Only Jove G'nows - errata and pending additions

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
A second viewing made me realize that I had erred in editing Jerry's having stated that Jupiter was the inheritor merely of the Earth, as opposed to the whole Abrasax empire, which is what I changed it to. I did not notice it being clarified in the movie as to why Jupiter was only limited to this as the genetic 'recurrence' of the Abrasax sibling's mother, so I guess we must assume that the Earth was all that the mother had originally been entitled to, as perhaps the prior inheritance split from her husband?

This explains why Kalique didn't feel so threatened by Jupiter, while Titus and Balem both desired to respectively attain or re-attain Earth for its exceedingly rich and immanent 'harvest'.

Balem’s strategy is to kill Jupiter and absorb her DNA; Titus wants to marry her; and Calique just wants to be her friend.

This needs to be corrected as Titus wanted to marry Jupiter and then kill her so as to become titled to Earth that had previously been inherited by Balem, while Balem tried to coerce Jupiter by kidnapping her kin and threatening to render then.

Also of note was that Jupiter was schooled by Caine that while the majority of the population was literally witness to many violent and other interventions of the Abrasax and their minions that most of them would not register these things [either by their pre-existing contextual frameworks or via other means], while the few who did would be ignored [through marginalization and such].

Also, Jupiter learns that human societies on Earth and elsewhere are organized in a pyramid fashion, with the Abrasax at the very top. Of course, here the image of a pyramid with either its missing cap or the all-seeing-eye becomes apropos with the Abrasax remaining literally out of view of the various crops of humans spread throughout the universe.

This paradigm is also consistent with the Postflavian schema that posits that most all Earthly human communities, especially the Abramic ones, are part of this pyramid structure. As such, we posit that those who claim that such as Masonry and Satanism are THE problem as opposed to those faithful 'of the book' are on a Fool's Errand. It is all part of one cynical and delusional package. Unfortunately, too many atheists and agnostics irrationally feel all this is merely benign and anachronistic superstition. In reality it is very sophisticated psychological manipulation - aka shepherding of humans.

With Jupiter and Caine returning happily ever after, presumably(?), to Earth, one is also left with the question of what their attitude is to the fate of the other Abrasax enterprise human communities throughout the universe is. Perhaps grist for a sequel? Not likely from the box office receipts.

But here, it is also interesting to note that the movie got its worst reception in the USA, where of course the critics have panned it, mostly for its 'entertainment' value, apparently from script shortcomings and such as apparent failure to satisfy certain sci-fi genre expectations.

Despite a disappointing North America debut the film opened in the top spot overseas, earning a solid $32.5 million playing in theatres of 65 markets in other territories.
Address : <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Ascending>

But we assert that the real message of Jupiter Ascending was missed by most all, except for Neil Hague and maybe some others at least, either because of the respective reviewers' internal or external filters did not allow for such dissonance.

Also, we did not discuss in the review that the Abrasax sibling rivalry also seems to be reflected in how much of real Earthly affairs are managed by the hidden hand of the elite shepherds. While they use identical modus operandi and co-operate on one level there are yet occasional family feuds over turf.
 

Marc Jantzen

New Member
The reason Jupiter only can claim earth is that is the only planet the deceased queen left to her genetic doppelganger, in her will, because it was her favourite (I wonder if the queen seeded her genetic code on earth for that reason - as Jupiter is found there) . The rest is divided among the three siblings.
All mentioned to Jupiter in the scenes with Kalique and Jupiter.
 

