18:37 -0700, "Tom"
>>> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>>>news:e55g735ogjnceg0k5...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:08:16 -0700, "Tom"
>>>>> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Experimental metaphysicist" is an oxymoron.
>>>>>
>>>>> yet it's the definition of an occultist.
>>>>
>>>>Another of those private definitions. Are you just making them up as
>>>>you
>>>>go
>>>>along? Or can you actually establish any anybody but you personally has
>>>>defined the word "occultist" to mean "experimental metaphysicist"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> the point has been addressed already by the same contributors.
>>
>>And demonstrates that nobody but you, and you alone, has defined occultism
>>as "experimental metaphysics".
>
> still trolling, Tom?
Just stating a fact that you don't find comfortable. Your discomfort does
not mean I'm trolling.
>>"Experiments" done by occultists are, without exception, shoddily and
>>amateurishly done. The plain fact is that real experiments don't give
>>occultists the results they want, so they never do any real experimenting
>>at
>>all.
>
> Oh you had an opinion to state. Great. We're all happy that you've
> taken this out of your chest lol
> But of course your opinion is a proven fact, whereas mine is a made up
> delusion.
The evidence for this is your inability to cite any single experiment by any
occultist that would contradict my statement.
> What a restricted world you live in in your mind, Tom.
I prefer not to decide that whatever pleasing fantasy I have must be
reality. If you find that "restricted", that's up to you.
> You cant even stand that others are expressing opinions that disagree with
> yours.
Once again, it is you who is complaining about that disagreement. I've been
asking you questions designed to point out flaws in your rationalizations
and you don't like that at all. You refuse to answer such questions and
start calling me names instead.
> You have to troll and troll and each time repeat your old
> thoughts and programmations like a robot.
Have you ever looked back at the continual stream of self-congratulatory
crap you have regularly and repeatedly spewed into this newsgroup over the
years? You say the same things over and over, just like a robot. You
usually don't respond to any thoughtful inquiry into your claims and when
you do, it rapidly devolves into the very same kind of name-calling and
evasions that you're using now.
> You've been doing it for how
> many years on alt.magick? Have you learned anything? Changed in any
> way?
Sure. Many posters have commented upon my various changes over the years.
How about you? Care to document how different your messages today are than
they were five years ago? They are precisely the same as they have always
been. You regularly post long quotes from obscure occultists saying some of
the zaniest stuff imaginable which you then won't bother to defend or even
admit you believe. You do this over and over. If anybody has learned
nothing over the years, it's you.
> What do you think you're doing, when you repeat your old thoughts
> over and over, and resist others who do different things than you,
> when you refuse to hear them or listen or understand but you try to
> prevent them from saying these things you disagree with?
I understand them very well. You seem to have the very common delusion that
anybody who disagrees with you must not understand you. The "old thought" I
"repeat over and over" is the request for evidence and logical consistency
in statements made about subjects relevant to magick. I request that over
and over because, over and over, dimbulbs like you don't bother with
evidence or logic when trying to figure out what's going on in the world
around you.
> Can't you see your ego playing with you, your mind dominating you?
> Can't you let go? Accept?
Here you are pleading that you should be believed without question. You
hvae not provided a single good reason why anybody should believe you at
all.
> Not to make a cheap shot, but I wonder how you do with women.
Better than you do with your daddy.
> You've stated above that expriments done byoccultists are, withotu
> exception, shoddily and amateurishly done.
Just like your writing.
> You're forgetting some obvious rational point here. You cannot prove
> the inexistence of anything, with analytical reasonning.
I'm not *proving* it, I'm *observing* it. If you wish to disprove it, cite
an experiment by an occultist which is not demonstrably shoddily designed
and amateurishly executed.
> And you know well that I'm not the only one to define "occultism" as
> experimental metaphysics.
Cite one.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:58:09 -0700, "Tom"
>>>
>>
>>Delusional moron.
>
> troll... nice to see you revealing your colors by insults and trollish
> misrepresentations.
If you start a name-calling exchange with me, you blithering idiot, I'm
going to oblige you, you pustulent boil.
>>>>>>What's so satanic about daddies anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't hear you. What was your answer? It's only those "patriarchal"
>>>>religions that are satanic, right? So what's so satanic about daddies?
>>>
>>> troll.
>>
>>Still no answer. I now strongly suspect that issues with your own daddy
>>are
>>the main driving force behind your crackpot personal version of occultism.
>>And *that's* why you think daddy-gods and any institution which
>>acknowledges
>>authority over individuals is "satanic". It's just your prolonged
>>adolescent rebellion.
>
> you're just trolling. I'm not responding because I didnt say what
> you're claiming I have said.
What an amazing capacity you have. You are not only full of shit, you are
also full of excuses.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:05:32 -0700, "Tom"
> <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>>news:b5rk735h7je6dh1ln...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> how interesting that two people (you and "mika") are expressing
>>> agreement with Tom's delusional misrepresentations of my statements,
>>
>>When you decide to ignore a queston that is central to your statement, you
>>can anticipate that people will begin to suspect your motives.
>
> LOL the motive is simple, you are trolling.
Heh. The motive for you to insist that an uncomfortable set of questions is
"trolling" is pretty simple. You don't want people to see just how
ridiculous you are.
>>If you think
>>you have been misrepresented, your best bet is to represent yourself
>>clearly.
>
> LOL it's not about me, it's about what I say. You represent what I
> say, you lie, you say i said things which i didnt say. It is not by
> replying by off topic questions that i would correct your
> misrepresentations of what I said.
Actaully it is indeed all about you. However, you don;t want to have all
those people looking right at you without some sort of smoke-screen of
babbling occultism obscuring you. It's all about what you're trying to do
because of your poor self-image, all of it.
>>You can do this by answering the question honestly.
>
> Try again lol.
I keep trying to get you to face the folly of your claims, but you are too
involved with them to risk putting them aside, even for a little while.
>>You have stated that patriarchal and hierarchical religions are satanic.
>>Patriarchies are organizations ruled by Daddy.
>
> What do you mean by Daddy?
The usually accepted meaning of the term, of course.
>>So why do you believe
>>daddies are satanic?
>
> I do not.
>
> 1/ Patriarchy does not equal "Daddy's rule".
Yes, it does. The root of the word "patriarchy" is from the Latin "pater",
meaning "father", and arches, meaning "rule". A patriarchy is the rule of
the father. That's daddy, son.
> 2/ More importantly, "Patriarchal religions are satanist" doesnt imply
> that "Daddies are satanic".
It does unless you want to reinvent the entire English language, drastically
altering its past as well as its present.
Well, why not? You've pretty much invented everything else by this time.
At least in your own head. That's the problem, you see. Your attempted
changes only affect your imagined self. The rest of the world continues as
it is.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:21:42 -0000, Rufus Opus
> <FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Besides, don't worry about it. I like your posts. I enjoyed the
>>Insider interview a great deal.
>
>
> you wrote:
> "Daddy's satan because Daddy wasn't there when he needed him."
>
> who's "he" in that sentence?
That would be you, of course. Rufus is right in at least one respect. You
shouldn't worry about this stuff so much. However, if you didn't, you'd
probably post a lot less. Much of what drives your contributions to this
newsgroup is worry.
seon ferguson
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
Maybe its because I'm special.
quintal
<qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote:
>1/ Patriarchy does not equal "Daddy's rule".
i'm sure TrollTom has had a field day on that one (he's in my
killfile, and should be in most people's : he would simply stop
posting as he's just a parasite)
Anyway, let me specify
Patriarchy is about glorifying 'the domination of women by men through
sex'. The rule over children is secundary. The core of the issue is
the relationship between male and female.
The word pater means father, but patriarchy is how we call
male-oriented religions. A more proper word would be male-archic or
whatever word means male in latin (vir?).
The issue with male dominance is that it is in fact an attitude
towards nature. Our religion is about using nature, instead of being
used by it. It is about intervention.
Female dominance mimicking male dominance is more or less the same
thing.
glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex
is the core of our religious belief system. This leads to all sorts of
disorders.
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:20:24 +0000, quintal
> <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote:
>
>>1/ Patriarchy does not equal "Daddy's rule".
