Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Printable Version
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? (/thread-53191.html)
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? (/thread-53191.html)
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - TooFineAPoint - 03-29-2016
Quote: (03-28-2016 08:46 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:
Re: Bowie
Fitting in with these theme, '95 album 'Outside' is about the ritualistic occult art murder of a young girl.
His best work since Scary Monsters, in my opinion.
When I was a young teen, my church group decided to show us a documentary series called Hells Bells. It was about all the backmasking and satanic influence in 60s-80s rock music.
I didn't know much about those musicians at the time (Beatles, Stones, Doors, Zeppelin, AC/DC, etc). But after that I fell in love. Not with the satanic shit, just with the tunes.
I'm not sure that was what the pastor had in mind!
Anyway, in the modern world, the devil seems to make better music.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Killer Joe - 03-29-2016
I found a very interesting comment under Roosh's article:
Quote:Quote:
Let's use Occam's razor and common sense to elucidate the far more likely (and simpler) reasons most actors stay in line and espouse leftist ideologies.
1) Movies cost a ton and are profit driven enterprises. Investors and producers don't simply put hundreds of millions on the line for someone because of his or her d sucking skills (even if that's how some non-zero percentage get their start). Who are investors going to risk their money on? Someone hot headed and prone to disputes or someone who delivers efficiently and works well with people to keep the production moving on budget?
2) Acting is a social industry. You need to work with directors, producers and other actors on a daily basis. If you're a contentious douche bag, you won't get invited back unless you are so good or already so famous producers are forced to overlook it (e.g. Christian Bale). Pleasantness is directly and indirectly selected for in a darwinian fashion at every echelon of the game, it doesn't mean you have to literally suck everyone's d all the time but figuratively speaking, yes.
3) Artists are inherently more likely to be liberal/empathetic in part because the work by nature requires you to be in touch with your emotions. Gay men naturally flock to acting, and it's understandable if they have tried to keep their sexuality unknown so they could play a wider variety of rolls (e.g. Kevin Spacey). The straight actors have gay friends and are hence more likely to be supportive of gay rights. It's not a mystery that creative people tend to be more open minded, drug using and liberal...attributing this to the hollywood overlords is comically misguided.
4) Financially successful East and West coast people are widely Democrat/liberal. They have tons of money and success (and sometimes guilt) so they feel compelled to give back on a public stage. Altruism and empathy are universally attractive. It's a far simpler and more likely reason that Dicaprio diverting the attention away from himself during his acceptance speech to a "greater cause" has so many other possible personal motivations that even suspecting the primary one is his liberal Hollywood puppet masters is deeply paranoid.
Coming from a guy who was just passionately shaming the media for slandering him on misinformation, this article mentioning specific names with dubious hearsay and paltry hard evidence is quite the hypocrisy.
tl;dr: Hollywood's liberal ideology is not a conspiracy-enforced narrative but is caused by far more simple reasons.
Maybe we're extending too far with conspiracy talk, or maybe some users are just trolling, at this point I'm not really sure.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Orion - 03-29-2016
There has been so much said in this thread that quoting everybody would take whole page:
1) Putting all esoteric teachings in one basket and applying them a common label (usually as anti-christian) is charlatanism. Particularly because the level of stigma and demonization of them stems from pretty much protestant/Calvinist/baptist theology. Ok, i can't say that these teachings aren't opposed to Christianity, but there is a slight difference in tone between "false" and "satanic.
Baptist preachers are particularly prone to labeling everything that breathes as satanic, demonic and work of Satan, which is pretty base.
Take for example teachings of Hermes. Many early Christian and Islamic scholars considered him a prophet and wise man.
2) Obsession with geometric shapes is becoming plain ridiculous. Which one is satanic, triangle, circle, hexagon or cube ?