Marc Jantzen

New Member
In relation to the references made, it was Erik Von Daniken who has the ancient astronauts theory with his book "Chariots of the gods", Zacharia Sitchin made the claim Ancient Sumerian empire was ruled by Reptilian entities and David Icke just reiterated Sitchin and made claim our current Royal families are the Shape-shifting descendants of the Sumerian rulers (of which I think is an allegory for the way these families change with time but still rule through a reptilian snake like way). Also the star wars reference should read "Galaxy" not universe.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The reason Jupiter only can claim earth is that is the only planet the deceased queen left to her genetic doppelganger, in her will, because it was her favourite (I wonder if the queen seeded her genetic code on earth for that reason - as Jupiter is found there) . The rest is divided among the three siblings.
All mentioned to Jupiter in the scenes with Kalique and Jupiter.
Thanks Marc. I went and saw the movie a second time, specifically to clear up such confusion, and still managed to miss (or retain?) that point. It appears that time is catching up with me.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In relation to the references made, it was Erik Von Daniken who has the ancient astronauts theory with his book "Chariots of the gods", Zacharia Sitchin made the claim Ancient Sumerian empire was ruled by Reptilian entities and David Icke just reiterated Sitchin and made claim our current Royal families are the Shape-shifting descendants of the Sumerian rulers (of which I think is an allegory for the way these families change with time but still rule through a reptilian snake like way). Also the star wars reference should read "Galaxy" not universe.
You are correct about Von Daniken, however the central theme to Sitchin's work (at least from his earliest works which I have) revolved around alien humanoids who lived on what is termed 'Planet X' which is in our solar system, only with a ~3,600 year highly elliptical orbit (which would require that it be a captured 'rogue' or wandering planet (which is known to exist). Sitchin derived this from the Sumerian legend of the cosmic battle between Tiamat and what was once the combined Earth and Moon, i.e. a collision, from which the Earth is still geologically recovering via tectonic plate shifts. And that the same legends describe these Anannuki as genetically creating humankind specifically to become their slaves. It all seems to make a nice fit with the biblical legends as well with such as the Fallen Angels, etc..

Separately, there is a man who makes a claim the Sun has a dark, red dwarf twin, that might explain the real reason for the Precession of the Equinoxes, that might be related to all of that. Most stars in the universe have binary mates, a few even more, such as the 3 stars of Sirius.

I don't remember Sitchin having originated the Reptilian theme, but do remember Icke saying that he learned of the concept from some anonymous member of the British royal household. It has a history going back to at least the Angevin's I believe where one of them claimed that he looked through a keyhole and observed his wife transform into a reptile. Maybe he just wanted to get rid of her? In any case, I think you're absolutely right about it all being an allegory, just as you describe.

I have to take responsibility for the Galaxy gaff, as Jerry got it right as well.

BTW, last night I just came across yet another aspect of Jupiter that needs some more investigation, as relates to both Judaism, Christianity, and ancient astrology. It seems that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained two astrological horoscopes, which belies the claim that astrology was not practiced by the Jews till much later. We are also told that the Essenes (of which supposedly the DSS belonged to) were very proud of their Judaic purity (whatever that really was at the time). In any case, it seems that Jupiter (or Jove) was in a very important part of the sky in -6 BCE, a commonly accepted time for the birth of Jesus, along with other 'auspicious' astronomic aspects. That Jupiter might be seen as the star of the Nativity (as being claimed by an astronomer) would put a whole new spin on things, yet consistent with my and others claims that Jo-ve and Yah-veh are one and the same. Part of the deception that we are dealing with opposing parties, when in reality they are one big, so to speak, family.

Regards and thanks again
 

Marc Jantzen

New Member
You are correct about Von Daniken, however the central theme to Sitchin's work (at least from his earliest works which I have) revolved around alien humanoids who lived on what is termed 'Planet X' which is in our solar system, only with a ~3,600 year highly elliptical orbit (which would require that it be a captured 'rogue' or wandering planet (which is known to exist). Sitchin derived this from the Sumerian legend of the cosmic battle between Tiamat and what was once the combined Earth and Moon, i.e. a collision, from which the Earth is still geologically recovering via tectonic plate shifts. And that the same legends describe these Anannuki as genetically creating humankind specifically to become their slaves. It all seems to make a nice fit with the biblical legends as well with such as the Fallen Angels, etc..

Separately, there is a man who makes a claim the Sun has a dark, red dwarf twin, that might explain the real reason for the Precession of the Equinoxes, that might be related to all of that. Most stars in the universe have binary mates, a few even more, such as the 3 stars of Sirius.