>
> i'm sure TrollTom has had a field day on that one (he's in my
> killfile, and should be in most people's : he would simply stop
> posting as he's just a parasite)
You silly boy. It doesn't matter to me whether or not you choose to read my
posts or not, just as it does not matter to me whether you eat cheese or
not. I will respond to your posts just as I always do and many others will
read my responses even when you don't wish them to do so. You are not the
first to try to instigate a shunning in alt.magick and you won't be the
last. And you will fail as everyone who tries such a silly thing will fail.
You, like many people who try to impose their narrations on reality rather
than let reality shape their narrative, simply don't understand the medium
well enough to realize the impossibility of shunning in an unmoderated
newsgroup.
> Patriarchy is about glorifying 'the domination of women by men through
> sex'.
You put that in quotes but I bet you can't cite any non-crackpot source for
it. It's just another of your adolescent rebellion fantasies against a
long-ago-vanished parental authority. This is all just a bad case of
arrested emotional development.
> The rule over children is secundary. The core of the issue is
> the relationship between male and female.
> The word pater means father, but patriarchy is how we call
> male-oriented religions. A more proper word would be male-archic or
> whatever word means male in latin (vir?).
But the word is not "virarchy". It's "patriarchy". Making up a different
word is sort of like erecting a straw man. You're arguing about something
other than the subject at hand. If you want to find a definition of
patriarchy, you can look one up in a dictionary, assuming you know how to
use one.
> The issue with male dominance is that it is in fact an attitude
> towards nature. Our religion is about using nature, instead of being
> used by it. It is about intervention.
That is not "our religion". It is not your religion, it is not my religion,
and it's pretty much not anybody's religion. It's just another of your
straw man arguments.
> Female dominance mimicking male dominance is more or less the same
> thing.
You're mad at Mommy too, I see.
Absorbed
> I am not claiming it is equal.
> It is the same though.
Heh. Why not describe it as similar? Because you're worming you way
out of another hole by redefining words.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:467a499a$0$329$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:w_qdnZYVUcn3c-Tb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:4679ca07$0$333$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The chinese attribute saturn with earth.
>>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> No, you don't.
>>
>> Yes i do.
>>
>>> In the sort of Western astrology you use, Saturn is not attributed to
>>> earth.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>>> In Roman myth, Saturn is not attributed to earth.
>>
>> I am not roman.
>
> Saturn is a Roman God.
>
>> Kronos devouring a rock.
>
> Kronos is a Greek god.
Ah, those romans stole pretty much their entire pantheon from the greeks.
>> Even in roman myth saturn is atributed to earth.
>
> He's a devourer, not a rock.
Devourer of the rock.
> And the Chinese have no myth at all in which the element of earth embodied
> by the planet we call Saturn devours its children.
I'm not well versed enough in chinese mythology.
The endpoint of mythology is btw hardly relevant when trying to find out the
essentials behind them.
(like saturn being regarded as malefic)
>> Earth is also the slow and stable, like saturn.
>
> LIke I told you, slowness is the one common feature of all myths having to
> do with the planet we now call Saturn.
That's not what ya told me.
"
There is one, simple, observable fact about the planet Saturn that
determines every astrological intepretation of it. Its apparent movement is
slower than any other planet that can be seen with the unaided eye. So
every interpretation of the astrological influence of Saturn is based upon
slowness.
And that's it. That's the one thing all astrological systems have in common
regarding the planet Saturn.
Bassos
"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:467f58fa$0$336$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
So what does consequences have to do with slowness ?
Fast stuff has consequences too.
Or daddies with slowness ?
Or responsibility ?
True that slowness would account for saturn's frigidity, but not in any way
it's childlike joy.
(not to mention it's sense of humour)
>>>>> So does western/tropical astrology, by making saturn ruler of
>>>>> capricorn.
>
>>>>You really have to stretch to force-fit that attribution.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Claiming a vague similarity makes two very different concepts "the same"
>> is a big stretch.
Claiming that saturn rules capricorn and capricorn being an earth sign is no
stretch at all.
In fact, it is quite obvious.
>>>>> A comment about the cultural influence on astrology does not
>>>>> invalidate it.
>>>>
>>>> Astrology is nothing but cultural influence.
>>>
>>> Or so you like to think.
>>
>> So all the competent research indicates.
You have yet in all your days in alt.magick to site a single competent bit
of research on astrology.
Any and all papers you may present about astrologers do not count.
When i show you stuff that is not easily discounted, you ignore it.
(like my nice skewed distribution of sun signs in post doctorate real estate
education)
>>>> The Vedas are not a "system", especially they are not a system of
>>>> divination.
>>>
>>> They are what Jyotish is based upon.
>>> (despite your claim to the contrary)
>>
>> There you go again, arguing what you'd like to argue rather than arguing
>> with what I actually said. Quote this alleged" claim" that Jyotish
>> astrology was not based on the Vedas.
Sure thing :
About jyotish :
"
Another system hopelessly infected by Greek and Roman mythology.
"
Primarily coz :
"
But the modern attributions of jyotish astrology do not. (are not based on
the vedas)
"
Here you claim that the system of (modern use of) Jyotish is not based on
the vedas.
For your education, Jyotish is one the 6 arms of vedanga, the auxiliary
disciplines of Vedic religion.
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyotish )
Tom
>>
>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:_sudnZjNvI89B-fb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> to do with the planet we now call Saturn.
>>
>> That's not what ya told me.
You'd better read the paragraph you quoted again, because that's what it
says.
>> " There is one, simple, observable fact about the planet Saturn that
>> determines every astrological intepretation of it. Its apparent movement
>> is
>> slower than any other planet that can be seen with the unaided eye. So
>> every interpretation of the astrological influence of Saturn is based
>> upon
>> slowness.
>>
>> And that's it. That's the one thing all astrological systems have in
>> common regarding the planet Saturn."
>
> So what does consequences have to do with slowness ?
> Fast stuff has consequences too.
> Or daddies with slowness ?
> Or responsibility ?
Those are not universal attributions to the planet Saturn in all
astrological systems. Only slowness. Because it's observeable.
> True that slowness would account for saturn's frigidity, but not in any
> way it's childlike joy.
> (not to mention it's sense of humour)
There is no "childlike joy" in the myths of Saturn.
>>> Claiming a vague similarity makes two very different concepts "the same"
>>> is a big stretch.
>
> Claiming that saturn rules capricorn and capricorn being an earth sign is
> no stretch at all.
> In fact, it is quite obvious.
Obvious stretching. The other earth signs are Taurus, ruled by Venus, and
Virgo, ruled by Mercury. So that must mean that you assign Mercury and
Venus to the earth element, too. That makes three earth-attributed planets
out of the five planets observeable by the naked eye. That's clearly not
how it is in the Chinese system. The house of cards you've built has again
fallen down. But take heart, there is no end to inventiveness in one's
rationalizations. I'm sure you can stretch and twist things to force-fit
them again. All it takes is the single-minded determination to pretend
you've got it all figured out. Somehow.
Rufus Opus
> "Bassos" <zebazz_N...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>
> news:467f5efa$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>
>
> >> "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote in message
He's confused with Jupiter. Jupiter, Saturn, what's the difference,
right? Binah and Chesed? Never heard of 'em. Let's not be bothered
with paltry things like tradition, research, wisdom, or knowledge. It
really gets in the way of making up whatever we like and arguing on
Usenet.
-R.O.
mika
>
> Anyway, let me specify
>
> Patriarchy is about glorifying 'the domination of women by men through
> sex'.
Not exactly. The system of patriarchy is not necessarily enforced
through sex.
> The rule over children is secundary. The core of the issue is
> the relationship between male and female.
> The word pater means father, but patriarchy is how we call
> male-oriented religions. A more proper word would be male-archic or
> whatever word means male in latin (vir?).
>
> The issue with male dominance is that it is in fact an attitude
> towards nature. Our religion is about using nature, instead of being
> used by it. It is about intervention.
>
> Female dominance mimicking male dominance is more or less the same
> thing.
Sounds like you find any human expression of dominance to be
unacceptable.
> glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex
> is the core of our religious belief system. This leads to all sorts of
> disorders.
"Oh, I get it now. You're a freaky-deaky crazy pants."