3) While there is no doubt that ancient teachings survived, are being studied and even practiced today, there should be an established and carefully investigated connection between them and whatever modern ritual and practices. Particularly when it comes to Greek, Roman or any other pantheons. First and foremost: To ancient people it wasn't' all hocus-pocus. There was a natural, intimate and realistic relationship with divine for ancient peoples. Remember, they didn't have "theories". They didn't have relativity, or computer, or Wikipedia, or any abstract thought on picture whatsoever. To an ancient man, Saturn was there, he either saw it with his own eyes, or he didn't know about it. He couldn't just read about it and take that abstract explanation for granted. So for an ancient man, Saturn was more than just an object of abstract theory. It was a living planet and for him, a living god was thought to be identified with it. It was out there in the sky !
Charlatan applications of ancient theology therefore, to modern mindset trained from birth only to think in abstract without any direct observations, calculations and experiences is a recepy for getting it wrong.
4) How everyone concludes that natural way to establishing unity between sexes is hermaphroditism, without anyone ever coming up with idea of sexual intercourse ?
5) On what basis do we conclude that modern esoteric cults/fraternities/satan worshipers/whatever are genuine anymore ? What makes you think any masonic lodge today possess any of knowledge they claim to be harboring ? If they even perform certain rituals correctly, what guarantees in today's century of dissolution, that they have any knowledge of their true meaning or significance ? Maybe today's masons are posing masons, who are simulating masonry. Same goes for Illuminati. That could explain many things, from how did their membership come to include so many profane individuals and disproportionate number of certain professions (particularly socially highly ranked ones), to how did so many of supposedly secret aspects of their practice reach day of light for everyone to see. I think that many of leaks are genuine, and many of them discover that they indeed engage into hocus-pocus to which it is questionable to they have any understanding of it.
6) Sabbath is not Saturday. We don't know what day is Saturday, or any other day. Sabbath is identified with Saturday, and we assume that Saturday is 6th/7th day. But no one knows which day is which one. We work 6 days and rest the 7th, but exact order of days is not known to anybody. Our naming of days of the week and the week itself is practical invention.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - storm - 03-31-2016
Today I met with my trt doctor and he (unsolicited) brought up the topic of satanic rituals in Hollywood.
It is not just you guys who are noticing this.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Clockwerk - 03-31-2016
No Justin Bieber fan asked for occult symbolism in his videos and no parent of said fan asked for it either. No Katy Perry fan nor Miley Cyrus fan, nor Kesha fan nor Beyonce fan nor Rihanna fan ever explicitly asked to be bombarded with the occult. The thing with this theory is that you can't take it piecemeal; if you accept a part of it, then by extension you have to take it as far as the rabbit hole goes: that we live in a Truman Show-like reality.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 03-31-2016
Quote: (03-29-2016 10:54 AM)Orion Wrote:
1) Putting all esoteric teachings in one basket and applying them a common label (usually as anti-christian) is charlatanism.
You assume that so called esoterism (western) isn't a single system, yet I'd challenge you to explain what it is if it is not. "Esoteric" simply means hidden. If you know of another system of hidden knowledge, then enlighten us. However, I hold that the only esoteric system in the West is Kabbalism buttressed by neo-Egyptian mythology. What other system are you referring to? Imagining one doesn't count.
Quote:Quote:
Particularly because the level of stigma and demonization of them stems from pretty much protestant/Calvinist/baptist theology.
Can you give a compelling reason why this system should not be stigmatized? Can you even tell me what this system is? Catholicism, while tainted with it, has been anti-Freemasonry for centuries. The entirety of mainstream Christianity, with the exception of newer cults, has stigmitzed it and for good reason that it is the opposite of what traditional Christianity teaches.
Quote:Quote:
Ok, i can't say that these teachings aren't opposed to Christianity, but there is a slight difference in tone between "false" and "satanic.
Why not call it what it is; to avoid hurting feelings? It is literally satanic/luciferian. That's it's literal belief system. Calling it satanic is not going overbaord. It's hitting the descriptive target in the precise center.
Quote:Quote:
Baptist preachers are particularly prone to labeling everything that breathes as satanic, demonic and work of Satan, which is pretty base.
Hyperbole aside, when they label this system as Satanic they are being correctly literal.
Quote:Quote:
Take for example teachings of Hermes. Many early Christian and Islamic scholars considered him a prophet and wise man.