I don't remember Sitchin having originated the Reptilian theme, but do remember Icke saying that he learned of the concept from some anonymous member of the British royal household. It has a history going back to at least the Angevin's I believe where one of them claimed that he looked through a keyhole and observed his wife transform into a reptile. Maybe he just wanted to get rid of her? In any case, I think you're absolutely right about it all being an allegory, just as you describe.

I have to take responsibility for the Galaxy gaff, as Jerry got it right as well.

BTW, last night I just came across yet another aspect of Jupiter that needs some more investigation, as relates to both Judaism, Christianity, and ancient astrology. It seems that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained two astrological horoscopes, which belies the claim that astrology was not practiced by the Jews till much later. We are also told that the Essenes (of which supposedly the DSS belonged to) were very proud of their Judaic purity (whatever that really was at the time). In any case, it seems that Jupiter (or Jove) was in a very important part of the sky in -6 BCE, a commonly accepted time for the birth of Jesus, along with other 'auspicious' astronomic aspects. That Jupiter might be seen as the star of the Nativity (as being claimed by an astronomer) would put a whole new spin on things, yet consistent with my and others claims that Jo-ve and Yah-veh are one and the same. Part of the deception that we are dealing with opposing parties, when in reality they are one big, so to speak, family.

Regards and thanks again
Thanks for that prompt reply.
Sitchin' theories seem quite plausible, I've not read his work (it is on my list) only that of those that have referenced it.
I can not subscribe to the Pangea theory as it makes no sense. I prefer the growing earth theory of which Neal Adams has made compelling videos.
In relation to the "Planet X" most of the research I've looked into seems to line up, indicating an outside body that, periodically, is disastrous for Earth and Humanity.
There is an interesting web page that is claiming planet "X" is actually a small Brown Dwarf system complete with planets. David Talbot has an interesting theory Earth was once part of the Saturnine system before being captured by the sun. In fact some of the proponents of the Electric Universe theory claim some of the gas giants are captured brown dwarf stars, either drained of or a feeding on their electrical energy.

I am intrigued by the two charts you mention found in DSS. Are they in "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross"? Or is there a complete translation somewhere? Was the reference in "Jupiter Ascending" at the beginning, by her father before he was killed? I need to see if the movie script is online to read? (lol) Thanks again for the stimulating articles.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Marc, I have not had time to locate the DSS horoscopes, they were briefly mentioned on a BBC / Discovery Channel produced program (an episode of either Greatest Secrets of the Bible, or Secrets of the Bible - both series almost impossible, so far, to get web info on) by the astronomer that was proclaiming Jupiter as the true star of the Nativity. BTW, Jupiter (the planet) was also apparently the planet of Ba'al for the Canaanites and similar.

Loren just linked the Binary Research Institute about the brown dwarf binary star in his recent comment on my latest cosmic 9/11 post.

Sitchin's works are very thought provoking, but let me warn you in advance, he is a rather difficult read -- lots of repetition and such. But maybe some of his latter material has improved from an editor or such?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Hi Marc,

I just incidentally ran the following book which covers a lot of converging topics surrounding our discussion. The Sitchin folks were quite excited that the Vatican (and NASA) were building a very high tech infrared telescope in Arizona, and the speculation was that they were indeed looking for evidence of Planet X (aka Nibiru) and related phenomenon. As can be seen by reading the prior text to what I excerpted, they seem to have been doing this generally and have made numerous pronouncements seemingly preparing the sheep for bigger things to come. You can read that all in Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, but I expect the book may be worth buying for its wider discussions.

upload_2015-4-10_14-6-58.png
 
C

Christian Hart

Guest
What is your take on the Prophecy of Mankind? Gen 2:4-25 Most people think it is a retelling of Gen 1 but it is not...it is a prophecy of the history of our world, showing when the messiah appears (4,000 or the 4th day and when the Sophia appears 6,000 or the 6th day aka now). This is where the idea of the Sophia (bride and I only believe there is one, everyone invited to a wedding isn't 'the bride' they are guests and witnesses) comes from...
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Christian, do you consider yourself a gnostic? My take, FWIW, is that this would be a late interpretation of the Genesis text whose original meaning was not prophecy, but rather a creation myth.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Hi Christian,

I don't quite comprehend where you're getting the time associations regarding the coming of the messiah and Sophia. It appears that you are associating a Genesis 'day' with a thousand years, but beyond this I am stumped.