(~Dr Venture)
quintal
>On Jun 22, 3:08 am, quintal wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, let me specify
>>
>> Patriarchy is about glorifying 'the domination of women by men through
>> sex'.
>
>Not exactly. The system of patriarchy is not necessarily enforced
>through sex.
I don't know about what you are talking about, but I was talking about
patriarchal religions, specifically. We do glorify the male sexual
power and organs, look around... and the meaning is the one I said :
glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex.
It's everywhere in our symbols. The scepters, the churches, etc.
The "system" may exist without sex to enforce it, but it is enforced
through sex. The story of the revolution has to do with rape, so has
the story of the creation of the human species.
>> The rule over children is secundary. The core of the issue is
>> the relationship between male and female.
>> The word pater means father, but patriarchy is how we call
>> male-oriented religions. A more proper word would be male-archic or
>> whatever word means male in latin (vir?).
>>
>> The issue with male dominance is that it is in fact an attitude
>> towards nature. Our religion is about using nature, instead of being
>> used by it. It is about intervention.
>>
>> Female dominance mimicking male dominance is more or less the same
>> thing.
>
>Sounds like you find any human expression of dominance to be
>unacceptable.
i meant domination, i dont know if it's the same meaning. And I meant
the unethical aspect of domination.
>> glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex
>> is the core of our religious belief system. This leads to all sorts of
>> disorders.
>
>"Oh, I get it now. You're a freaky-deaky crazy pants."
>(~Dr Venture)
mika
>
> I don't know about what you are talking about, but I was talking about
> patriarchal religions, specifically. We do glorify the male sexual
> power and organs, look around... and the meaning is the one I said :
> glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex.
> It's everywhere in our symbols. The scepters, the churches, etc.
The chalice is the most significant symbol in Christianity next to the
cross, it is a feminine symbol and directly related to female sexual
organs. I could give more examples why your argument makes no sense
but I don't think you're actually listening.
> The "system" may exist without sex to enforce it, but it is enforced
> through sex. The story of the revolution has to do with rape,
What revolution?
> so has the story of the creation of the human species.
What creation story is based on rape?
Certainly not the Jewish one:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
"27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created
He him; male and female created He them.
28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' "
Doesn't look like the Christian creation story does either:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html
quintal
> quintal wrote:
>>
>> I don't know about what you are talking about, but I was talking about
>> patriarchal religions, specifically. We do glorify the male sexual
>> power and organs, look around... and the meaning is the one I said :
>> glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex.
>> It's everywhere in our symbols. The scepters, the churches, etc.
>
>The chalice is the most significant symbol in Christianity next to the
>cross, it is a feminine symbol and directly related to female sexual
>organs.
So?
A representation of the female sexual organs doesn't indicate that
there is no rape involved.
Do you see queens holding chalices in our culture, or kings holding
scepters?
>I could give more examples why your argument makes no sense
>but I don't think you're actually listening.
>
>> The "system" may exist without sex to enforce it, but it is enforced
>> through sex. The story of the revolution has to do with rape,
>
>What revolution?
USA, France, Russia and so on, communism, new world order. Phrygian
crown and headcap. The aristocrats didnt yield without resisting. They
were raped and beheaded.
>> so has the story of the creation of the human species.
>
>What creation story is based on rape?
The one of our western culture. Starting from Sumer, Babylon, Chaldea,
Hebrews, Greeks (Zeus anyone? God of rapists if there ever was one !),
Romans, and then finally us, the rest of the shit, all born from rape.
All standing on the maiming of the female.
The female is a priestesss. A natural one also, moreso than the male.
Seen any female priestesses around here?
Wiccans? LOL
Of course satanism glorifies the goddess... in order to install a yet
harsher patriarchal tyranny by toppling down the current one.
>Certainly not the Jewish one:
>http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
>"27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created
>He him; male and female created He them.
> 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and
>multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion
>over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
>living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' "
and the elohim looked at the human females and found them attractive.
No mention of them females finding the reptiloid extraterrestrials
attractive.
>Doesn't look like the Christian creation story does either:
>http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html
LOL of course it won't be said litterally in the canon of patriarchal
law that is the King James Bible !
(seen any Queen Jean passing by?)
Yet at each paragraph there is a "LORD" being mentionned.
I havent seen any lady.
Who's ruling?
Through what?
Who's not listening?
You might see a female president in the USA in 2008. It will be to
give birth to the worldwide tyranny. It won't be because the system
would glorify the female.
I'm amazed. Aren't you aware that women in the bible are either whores
or mothers?
The aim is simple : keeping the female disconnected from her sacred
sexual power. From her priesthood, at all costs.
Why?
What's there, down there? What are the abilities of the uterus?
a lecture from laurence gardner
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/starfire1.html
it's in audio on eMule and on my files site here:
http://www.divshare.com/download/1082575-606
a jordan maxwell presentation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8394844811105390386&q=jordan+maxwell
at mark 1h7m40s he speaks about the temple of solomon and goes on
showing at 1h9m that the temple represents the sexual act. The ground
plan draws the male organ inside the female organ.
He then shows phallic symbolism all over our religions and cultures.
The basic image of the temple everywhere (Temp-EL, house of EL,
Saturn) is two male pillars and between them a female opening.
at 1h18m40s he talks about the symbol of the cross in the circle.
P.S. BTW, Feminism participates of patriarchy and is directly issued
from the satanist elites. It's there to topple down the ancient order
and replace it by one still more patriarchal and tyrannical. The women
are the main dupes of the "Women Liberation" movement. They're being
liberated from their womanhood. The state is taking charge of the
families, replacing the parents, owning the children, treating them as
cattle and merchandise.
Ganymedes, Zeus, phrygian cap, rape, cupbearer of the gods:
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/Ganymedes.html
So we have a male youth, adbucted by Zeus the male god father figure,
Ganymedes is raped by Zeus, Zeus being in the form of a great bird,
Ganymedes wearing a phrygian cap (that is a cap with openings), and
Ganymedes is turned into a cupbearer. Cup, female.
The royal crown of england is a phrygian crown.
The phrygian cap is the symbol of the french revolution.
When they took the Notre Dame cathedral they sat a whore on the altar
wearing a phrygian cap and called her Liberty.
Since then you see Persephone on top of official monuments all over
the world.
Cup, female organ.
There you got your holy grail. It doesn't look like it's glorifying
the female to me. It's turning a male into a female for him to serve
as a female for the rapist god.
Who's the statue of liberty? Not the virgin mary. Lucifer's wife.
Nimrod's wife : Semiramis. Diana.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:467f5efa$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:_sudnZjNvI89B-fb...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> LIke I told you, slowness is the one common feature of all myths having
>>>> to do with the planet we now call Saturn.
>>>
>>> That's not what ya told me.
>
> You'd better read the paragraph you quoted again, because that's what it
> says.
No it does not.
All myths != every interpretation of the astrological influence of saturn.
>>> " There is one, simple, observable fact about the planet Saturn that
>>> determines every astrological intepretation of it. Its apparent
>>> movement is
>>> slower than any other planet that can be seen with the unaided eye. So
>>> every interpretation of the astrological influence of Saturn is based
>>> upon
>>> slowness.
>>>
>>> And that's it. That's the one thing all astrological systems have in
>>> common regarding the planet Saturn."
>>
>> So what does consequences have to do with slowness ?
>> Fast stuff has consequences too.
>> Or daddies with slowness ?
>> Or responsibility ?
>
> Those are not universal attributions to the planet Saturn in all
> astrological systems.
Consequences actually is a universal atribution to saturn.
(afaik)
>> True that slowness would account for saturn's frigidity, but not in any
>> way it's childlike joy.
>> (not to mention it's sense of humour)
>
> There is no "childlike joy" in the myths of Saturn.
You try and make this about myths.
It is not.
It is about saturn, and whether or not it serves as Satan.
When talking about saturn, i think it is better to use what i actually think
about saturn.
(as regarding saturn as used in astrology)
You tried to make it about a history exam, but i completely burned you
there, by showing how indeed i was correct.
You never even commented on your sorry excuse for a claim.
>>>> Claiming a vague similarity makes two very different concepts "the
>>>> same" is a big stretch.
>>
>> Claiming that saturn rules capricorn and capricorn being an earth sign is
>> no stretch at all.
>> In fact, it is quite obvious.