That said, as a rationalist, generally speaking, I take all 'religious' prophecies as the literal 'scripts' of secular 'mankind', to achieve some earthly end - perhaps good or perhaps bad. Just as all the gods and goddesses were once humans raised, either during their lifetime or later, to the status of a deity, i.e. euhemerism. In this case, I believe there is good reason that the Bible has some interesting things to tell us, but one does indeed have to learn the proper means to interpret it. And to be careful what one asks for, as you just might get it.

Metaphorically speaking, at least, let's hope that Sophia indeed comes and corrects all the problems made by this god's supposed ultimate creation. The real problem is that all this spiritual gobbledygook is indeed merely a metaphor for someones' attempt to wean barbaric humanity from its barbarism, and that takes time to rid people of their superstitions, with a lot of ebbs and flows down blind alleys. For instance, member 'mika', an Ashkenazi 'Jew' in Israel wants us to take the Tanakh as highly accurate 'history so as to justify the Askenazi takeover of Palestine from real Semites living there for thousands of years. And sardonically, the Genesis genealogies don't support the Ashkenazi as being descended from Shem, the legal requirement for being a Jew, much less biblically a Semite. Ironically the Vedic genealogies do seem to support them being Semites, but here the Ashkenazi and the fake Aryans worldwide will have to acknowledge that the Jews and Semites originated in Havilah (India) and such as Kashmir, the best match for a real and literal Garden of Eden that was heavily mythologized - just like all the gods and goddesses.

Regards, Richard
 
C

Christian Hart

Guest
Christian, do you consider yourself a gnostic? My take, FWIW, is that this would be a late interpretation of the Genesis text whose original meaning was not prophecy, but rather a creation myth.
I have no idea whether I am Gnostic or not. I brush up against the teaching often but since there seem to be so many flavors of Gnosticism I have never gotten a feel for what it really is as a movement, also...I don't tend to fit well organizations as I am an Anarchist...so, if there is a centralized top down movement called Gnosticism then no...my pursuit is the Kingdom of God (and its people) and it alone is my sole interest in life.

Thanks for the input...I got here from a link on a page discussing Jupiter Ascending Movie and the underlying message within the script. Since I recognized many things in the script taken from the hidden things that I pursue in the Bible I was curious what you guys would make of Gen 2. It is very rare that I would ever be able to speak to anyone about hidden meanings or more esoteric things so I lobbed it up there to see a different perspective and to see what response I would get. For me, the Bible is resonant, beginning in the beginning and developing out in frequency into a larger and sign wave of meaning and depth but using the same basic pattern. But it starts 'in the beginning'...but that is only my take, my opinion...not something I need anyone to agree with. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

Christian Hart

Guest
Hi Christian,

I don't quite comprehend where you're getting the time associations regarding the coming of the messiah and Sophia. It appears that you are associating a Genesis 'day' with a thousand years, but beyond this I am stumped.

That said, as a rationalist, generally speaking, I take all 'religious' prophecies as the literal 'scripts' of secular 'mankind', to achieve some earthly end - perhaps good or perhaps bad. Just as all the gods and goddesses were once humans raised, either during their lifetime or later, to the status of a deity, i.e. euhemerism. In this case, I believe there is good reason that the Bible has some interesting things to tell us, but one does indeed have to learn the proper means to interpret it. And to be careful what one asks for, as you just might get it.

Metaphorically speaking, at least, let's hope that Sophia indeed comes and corrects all the problems made by this god's supposed ultimate creation. The real problem is that all this spiritual gobbledygook is indeed merely a metaphor for someones' attempt to wean barbaric humanity from its barbarism, and that takes time to rid people of their superstitions, with a lot of ebbs and flows down blind alleys. For instance, member 'mika', an Ashkenazi 'Jew' in Israel wants us to take the Tanakh as highly accurate 'history so as to justify the Askenazi takeover of Palestine from real Semites living there for thousands of years. And sardonically, the Genesis genealogies don't support the Ashkenazi as being descended from Shem, the legal requirement for being a Jew, much less biblically a Semite. Ironically the Vedic genealogies do seem to support them being Semites, but here the Ashkenazi and the fake Aryans worldwide will have to acknowledge that the Jews and Semites originated in Havilah (India) and such as Kashmir, the best match for a real and literal Garden of Eden that was heavily mythologized - just like all the gods and goddesses.

Regards, Richard
I have to go mow the lawn but I want to come back tonight and carefully (slowly) consider what you wrote...I just came in for a glass of water...thank you for taking the time to respond.
Sincerely Christian
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I forgot to say welcome to Postflaviana Christian,

As to Jerry's question regarding the 'gnostics', the most common thread is that they all believed in questioning everything, including the religious canon, for what the underlying truth of things are. For as Jesus says: "The truth shall set you free." As you might not have discovered yet, we here have a different understanding of who the canonic Jesus was, and that this statement is another insider joke, for one must come to fully appreciate the true context of what is going on there. In this regard then, the gnostics had a the sophisticated view, from reading the Jewish texts that became the Tanakh, that its 'God' had some serious, serious defects, and therefore there must be yet another , greater entity, lying behind this 'demiurge' we loosely call "god' today. Of course, even this was generally understood as a metaphor in itself, as why would either the textual god or the underlying god, if so loving as we like to believe, have created a system that has caused so much suffering. The standard reply is that this 'god' (whichever one you want to choose) has a mysterious plan to unfold for us, and that in the end all this suffering was a good thing. Ha, ha, ha.

As such, I 'believe' there may indeed be some incomprehensible hidden 'agency' responsible for all of 'creation', but like the Deists of yesteryear, 'it' had no regard for the level of suffering caused. In the end we have to figure out how to make it all work. Thus we have to become 'godlike' and stop waiting for 'George' or 'God' to do it, or reveal it to us.
 
C

Christian Hart

Guest
I forgot to say welcome to Postflaviana Christian,

As to Jerry's question regarding the 'gnostics', the most common thread is that they all believed in questioning everything, including the religious canon, for what the underlying truth of things are. For as Jesus says: "The truth shall set you free." As you might not have discovered yet, we here have a different understanding of who the canonic Jesus was, and that this statement is another insider joke, for one must come to fully appreciate the true context of what is going on there. In this regard then, the gnostics had a the sophisticated view, from reading the Jewish texts that became the Tanakh, that its 'God' had some serious, serious defects, and therefore there must be yet another , greater entity, lying behind this 'demiurge' we loosely call "god' today. Of course, even this was generally understood as a metaphor in itself, as why would either the textual god or the underlying god, if so loving as we like to believe, have created a system that has caused so much suffering. The standard reply is that this 'god' (whichever one you want to choose) has a mysterious plan to unfold for us, and that in the end all this suffering was a good thing. Ha, ha, ha.

As such, I 'believe' there may indeed be some incomprehensible hidden 'agency' responsible for all of 'creation', but like the Deists of yesteryear, 'it' had no regard for the level of suffering caused. In the end we have to figure out how to make it all work. Thus we have to become 'godlike' and stop waiting for 'George' or 'God' to do it, or reveal it to us.
Thanks...how interesting...I know where you and I deviate now. It is so interesting to me...I hope it is ok if I share...

I cannot find any fault with God. Indeed I love Him more than anything BUT I am completely aware that the text itself is the amalgamation of good and evil (decisions, decisions). I think of God (good) and then the false god's (evil). Both good and evil were given to us, which mankind has used to justify all manner of behaviors. I think it takes intense study to sort out the words of God from the false god's (a bit like separating the left lung from the right when they are breathing in unison). I would identify one as the elohist and the other as the Yahvist. Christ knew this, which is why he was always in trouble taunting the Pharisee's about 'their traditions' and 'their writings' (elohist insertions in the text).