>
> Obvious stretching.
Nope.
> The other earth signs are Taurus, ruled by Venus, and Virgo, ruled by
> Mercury. So that must mean that you assign Mercury and Venus to the earth
> element, too.
A different bit of it yes.
Give it up mate, astrology is way too difficult for you.
You like to see how things are made up.
That is nice, and fine and all that, usefull too.
The 'feeel' approach completely eludes you.
(well ofcourse not completely no, don't be silly)
What the point here is, is, that you cannot let go of your doubts.
(specifically regarding astrology, because you have decided it is unlikely
to be true)
If you had been a true skeptic, you would have jumped on the opportunity to
prove yourself wrong.
(yes, prove in the sense of convincing yourself)
But no, you turned out to act like the very thing you wail against.
> That makes three earth-attributed planets out of the five planets
> observeable by the naked eye.
> That's clearly not how it is in the Chinese system.
You introduced the chinese, and besides noting that they attribute saturn
with earth, i had nothing to do with that.
So feel free to try and knock down your straw man.
> The house of cards you've built has again fallen down.
It did long ago.
You failed to see it.
In this conversation, you see evidence of it again, but alas, you miss it
again too.
> But take heart, there is no end to inventiveness in one's
> rationalizations.
You mean, like this one of yours, in which you actually answer relevant
questions ?
Or the one in which you succeeded in actually convincing yourself that the
evidence that was presented to you was irrelevant.
> I'm sure you can stretch and twist things to force-fit them again.
Alas, tom, i still think you are great, but still, great men making mistakes
makes it all the much easier to aim for.
So, thank you.
> All it takes is the single-minded determination to pretend you've got it
> all figured out. Somehow.
Or the complete and utter ignoring of every bit of evidence thrown your way.
gg tom.
Bassos
> On Jun 25, 10:32 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Bassos" <zebazz_N...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>
>
> He's confused with Jupiter.
Oh no, my young yedi, you will find that it is you whois confused, about a
great many things.
Jupiter is happy go lucky.
Saturn is gloom.
Perhaps you just have never had the opportunity to meet the childlike joy in
the gloom.
Spend more time with capricorns.
Bassos
"mika" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182811332.8...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> quintal wrote:
>>
>> I don't know about what you are talking about, but I was talking about
>> patriarchal religions, specifically. We do glorify the male sexual
>> power and organs, look around... and the meaning is the one I said :
>> glorification of the domination of the female by the male through sex.
>> It's everywhere in our symbols. The scepters, the churches, etc.
>
> The chalice is the most significant symbol in Christianity next to the
> cross, it is a feminine symbol and directly related to female sexual
> organs. I could give more examples why your argument makes no sense
> but I don't think you're actually listening.
>
>> The "system" may exist without sex to enforce it, but it is enforced
>> through sex. The story of the revolution has to do with rape,
>
> What revolution?
>
>> so has the story of the creation of the human species.
>
> What creation story is based on rape?
Hell, god raped adam to pluck out his rib, to create eve.
Initial sin is with god.
(for creating light, ofcourse)
Rufus Opus
> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182794376....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 25, 10:32 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "Bassos" <zebazz_N...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>
> >> There is no "childlike joy" in the myths of Saturn.
>
> > He's confused with Jupiter.
>
> Oh no, my young yedi, you will find that it is you whois confused, about a
> great many things.
>
> Jupiter is happy go lucky.
Jupiter is Joy and benevolence, and the responsibiliies that come with
it.
> Saturn is gloom.
Saturn is boundaries. Boundaries can be gloomy, if you don't realize a
fence is for protection, a trellis supports growth, and birth and
death are aspects of the same thing.
> Perhaps you just have never had the opportunity to meet the childlike joy in
> the gloom.
> Spend more time with capricorns.
LOL...
Ok, seriously, check my blog some time at http://www.headforred.blogspot.com/,
and look for the posts that contain Saturn. There's "Falling in Love
with Binah" and one about the magician's path between Saturn and the
Sun.
And my wife is Capricornus.
-R.O.
Bassos
> On Jun 26, 2:55 pm, "Bassos" <Zebazz_N...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> "Rufus Opus" <FrRedactumO...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1182794376....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 25, 10:32 am, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> "Bassos" <zebazz_N...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>
>> >> There is no "childlike joy" in the myths of Saturn.
>>
>> > He's confused with Jupiter.
>>
>> Oh no, my young yedi, you will find that it is you whois confused, about
>> a
>> great many things.
>>
>> Jupiter is happy go lucky.
>
> Jupiter is Joy and benevolence, and the responsibiliies that come with
> it.
Jupiter is gluttony and excess of every kind.
ie : expansion.
Lousy quoting bits sucks.
Learn to up your game.
>> Saturn is gloom.
>
> Saturn is boundaries.
That too.
<snip ze noob repeats what i have already posted)
>> Perhaps you just have never had the opportunity to meet the childlike joy
>> in
>> the gloom.
>
>> Spend more time with capricorns.
>
> LOL...
Yeah yeah, push it away.
> Ok, seriously, check my blog some time at
> http://www.headforred.blogspot.com/,
No.
Any bit of evidence that should come from your blog, which you would not be
able to succintly phrase, is worthless.
> And my wife is Capricornus.
Then you should know about the weird sense of humour, unless, offcourse, you
do not get it.
I she sleeping around with a wealthier dude that took her out to a fancy
dinner yet ?
Tom
>
> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PK2dnQ45RZA8TOLb...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:467f5efa$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:_sudnZjNvI89B-fb...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> LIke I told you, slowness is the one common feature of all myths
>>>>> having to do with the planet we now call Saturn.
>>>>
>>>> That's not what ya told me.
>>
>> You'd better read the paragraph you quoted again, because that's what it
>> says.
>
> No it does not.
> All myths != every interpretation of the astrological influence of saturn.
In this case, yes, it does.
>> Those are not universal attributions to the planet Saturn in all
>> astrological systems.
>
> Consequences actually is a universal atribution to saturn.
> (afaik)
Then you don't know much. Because it's not.
>>> True that slowness would account for saturn's frigidity, but not in any
>>> way it's childlike joy.
>>> (not to mention it's sense of humour)
>>
>> There is no "childlike joy" in the myths of Saturn.
>
> You try and make this about myths.
> It is not.
It appears that what this is about, at least as far as you're concerned, is
trying to assert that your personal concoction of myths and attributions is
just how astrology is universally understood and has been since ancient
times. I'm not buying that assertion. Too much credible evidence suggests
otherwise.
> You tried to make it about a history exam, but i completely burned you
> there, by showing how indeed i was correct.
You didn't "burn" anybody or even show that you were correct. You cannot
simply make up a story and expect everybody to accept it as a valid
substitute for their own experiences.
> Give it up mate, astrology is way too difficult for you.
Your astrology is quite simple. It's made up of whatever rationalizations
you can think up at the moment. Pretty easy, actually. In fact, that sort
of thinking is about the laziest form of thinking that there is.
> You like to see how things are made up.
Then we should be a good match, because you like to make things up.
> The 'feeel' approach completely eludes you.
"Feeeling" is great, as long as it doesn't trample all over "thiiinking".
Rufus Opus
> Jupiter is gluttony and excess of every kind.
>
> ie : expansion.
Jupiter is Authority, the King of the Gods, Zeus, Jove, Jehovah. It's
the Mercy of Chesed, but the responsibility that comes with it.
Work with the Intelligence of Jupiter some time, or even Tzadkiel.
It's much more about being able to handle the expansion than the
expansion itself.
> Lousy quoting bits sucks.
> Learn to up your game.
This is how I post. I like it. It's logical, and provides a ready
understanding of what I'm posting about to others.
> > Ok, seriously, check my blog some time at
> >http://www.headforred.blogspot.com/,
>
> No.
>
> Any bit of evidence that should come from your blog, which you would not be
> able to succintly phrase, is worthless.
You could have succinctly phrased it: "I'm too lazy to click a link."
If you think the interplay between the spheres and the impact it has
on a magician's sphere can be succinctly summed up in a soundbite on a
usegroup, you have yet to experience such a thing. The Great Work
isn't about 3 minutes of sit-com plot and 30-second commercials, it
requires a bit of an attention span, and the ability to digest what
you take in.