We have a fundamental difference when it comes to believing that mankind can know 'good' or 'evil' to me that was a huge lie from the beginning. Our brains, no matter how complex cannot fathom the calculations and considerations implicitly required in knowing good from evil, this is something only God can do...the false god's like to pretend that they can but they are laughable. This hubris on their part is what will lead to their punishment...Enoch talks about this a bit.

I don't think that man can elevate himself outside of the obedience (not slavish to both good and evil but through intense study and parsing out the things you will build the 'record of you') I used to be an architect so to me the Bible text is the blueprint while the physical reality of what you build (your decisions) is your understanding of the text as it relates to life. Addendum's are required as you build. :) But the building is not the blueprint and vice versa. If you build a shitty piece of crap...where things are out of square and built out of crappy cheap material...that is going to be the 'record of you' eternally. Your 'name' so to speak.

Our true names (the things we are building) are the result of every action and deed we undertake...(they are very long) but woven into the fabric of reality like a single thread in a vast carpet. Today my name was mostly written about mowing, filling the gas tank, more mowing, taking a shower, online commentary, cooking dinner, online commentary...BUT I could have done anything today which would have made my 'name' different for the day and the world would have flowed around me adjusting and accommodating to my differing choices (I create!).

Anyhooo...hopefully you don't want to start up the inquisition and murder me for heresy like the Jesuits...hahaha (little bastards)

Thank you for the welcome...I am a bit bee like in nature flitting from subject to subject to get what I can and move on to whatever shiny thought bauble catches my eye next so hopefully our paths will cross again. :)
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
It is clear that we are indeed miles apart. I would suggest that you challenge yourself to examine things from a different (external) perspective, and then maybe your divine blueprint plan might appear completely different. You might want to try Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah for a start.

I used to be an engineer, and maybe you have a point about the Bible matching reality. As such, I really don't like the world that it, and all the other religions have delivered. As such, I think that you are like the person who mistakes a symbol for the thing it represents. There is a school of thought that some Jews, at least, understood all this nonsense correctly as a message that the vector of human spiritualism should ultimately move (correctly) towards atheism or such as Deism (animism > polytheism > henotheism > pagano-monotheism (the insane Trinity)> pure monotheism > ...). Here, your loving God, in Isaiah explicitly informs you that he is the divine architect or all that is good, .... and all that is evil.

It is correct because when you say that you created everything then you have to own the whole enchilada. But, you're now telling me that you, like all the other Bible thumpers know better than your God and that you have the power to parse all the words to make them fit what makes you comfortable. Anything that makes you uncomfortable can just be swept under the rug. You all have an easy answer for everything, like when a baby gets killed by a drunk driver. Oh, that evil Satan, and then all that contradicted by that your loving God just has a 'different Plan' for the little munchkin. Little Stevie gets a free pass to play eternal ping pong with God, while singing incredible songs of praise to God 24/7/365.25, aka Non-Stop.

Which agency gets credit for unbearable genetic diseases? God or Satan.

Faith, supposedly is the basis for religion, but unfortunately, the vast majority of Thumpers are so certain of the misunderstood political crap in their hokey book that they really have No Faith at all. Certainty implies Knowing, and is the Antihesis of Faith.

Thus we come to the paradox that I believe what your God is reputed to have said, while you, like most all other Thumpers don't. Because everyone wants to frame the context to makes themselves comfortable. This is why Jesus had no time for Greek pigs and got mad at barren fig trees, and ran his circus as a typical mystery cult of the day.

The Bible correctly explains that its true subtext is a global ambition in Isaiah and Romans, which the Romans (the Caesars) grafted themselves onto, merely restating Vergil's statement of global ambitions made for Augustus, the Prince of Peace. The 'Church Militant' claims that Christ will indeed be Victorius. Victory was a Roman goddess that stood 'victorius' atop a globe.

Your God and Satan are mere man made metaphors. Attributing things to Good and Evil is the easy way out of escaping the hard work achieving true understanding and betterment, such as science attempts to achieve. You are building your house on loose sand.

I'll bet you haven't performed the sacred barbeque in Leviticus, where God will bring his smoker, and then afterwards, in the afterglow of a great meal, he'll tell you that I'm right - just like he did with me. But, if he doesn't show up, it means that you either didn't prepare the meats correctly, or that its all a big joke on you.
 
C

Christian Hart

Guest
It is clear that we are indeed miles apart. I would suggest that you challenge yourself to examine things from a different (external) perspective, and then maybe your divine blueprint plan might appear completely different. You might want to try Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah for a start.

I used to be an engineer, and maybe you have a point about the Bible matching reality. As such, I really don't like the world that it, and all the other religions have delivered. As such, I think that you are like the person who mistakes a symbol for the thing it represents. There is a school of thought that some Jews, at least, understood all this nonsense correctly as a message that the vector of human spiritualism should ultimately move (correctly) towards atheism or such as Deism (animism > polytheism > henotheism > pagano-monotheism (the insane Trinity)> pure monotheism > ...). Here, your loving God, in Isaiah explicitly informs you that he is the divine architect or all that is good, .... and all that is evil.

It is correct because when you say that you created everything then you have to own the whole enchilada. But, you're now telling me that you, like all the other Bible thumpers know better than your God and that you have the power to parse all the words to make them fit what makes you comfortable. Anything that makes you uncomfortable can just be swept under the rug. You all have an easy answer for everything, like when a baby gets killed by a drunk driver. Oh, that evil Satan, and then all that contradicted by that your loving God just has a 'different Plan' for the little munchkin. Little Stevie gets a free pass to play eternal ping pong with God, while singing incredible songs of praise to God 24/7/365.25, aka Non-Stop.

Which agency gets credit for unbearable genetic diseases? God or Satan.

Faith, supposedly is the basis for religion, but unfortunately, the vast majority of Thumpers are so certain of the misunderstood political crap in their hokey book that they really have No Faith at all. Certainty implies Knowing, and is the Antihesis of Faith.

Thus we come to the paradox that I believe what your God is reputed to have said, while you, like most all other Thumpers don't. Because everyone wants to frame the context to makes themselves comfortable. This is why Jesus had no time for Greek pigs and got mad at barren fig trees, and ran his circus as a typical mystery cult of the day.

The Bible correctly explains that its true subtext is a global ambition in Isaiah and Romans, which the Romans (the Caesars) grafted themselves onto, merely restating Vergil's statement of global ambitions made for Augustus, the Prince of Peace. The 'Church Militant' claims that Christ will indeed be Victorius. Victory was a Roman goddess that stood 'victorius' atop a globe.

Your God and Satan are mere man made metaphors. Attributing things to Good and Evil is the easy way out of escaping the hard work achieving true understanding and betterment, such as science attempts to achieve. You are building your house on loose sand.

I'll bet you haven't performed the sacred barbeque in Leviticus, where God will bring his smoker, and then afterwards, in the afterglow of a great meal, he'll tell you that I'm right - just like he did with me. But, if he doesn't show up, it means that you either didn't prepare the meats correctly, or that its all a big joke on you.
LOL whoa Nelly,

I am not trying to convince you of anything...Anarchist remember...I was simply sharing that we have a difference (you told me what you think, I told you what I think...I thought it was mutual)...and it is not like I don't think you are right about some things (I followed a link to get here, remember so obviously I was interested in something) or that it is good to question (unless what you are implying is that I HAVE to agree with you...lol)...it is just that I trust and love God more than I need to 'understand everything' because it is not possible anyway and I certainly am not Pharisee (the children of the false god's) enough to think that I could be God. I know what is beyond humankind and it doesn't bother me. It is because you think you could or should understand good and evil (the lie again) that you rage against Him and can't just mellow into trust and peace (but again, your decision and I respect that is the perspective you wish to live by, and it is not my responsibility or concern).

I came, asked a question to see if you had anything to offer that would increase my knowledge base. I am satisfied with the answer and can move on. Don't make me sorry that I asked a simple question, know what I mean, jelly bean. I am also puzzled by the angry 'bible thumper' comment as I don't think that I implied that you needed to agree with me or that I ultimately cared enough to 'correct' you...your journey is not my journey and what a dull world it would be if that had to be the case. I am not looking for 'clones', just opinions or perspective because I find them interesting and thought that you might have something to offer.