> > And my wife is Capricornus.
>
> Then you should know about the weird sense of humour, unless, offcourse, you
> do not get it.
>
> I she sleeping around with a wealthier dude that took her out to a fancy
> dinner yet ?
I'm the wealthier dude. Magick, my friend, isn't just about showing
off how poorly you understand the function of the celestial spheres on
a usenet group, oh no! It's not even all about accomplishing some
spiritual transformation.
It's about getting rich, filthy stinking rich by reaping the rewards
that come from the Spirits. Zadkiel provided the Jupiterian essence to
manage and build wealth, so that when the Jupiter-Sagittarius spirit I
conjured provided large amounts of income, I had the wisdom,
foresight, and luck to channel it into the right things, responsibly.
Now I can reap the rewards of my efforts, and pursue magick in my
ample spare time, enjoying the *good* life that I deserve.
Luxury, sweet luxury.
And yes, I am a Taurus.
-R.O.
Bassos
> On Jun 26, 3:57 pm, "Bassos" <Zebazz_N...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>> Jupiter is gluttony and excess of every kind.
>>
>> ie : expansion.
>
> Jupiter is Authority, the King of the Gods, Zeus, Jove, Jehovah. It's
> the Mercy of Chesed, but the responsibility that comes with it.
The responsibility comes with saturn.
This is precisely why an unbounded jupiter is malefic.
> Work with the Intelligence of Jupiter some time, or even Tzadkiel.
> It's much more about being able to handle the expansion than the
> expansion itself.
Jupiter itself is about expansion.
The handling it is an interplay between jupiter and mars.
(culminating in the sun, qbl-wise, astro talk suggests a far more intricate
play)
>> Lousy quoting bits sucks.
>> Learn to up your game.
>
> This is how I post. I like it. It's logical, and provides a ready
> understanding of what I'm posting about to others.
Except that by posting equally valid soundbites to the contrary i showed
your points to be lacking.
(yes, the ones you snipped)
>> > Ok, seriously, check my blog some time at
>> >http://www.headforred.blogspot.com/,
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Any bit of evidence that should come from your blog, which you would not
>> be
>> able to succintly phrase, is worthless.
>
> You could have succinctly phrased it: "I'm too lazy to click a link."
Or you could have succintly phrased it as :"i'm too lazy to provide a
deeplink to some of the relevant bits i've written"
It's all about perspective.
> If you think the interplay between the spheres and the impact it has
> on a magician's sphere can be succinctly summed up in a soundbite on a
> usegroup, you have yet to experience such a thing.
If you think it cannot, you.....
Union.
1 word.
q.e.d.
There are lots of other apt words.
> The Great Work isn't about 3 minutes of sit-com plot and 30-second
> commercials, it
> requires a bit of an attention span, and the ability to digest what
> you take in.
So, if you think that is true, why do you :
"
>> Lousy quoting bits sucks.
> This is how I post.
"
?
>> > And my wife is Capricornus.
>>
>> Then you should know about the weird sense of humour, unless, offcourse,
>> you
>> do not get it.
>>
>> I she sleeping around with a wealthier dude that took her out to a fancy
>> dinner yet ?
>
> I'm the wealthier dude.
Ah.
And, did she dig that fancy restaurant ?
(more than an average girl)
And does she have that weird sense of humour, that taurus and virgo gets,
but which is completely wasted on aquarius/scorpio?
(Usually verbal and a touch of over the edge, 'non-decoral' (or however the
hell that is spelled))
> And yes, I am a Taurus.
Me too.
It's the too close conjunction between my cusp sun (0:10 taurus) and my
burned jupiter (5 taurus).
So i hardly care for any bit of material possesion, other than my comfort.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <Zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:46815f14$0$79139$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:PK2dnQ45RZA8TOLb...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:467f5efa$0$321$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_sudnZjNvI89B-fb...@comcast.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIke I told you, slowness is the one common feature of all myths
>>>>>> having to do with the planet we now call Saturn.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what ya told me.
>>>
>>> You'd better read the paragraph you quoted again, because that's what it
>>> says.
>>
>> No it does not.
>> All myths != every interpretation of the astrological influence of
>> saturn.
>
> In this case, yes, it does.
Only if, like you, you equate myths with astrological correspondences.
>>> Those are not universal attributions to the planet Saturn in all
>>> astrological systems.
>>
>> Consequences actually is a universal atribution to saturn.
>> (afaik)
>
> Then you don't know much. Because it's not.
Them Chinese again ?
>>>> True that slowness would account for saturn's frigidity, but not in any
>>>> way it's childlike joy.
>>>> (not to mention it's sense of humour)
>>>
>>> There is no "childlike joy" in the myths of Saturn.
>>
>> You try and make this about myths.
>> It is not.
>
> It appears that what this is about, at least as far as you're concerned,
> is trying to assert that your personal concoction of myths and
> attributions is just how astrology is universally understood and has been
> since ancient times.
Nope.
I specifically mentioned 2 groups.
from ptolemy onward and the jyotish crowd.
Both turned out to indeed be what i calimed they where.
> I'm not buying that assertion. Too much credible evidence suggests
> otherwise.
Straw man can be knocked around all you want.
>> You tried to make it about a history exam, but i completely burned you
>> there, by showing how indeed i was correct.
>
> You didn't "burn" anybody or even show that you were correct.
Yes i did.
You conveniently snipped where i rubbed your nose in your ignorence about
Jyotish.
>> Give it up mate, astrology is way too difficult for you.
>
> Your astrology is quite simple.
If you snip whatever i present for evidence, and instead go with whatever
fantasy pops into your head, then yeah sure.
Let's see :
> It's made up of whatever rationalizations you can think up at the moment.
> Pretty easy, actually. In fact, that sort of thinking is about the
> laziest form of thinking that there is.
Yep, definately the thing that just popped into your head.
It is all that having to shy away from the actual evidence i presented.
Third time now, let's see how many more you can handle.
Next thing you know, i will be presenting more evidence.
(hint : think nobel prize winners)
>> You like to see how things are made up.
>
> Then we should be a good match, because you like to make things up.
Nonsense.
I refuted all your arguments against my initial points.
I won.
>> The 'feeel' approach completely eludes you.
>
> "Feeeling" is great, as long as it doesn't trample all over "thiiinking".
Ofcourse it should do exactly that from time to time.
The finding the balance gets some peeps closer to the thiiiinkin side, some
closer to the feeeeelin side.
Some, really cool people, like me, can actually choose where to go.
quintal
wrote:
i'm glad to see my mention of the spheres has stimulated two people to
argue with tom about saturn;-)
i had franz bardon in mind as a reference but in order to argue with
the usual skeptic, crowleyanism is just as good!
yes the feeling and the thinking are equally important, especially
because half of our thinking is about feeling... that's why we have
two hemispheres in the brain lol
and that's precisely the catch for skeptics... and believers.
it's called androginy in magic isn't it.
mastering both polarities on each level.
the cadduceus.
it's somewhat insane that an apostle of extreme rationalism would
argue about magic, astrology, religion and so on, but yeah it exists!
lol
the egoic mind is such a tricky thing
happy the ones who have transcended it
Tom
"quintal" <qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote in message
>
> i'm glad to see my mention of the spheres has stimulated two people to
> argue with tom about saturn;-)
People argue with me about anything, for any reason.
> i had franz bardon in mind as a reference but in order to argue with
> the usual skeptic, crowleyanism is just as good!
Neither is a proper way to run a universe.
> the egoic mind is such a tricky thing
> happy the ones who have transcended it
And deluded the ones who flatter themselves that they have achieved such
transcendence.
Rufus Opus
> People argue with me about anything, for any reason.
No we dont'. I wouldn't argue with you about anything for any reason.
> > i had franz bardon in mind as a reference but in order to argue with
> > the usual skeptic, crowleyanism is just as good!
>
> Neither is a proper way to run a universe.
And yet both work, or at least, one works, sorta, if you're high, and
the other almost works, and has neat phases like "fluid condenser" to
make you feel neat about yourself.
> > the egoic mind is such a tricky thing
> > happy the ones who have transcended it
>
> And deluded the ones who flatter themselves that they have achieved such
> transcendence.
I don't understand why Ego is seen as such a bad thing in so many
systems. I mean, it's part of being human. People are in such a big
hurry to escape being human that they forget they are human for a
reason, and can't escape until they "human" to the best of their
abilities. That includes having a healthy ego, not some destroyed/
fractured/delusional hypochondriac who hates itself living between
your ears.
-R.O.
Tom
> On Jun 26, 11:20 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> People argue with me about anything, for any reason.
>
> No we dont'. I wouldn't argue with you about anything for any reason.
Let's see... I say people argue with me about anything for any reason and
you disagree. Your argument in support of your position is that you never
argue with me about anything at any time.
But, since that is an argument and it's undeniably with me, it is
self-contradictory.
Quintal wrote:
>> > i had franz bardon in mind as a reference but in order to argue with
>> > the usual skeptic, crowleyanism is just as good!
>>
>> Neither is a proper way to run a universe.
>
> And yet both work, or at least, one works, sorta, if you're high, and
> the other almost works, and has neat phases like "fluid condenser" to
> make you feel neat about yourself.
Models are, by their very nature, a simplification of that which they model.
Quintal wrote:
>> > the egoic mind is such a tricky thing
>> > happy the ones who have transcended it
>>
>> And deluded the ones who flatter themselves that they have achieved such
>> transcendence.
>
> I don't understand why Ego is seen as such a bad thing in so many
> systems. I mean, it's part of being human. People are in such a big
> hurry to escape being human that they forget they are human for a
> reason, and can't escape until they "human" to the best of their
> abilities. That includes having a healthy ego, not some destroyed/
> fractured/delusional hypochondriac who hates itself living between
> your ears.
I think this arises because "Ego" has become a very ambiguous word. Some of
its meanings have negative connotations, and deservedly so.
Rufus Opus
> >> People argue with me about anything, for any reason.
>
> > No we dont'. I wouldn't argue with you about anything for any reason.
>
> Let's see... I say people argue with me about anything for any reason and
> you disagree. Your argument in support of your position is that you never
> argue with me about anything at any time.
>
> But, since that is an argument and it's undeniably with me, it is
> self-contradictory.
Yes, thanks for taking an otherwise nearly-funny comment and sucking
all the potential for humor right out of it. That's what I get for
forgetting the ;).
> > I don't understand why Ego is seen as such a bad thing in so many
> > systems. I mean, it's part of being human. People are in such a big
> > hurry to escape being human that they forget they are human for a
> > reason, and can't escape until they "human" to the best of their
> > abilities. That includes having a healthy ego, not some destroyed/
> > fractured/delusional hypochondriac who hates itself living between
> > your ears.
>
> I think this arises because "Ego" has become a very ambiguous word. Some of
> its meanings have negative connotations, and deservedly so.
I think the ambiguity stems from Freud himself. He never really had an
integrated personality, imo. My working hypothesis is that most
psychiatrists enter the field because they are messed up and are
looking for solutions to their own problems. Then they research it,
and realize no one else has any answers, so they make up their own. If
they express it intelligently, it gets adopted by other psychiatrists,
and becomes dogma, never mind that the source was poisoned to begin
with.
The depiction of the ego as a spoiled child, for instance, is only
valid if you have an immature, spoiled ego. It is entirely possible to
"raise" your ego like a child, teaching it to be appropriate, to ask
for things politely, and to accept no for an answer when necessary.
Iamblichus touched on this in _On the Mysteries_. www.therugia.org has
a decent translation. He indicates that the ego is tamed by giving it
what it asks for, when appropriate. Then it learns that its desires
will be met, and makes less vehement demands. As your inner urges get
tamed, they work with you instead of against you.
-R.O.
Tom
> On Jun 27, 3:12 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> People argue with me about anything, for any reason.
>>
>> > No we dont'. I wouldn't argue with you about anything for any reason.
>>
>> Let's see... I say people argue with me about anything for any reason
>> and
>> you disagree. Your argument in support of your position is that you
>> never
>> argue with me about anything at any time.
>>
>> But, since that is an argument and it's undeniably with me, it is
>> self-contradictory.
>
> Yes, thanks for taking an otherwise nearly-funny comment and sucking
> all the potential for humor right out of it. That's what I get for
> forgetting the ;).
What do you mean? I thought my reply was very funny. I guess senses of
humor vary.
>> I think this arises because "Ego" has become a very ambiguous word. Some
>> of
>> its meanings have negative connotations, and deservedly so.
>
> I think the ambiguity stems from Freud himself.
Quite a bit of it, yes.
> He never really had an
> integrated personality, imo. My working hypothesis is that most
> psychiatrists enter the field because they are messed up and are
> looking for solutions to their own problems.
Everybody loves to psychoanalyze the psychoanalysts.
> Then they research it,
> and realize no one else has any answers, so they make up their own.
If they're smart, they do. If not, they believe what they're told.
> If
> they express it intelligently, it gets adopted by other psychiatrists,
> and becomes dogma, never mind that the source was poisoned to begin
> with.
All dogmas are poison to a magician.
> The depiction of the ego as a spoiled child, for instance, is only
> valid if you have an immature, spoiled ego. It is entirely possible to
> "raise" your ego like a child, teaching it to be appropriate, to ask
> for things politely, and to accept no for an answer when necessary.
> Iamblichus touched on this in _On the Mysteries_.
So did Freud, actually.
www.therugia.org has
> a decent translation.
Isn't that www.theurgia.org? Typos make links unworkable.
> He indicates that the ego is tamed by giving it
> what it asks for, when appropriate. Then it learns that its desires
> will be met, and makes less vehement demands. As your inner urges get
> tamed, they work with you instead of against you.
The trick is how one decides what's "appropriate". Opinions differ on that.
Now, Chogyam Trungpa says that ego is the illusion of constancy of
consciousness between one moment and the next, much as we see an illusion of
motion when we see a rapidly changing set of progressive still photos, as we
do in movies. He says that all inappropriate attention to the ego arises
from that basic misapprehension.
quintal
<FrRedac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 11:20 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> People argue with me about anything, for any reason.
>
>No we dont'. I wouldn't argue with you about anything for any reason.
>
>> > i had franz bardon in mind as a reference but in order to argue with
>> > the usual skeptic, crowleyanism is just as good!
>>
>> Neither is a proper way to run a universe.
>
>And yet both work, or at least, one works, sorta, if you're high, and
>the other almost works, and has neat phases like "fluid condenser" to
>make you feel neat about yourself.
lol
Yeah I can tell Crowley's stuff works to turn you into a slave, an
addict, and what else was crowley? Not to mention that his knowledge
is hazy and delusive.
>> > the egoic mind is such a tricky thing
>> > happy the ones who have transcended it
>>
>> And deluded the ones who flatter themselves that they have achieved such
>> transcendence.
>
>I don't understand why Ego is seen as such a bad thing
Experience.
>in so many
>systems.
Not a system.
Hostility towards oneself as revealed in others is a big symptom of
being owned by one's ego, used by one's mind.
>I mean, it's part of being human. People are in such a big
>hurry to escape being human that they forget they are human for a
>reason, and can't escape until they "human" to the best of their
>abilities. That includes having a healthy ego,
oh, a healthy one;-)
Sure.
>not some destroyed/
>fractured/delusional hypochondriac who hates itself living between
>your ears.
the psychic mirror, degrees one and two of B's system adresses that.
Crowley's system doesnt ever. But never mind. Keep pursueing being
filthy rich as a symptom of realization;-) I'm sure no realized guy.
I'm still having much work with that mirror.
>-R.O.
quintal
They are afraid of insanity. As physicians are afraid of death.
>Then they research it,
>and realize no one else has any answers, so they make up their own. If
>they express it intelligently, it gets adopted by other psychiatrists,
>and becomes dogma, never mind that the source was poisoned to begin
>with.
they might mind but they have peer pressure and herd mentality to make
up for that lack.
>The depiction of the ego as a spoiled child, for instance, is only
>valid if you have an immature, spoiled ego. It is entirely possible to
>"raise" your ego like a child, teaching it to be appropriate, to ask
>for things politely, and to accept no for an answer when necessary.
these are two different layers. The trouble with many people and their
views is that they think the bottom layer is evil. The core layer is
just life. The second layer can get so unhappy that its owner forgets
he has a core layer beneath it and builds a whole system to adress
that second layer looking at it from the higher layers (the social
personality). Doesnt work.