Yikes, I probably said something here too that you may deem offensive but be ASSURED that it was not the intent I am simply seeking information that I find relevant to my understanding (not looking for a 'guided tour', if you know what I mean).

Sincerely Christian
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
You are the one bragging about your perfect little structures, not me. You asked your question and I politely gave my answer. Then you proceeded to display your typical ignorance in how you've chosen to build your Pollyannish worldview, converting your jealous, genocidal god into a 'modern' hero, like the good mind slave its all intended to make you. The best slave is one who insists that she's free, and you've chosen to be an 'A'narchist no less.

And all this developing out from the absurd premise that your propagandic holy 'history' book starts out with "In the Beginning". Well, you are an advanced human aren't you? Most of the rummies are simply impressed by the first word on the cover, 'Holy'. Damn, it must be true then. But you certainly have a leg up on them.

You are so delusional that you can't deal with the fact that your beloved god explicitly stated, correctly, that he is the author of of everything, all that is good and all that is evil. Or perhaps you only use one of those watered down translations where your god is 'your' best buddy.

So is your middle name 'Sacred'?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Christian & Richard,

Very interesting discussion. But, with my moderator hat on, I have to be concerned that the discussion is getting off track here. I'd like to remind you both of the following site policy:

2 - No personal attacks or abusive behavior

Each and every member on this forum has a right to be treated with dignity and respect. The following behavior is not acceptable:

- Personal attacks: Any insulting or abusive behavior that is directed at a specific person.
Not meaning to keep score here, and I may have missed something, but I think Christian was off color with this remark:

Anyhooo...hopefully you don't want to start up the inquisition and murder me for heresy like the Jesuits...hahaha (little bastards)
Which perhaps Richard would rightly take as an insinuation that he is some sort of intolerant murderer, like a Spanish Inquisitor. To which Richard replied by calling Christian a "Bible Thumper" -- which Christian took as a comparison to an intolerant evangelical fundamentalist, of the sort you would find pamphleting at the airport. Christian does not seem like that sort of person to me, she seems to have a rather unusual perspective on the Bible, which I would indeed consider a Gnostic as well as Jeffersonian viewpoint.

Christian came back, perhaps trying to smooth things over, but calling Richard a "jelly bean". Perhaps a little condescending?

Then Richard says Christian is ignorant, pollyannish, and delusional. This is pretty clearly an escalation of the personal attacks.

I do hope that the conversation can return to a more courteous level, consistent with the site policy.

Having said that, I'm a little confused at Christian's message. On the one hand, she claims that our brains cannot fathom good or evil. On the other hand, she suggests that someone might make a "shitty piece of crap" out of their life, based on their decisions and perhaps their failure to intensely study and parse things out as Christian recommends. Can it be that the idea of "good and evil", having been rejected from primary consciousness, is returning through the back door?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
To follow up on a couple items from Richard --

I take all 'religious' prophecies as the literal 'scripts' of secular 'mankind', to achieve some earthly end - perhaps good or perhaps bad. Just as all the gods and goddesses were once humans raised, either during their lifetime or later, to the status of a deity, i.e. euhemerism.
Isn't it possible that some deities were originally stars, or trees, or rocks, or just imaginary spirits? At this remote time, I don't see how we can know, at least in some cases. And similarly, it might well be that most prophecies are written under the aegis of some elite oligarchs with an agenda: especially Biblical ones of suspect provenance.

But, sometimes perhaps a prophecy is just a prophecy.

And all this developing out from the absurd premise that your propagandic holy 'history' book starts out with "In the Beginning".
What's absurd about this premise? Genesis 1 does start out "in the beginning". Which was my original point, that Genesis is a creation myth, not a prophecy.

Christian is trying to make it into a prophecy, and perhaps that's just her own idea, or she heard it from somebody who is just another person on the bus. Maybe there's no elite oligarchy behind this, at least not directly.
 
Top