>Iamblichus touched on this in _On the Mysteries_. www.therugia.org has
>a decent translation. He indicates that the ego is tamed by giving it
>what it asks for, when appropriate. Then it learns that its desires
>will be met, and makes less vehement demands. As your inner urges get
>tamed, they work with you instead of against you.
Yup, same idea, different wording.
>-R.O.
Diana BB
> Oh I thought you were religious when you said satanists may be fun as
> lies-busters but they're boring as ideologues.
> (atheism is an aspect of satanism)
>
> But now I understand where you're coming from.
>
> I'm not an atheist. I just don't buy into all this religion stuff. I believe
> we can find God without man made religion. I also believe he communicates
> with us on a daily basis, we just don't know how to listen.
>
> But if an Atheist in this group asks me to prove without a doubt God exists
> I wouldn't be able to give him or her the proof they seek.
>
> As for the solar God/son God thing I think either a. there was a 1st century
> rabbi but the disciples (if they existed. It's possible they could be a
> symbol for the 12 months of the solar year) borrowed from other myths of the
> ancient world to make people think he was this savior figure or b. Jesus was
> completely a mythical figure.
>
> But if he was who started Christianity? There are a lot of theories out
> there but I don't see any evidence to support any of them. At the same time
> the lack of evidence to support a historical Jesus is the reason I don't
> repent and buy into the religious nonsense.
>
>
Hi Seon,
You are very close to the truth. Jesus' message was simple...you dont
need religion to fin God.
He came to teach that and then along came a false apostle named Paul who
s aim was to confound the masses back to religion.
It wasnt the disciples of Jesus that did that...we have very little
idea of what they taught after Jesus was gone. What wewe read is written
a long time after they had departed this earth. What we do have though
is the writings of Paul....the father of Christianity.
Has the story of Jesus been changed to fit another religious
belief?.....well lets ask Paul.
Rom.3
[7] For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his
glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
quintal
<qui...@francom.esoterisme> wrote:
>Who's the statue of liberty? Not the virgin mary. Lucifer's wife.
>Nimrod's wife : Semiramis. Diana.
and Columbia.
Rufus Opus
> > Yes, thanks for taking an otherwise nearly-funny comment and sucking
> > all the potential for humor right out of it. That's what I get for
> > forgetting the ;).
>
> What do you mean? I thought my reply was very funny. I guess senses of
> humor vary.
Christ, I thought my sense of humor was dry. Will add more Nitrate.
> Everybody loves to psychoanalyze the psychoanalysts.
The bastids.
> All dogmas are poison to a magician.
As Paracelsus said, it's the Dose that makes the poison. No dogma at
all, no doctrine, you end up wihtou t the trellis you need to grow.
I'm not saying all of it is good, or to accept things at face value,
but too many people today reject all dogma, uhm, dogmatically, without
bothering to analyze it for content.
> Isn't thatwww.theurgia.org? Typos make links unworkable.
Something like that.
> The trick is how one decides what's "appropriate". Opinions differ on that.
I like mine, they seem to work for me.
> Now, Chogyam Trungpa says that ego is the illusion of constancy of
> consciousness between one moment and the next, much as we see an illusion of
> motion when we see a rapidly changing set of progressive still photos, as we
> do in movies. He says that all inappropriate attention to the ego arises
> from that basic misapprehension.
I'd give it more credence if I could differentiate between moments.
How much time passes between a moment, exactly? Is there any research
being done on that? Last I heard, the smallest amount of time we could
be aware of was a thirtieth of a second, and then someone proved that
adrenaline expands that, making it "seem" longer.
-R.O.
-R.O.
Rufus Opus
> the psychic mirror, degrees one and two of B's system adresses that.
> Crowley's system doesnt ever. But never mind. Keep pursueing being
> filthy rich as a symptom of realization;-) I'm sure no realized guy.
> I'm still having much work with that mirror.
I'm so misunderstood...
:sigh:
Rich and wealth and luxury and prosperity aren't the goal, they're the
result. A side effect. :)
No one ever listens.
Tom
> On Jun 27, 5:41 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, thanks for taking an otherwise nearly-funny comment and sucking
>> > all the potential for humor right out of it. That's what I get for
>> > forgetting the ;).
>>
>> What do you mean? I thought my reply was very funny. I guess senses of
>> humor vary.
>
> Christ, I thought my sense of humor was dry. Will add more Nitrate.
Try sodium chloride. My words are best taken with a grain of salt.
>> All dogmas are poison to a magician.
>
> As Paracelsus said, it's the Dose that makes the poison. No dogma at
> all, no doctrine, you end up wihtou t the trellis you need to grow.
A trellis is an artificial structure. You don't really need it to grow.
It's just that the neighbors think it looks more like theirs and, for most
neighbors, the more similar you appear the better they like it.
> I'm not saying all of it is good, or to accept things at face value,
> but too many people today reject all dogma, uhm, dogmatically, without
> bothering to analyze it for content.
Actually very few people reject dogma due to underanalysis of it.
Dogmatists usually resent having their beliefs subjected to skeptical
inquiry, so they much prefer that you accept it without any question at all.
>> The trick is how one decides what's "appropriate". Opinions differ on
>> that.
>
> I like mine, they seem to work for me.
Everybody likes theirs, until it has been brought home in a dramatic way
that they're really not much good at judging. This experience is much less
common than it should be.
>> Now, Chogyam Trungpa says that ego is the illusion of constancy of
>> consciousness between one moment and the next, much as we see an illusion
>> of
>> motion when we see a rapidly changing set of progressive still photos, as
>> we
>> do in movies. He says that all inappropriate attention to the ego arises
>> from that basic misapprehension.
>
> I'd give it more credence if I could differentiate between moments.
Well, how do you differentiate between the frames of a movie you're
watching?
> How much time passes between a moment, exactly?
Time does not pass between moments. Consider a mathematical point, which is
defined as a dimensionless location. How much distance is there between one
point on a line and the next one?
> Last I heard, the smallest amount of time we could
> be aware of was a thirtieth of a second, and then someone proved that
> adrenaline expands that, making it "seem" longer.
We must be clear about the fact that our conscious experience does not
incorporate the totality of any event. We always miss a lot more than we
get. How things feel to us is not always a good guide to how things really
are. This is especially true of very subtle things.
Rufus Opus
On Jun 28, 12:33 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> All dogmas are poison to a magician.
>
> > As Paracelsus said, it's the Dose that makes the poison. No dogma at
> > all, no doctrine, you end up wihtou t the trellis you need to grow.
>
> A trellis is an artificial structure. You don't really need it to grow.
> It's just that the neighbors think it looks more like theirs and, for most
> neighbors, the more similar you appear the better they like it.
Right, in a way. I shouldn't have said no trellis, no growth. There's
always growth, whether controlled or uncontrolled, but the trellis
provides a structure representing your own influence on the way the
plant grows. Dogma works the same way, it guides the growth ina way
that you want it to.
> Actually very few people reject dogma due to underanalysis of it.
> Dogmatists usually resent having their beliefs subjected to skeptical
> inquiry, so they much prefer that you accept it without any question at all.
I think people have the right to be offended by skeptical inquiry.
Skeptics aren't looking with an open mind, they are looking with the
intent to disprove. Truye Believers get valid comfort from their
dogma, and a skeptic who asks questions with a pre-determined lack of
belief isn't going to believe what they see if it doesn't fit int
their own beliefs. It's a waste of the dogmatists' time and energy to
even participate.
> Well, how do you differentiate between the frames of a movie you're
> watching?
I don't. Movie frame rates are engineered to be unnoticed in regular
viewing environments.
> > How much time passes between a moment, exactly?
>
> Time does not pass between moments. Consider a mathematical point, which is
> defined as a dimensionless location. How much distance is there between one
> point on a line and the next one?
There are no points "on" a line, there are only arbitrarily assigned
locations being observed. To observe you have to have a perspective
relative to the line and you need to be able to assign one point as a
reference. Once you do that, it's up to you which location you want to
observe next, so the distance is relative. Until two points
(locations) on the line are defined, there is no distance between
them.
> We must be clear about the fact that our conscious experience does not
> incorporate the totality of any event. We always miss a lot more than we
> get. How things feel to us is not always a good guide to how things really
> are. This is especially true of very subtle things.
I'm a pragmatist though, and once I stop getting meaningful return on
my investment, I stop investing. The investigation into the boundaries
of consciousness an be enlightening, but they can also wquickly turn
into a waste of time.
R.O.
quintal
yup, a symptom as I said.
I disagree.
>No one ever listens.
Tom
>I lost an entire post when my browser crashed.Your getting a synopsis.
>
> On Jun 28, 12:33 pm, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> All dogmas are poison to a magician.
>>
>> > As Paracelsus said, it's the Dose that makes the poison. No dogma at
>> > all, no doctrine, you end up wihtou t the trellis you need to grow.
>>
>> A trellis is an artificial structure. You don't really need it to grow.
>> It's just that the neighbors think it looks more like theirs and, for
>> most
>> neighbors, the more similar you appear the better they like it.
>
> Right, in a way. I shouldn't have said no trellis, no growth. There's
> always growth, whether controlled or uncontrolled, but the trellis
> provides a structure representing your own influence on the way the
> plant grows. Dogma works the same way, it guides the growth ina way
> that you want it to.
Hopefully, anyway. When I think back to my beginnings on the path of
magick, it's clear that I had no idea how it would progress and my ideas
about the outcome were quite naive. The structure cannot precede the
growth, but must continually adapt itself to the moment. A magician's
greatest asset is the flexibility of his or her beliefs.
>> Actually very few people reject dogma due to underanalysis of it.
>> Dogmatists usually resent having their beliefs subjected to skeptical
>> inquiry, so they much prefer that you accept it without any question at
>> all.
>
> I think people have the right to be offended by skeptical inquiry.
> Skeptics aren't looking with an open mind, they are looking with the
> intent to disprove.
You completely misunderstand skepticism as a philosophy. It has nothing to
do with disproving anything.
I'm not talking about the moronic prejudices of unexamined materialism that
are often fobbed off as "skepticism", but real skepticism, as elucidated by
Pyrrho and others..
"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they
find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they
continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I
think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have
asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching.
Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so
called — for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics,
and certain others. The followers of Clitomachus and Carneades, as well as
other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics
[skeptikoi] continue to search." -- Sextus Empiricus
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/
>> Well, how do you differentiate between the frames of a movie you're
>> watching?
>
> I don't. Movie frame rates are engineered to be unnoticed in regular
> viewing environments.
You don't or you can't?
>> > How much time passes between a moment, exactly?
>>
>> Time does not pass between moments. Consider a mathematical point, which
>> is
>> defined as a dimensionless location. How much distance is there between
>> one
>> point on a line and the next one?
>
> There are no points "on" a line, there are only arbitrarily assigned
> locations being observed.
Just so. There are no moments either. There are simply arbitrarily
identified items of remembered experience. Therefore, just as you cannot
say how much distance there is between one point and the next, you also
cannot say how much time passes between one moment and the next.
>> We must be clear about the fact that our conscious experience does not
>> incorporate the totality of any event. We always miss a lot more than we
>> get. How things feel to us is not always a good guide to how things
>> really
>> are. This is especially true of very subtle things.
>
> I'm a pragmatist though, and once I stop getting meaningful return on
> my investment, I stop investing.
Define "meaningful". Might some event seem meaningless at first glance but
then unfold into profound meaningfuilness upon reflection? At what point
should one decide that some event is meaningless and therefore worthy of
rejection?
> The investigation into the boundaries
> of consciousness an be enlightening, but they can also wquickly turn
> into a waste of time.
The study of magick is itself a leisure time activity. It's not for
pragmatists or folks looking for easy answers in a hurry. It's for folks
who are patient enough to realize that sometimes discoveries of worth take a
lot of time and effort.
seon ferguson
"Diana BB" <dia...@sapphire.com> wrote in message
news:OoGgi.49$4A1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Ah now that is more rational then the "he was the son of God who died for
our sins" I'm guessing your a Gnostic, right?
Diana BB
Sorry for the late reply. My Dad is in final stage Leukemia and has just
had another illness that threatened to finish him.He rallied though and
we get to have for a little longer. Thank God.
I dont think I have a title. I dont fit any mold.My Mother thinks I am a
heretic. I am happy with that title I guess.
What I did do was to question everything I had been taught from birth
about God and Jesus....and I mean everything. I read the bible all over
again..this time taking it as it was written and not what the church
told me.
I do believe Jesus came from God...not through any virgin birth....that
is a pagan belief that goes back a long way before Jesus....three wise
men and all!
I dont believe Jesus was any kind of sacrifice. God said over and over
that He required no such thing.Doesnt make sense that He then sends His
Son to be just that.
He was a messenger who had the thoughts of God in his head in a way we
cannot begin to understand, Was he an angel? I dont know for sure but my
study does indicate that he may well have been.
He was the WORD of God no matter who or what he was. He lived and
breathed Gods word.His teachings were to unburden us from the guilt the
ministers of God had heaped upon us.
And if you read what he was purported to have taught it should have done
just that. And it still can if you ignore Pauls attempt to explain what
God and Jesus wanted.
Was Jesus the Christ they were all waiting for? Well that depends on
whether the idea of a Messiah was a promise from God. Jesus didnt seem
to think he was anything more than a messenger....he didnt even claim to
be a prophet.
And if the verses used to prove Jesus did say he was God are to be
trusted then we are ALL God.
quintal
wrote:
ok so you believe in the bible.
why not... but others don't.
Diana BB
Christianity you have to at least READ the bible.And I wouldnt say I
believe all the bible either.There is a lot of rewritten and misleading
works there. It takes a long time to be able to identify them and sort
the wheat from the chaff...to use a biblical metaphor.
quintal
wrote:
I don't know.
Reading it maybe, but taking it as the source for truth I do not think
so.
I wouldnt call that christ-ianity but rather bible-anity.
The bible was made by the church (the priesthood, arguably the Roman
one), not by Jesus.
Therefore the bible isnt a good account of who jesus was, if he ever
was. Nor of his message, if he ever existed.
I mean, if I was after "christianity", defining the word as "the life
and teachings of jesus christ" (was he ever named that way during his
life, if he ever lived?), I would go for accounts of the time he is
supposed to have lived. There were a bunch of religious people and
things written in the area at the time.
Maybe the result would be "well there is no historical basis for the
belief in the life of one called jesus the christ". Maybe this search
would lead to an understanding of religions of the time.
Maybe the conclusion would be "why one earth would I set my eyes on
that particular land, at that particular time, when looking for god?"
(and who told me to?)
>And I wouldnt say I
>believe all the bible either.There is a lot of rewritten and misleading
>works there. It takes a long time to be able to identify them and sort
>the wheat from the chaff...to use a biblical metaphor.
yeah i like those metaphors too, most of them are sound.
I personally cant stomach the bible's incoherence and the fact that it
is full of negative things and lacking in many areas. That's not my
idea of sacred texts. At the very least it's got to be coherent
(cogent as a construct, it has to be balanced and look like a decent
representation of the great whole).
Every time I had a try at reading the bible I felt that book was so
obscured that it would take a big effort to try to sort the wheat frm
the chaff... for little result anyway, while running the risk of
getting tainted.
I have met a tremendous bible scholar though, who showed me one could
find some grounded truth therein. The guy was a figure;-)
I think he is a rabbi from 2000 years ago, he sure looks like one
anyway.
what I mean by this reply to you is that I believe there is some
christianity that is worthwhile and has existed before the creation of
the catholic church. In fact it is this real original christianity
that was shadowed by the so called christian church, a bit like you
said about paul. But I wouldnt take the bible as a source of enquiry
into that original christianity, at least not at first sight.
Truth...@theworldfulloflies.x
single prophecy of the Bible has failed to come true. The most notable
prophecy that came true is the reemergence of the Jewish homeland --
Israel. This was prophesied more than 1,500 years ago! The satanic liars
who made this crap will never ever tell you this! Each and every prophecy
of the Bible has been coming true. The satanic liars who made this crap
could never deny this! And the most important prophecy of all, the return
of Jesus Christ, will come true as well. Therefore, genuine Christianity is
the only real religion.