Appeals to authority aren't convincing. Second, fuck Islamic scholars. Islamism isn't dissociated from western esoterism at its foundation. It's an evil and stupid religion for third world barbarians. Third, "early Christian scholars" included every type of theorist under the sun. Do you know anything about the first few hundred years of the Church in the Patristic period? There was little agreement and subversives were rampant.
Quote:Quote:
First and foremost: To ancient people it wasn't' all hocus-pocus. There was a natural, intimate and realistic relationship with divine for ancient peoples. Remember, they didn't have "theories". They didn't have relativity, or computer, or Wikipedia, or any abstract thought on picture whatsoever. To an ancient man, Saturn was there, he either saw it with his own eyes, or he didn't know about it. He couldn't just read about it and take that abstract explanation for granted. So for an ancient man, Saturn was more than just an object of abstract theory. It was a living planet and for him, a living god was thought to be identified with it. It was out there in the sky !
Ah, yes, the noble savage.
Quote:Quote:
Charlatan applications of ancient theology therefore, to modern mindset trained from birth only to think in abstract without any direct observations, calculations and experiences is a recepy for getting it wrong.
What, specifically, is wrong?
Quote:Quote:
4) How everyone concludes that natural way to establishing unity between sexes is hermaphroditism, without anyone ever coming up with idea of sexual intercourse ?
What?
Quote:Quote:
If they even perform certain rituals correctly, what guarantees in today's century of dissolution, that they have any knowledge of their true meaning or significance ?
Books. Also, are you proposing that they take initiates through thirty plus degrees of further intitiation without knowing what any of it means?
Quote:Quote:
Maybe today's masons are posing masons, who are simulating masonry.
And maybe the moon is made of cheese. What's the point of this?
Quote:Quote:
Same goes for Illuminati. That could explain many things, from how did their membership come to include so many profane individuals
How do you know what "their" (if they exist - I doubt it) membership contains?
Quote:Quote:
how did so many of supposedly secret aspects of their practice reach day of light for everyone to see.
How do you know what they know? I doubt anyone knows much of any of these group's rituals, supposed information / disinformation included. The best one can do is read primary sources to put the theology together. The rituals are fairly meaningless next to the belief system.
Quote:Quote:
I think that many of leaks are genuine, and many of them discover that they indeed engage into hocus-pocus to which it is questionable to they have any understanding of it.
On either count, how would you know?
Quote:Quote:
Sabbath is not Saturday. We don't know what day is Saturday, or any other day. Sabbath is identified with Saturday, and we assume that Saturday is 6th/7th day. But no one knows which day is which one. We work 6 days and rest the 7th, but exact order of days is not known to anybody. Our naming of days of the week and the week itself is practical invention.
While appreciating the attempt at critical thought, I think that you've over-thought this. The Sabbath, by biblical mythological definition, is the seventh day. Saturday is the seventh day and the Sabbath as verified by Orthodox Jewish belief and observation. If you believe that they would observe a different day than the Sabbath, then you are mistaken. Keep in mind that they are the arbiters of the esoterism that you mention. Are you proposing that Sunday is the Sabbath? I'm open to reading about your further justification. However, I think that for anyone to accept your proposal that you need to provide an alternative orientation justification for the days of the week. Astrological, biblical, whatever.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 03-31-2016
Quote: (03-28-2016 11:26 PM)theoogabear Wrote:
I'm not convinced the bohemian grove is really anything more than what they told me. It really is the meeting of the most powerful men in the country, but they just party. That's it.
On top of this, my grandpa left the bohemian grove with bridges burning and he became MORE successful. My uncle's career trajectory stayed more or less the same with him leaving.
I really think this is just a club similar to that club Frasier and Niles Crane wanted to get into. A place were men just sit around and meditate on how much better they are than other people who aren't in the club.
This would be my suspicion as well. The constant BS about it alone is enough for me to doubt that it is anything but a party. Don't think for a second that anything legitimate is hyped as much as Bohemian Grove is.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Clockwerk - 03-31-2016
This would be my suspicion as well. The constant BS about it alone is enough for me to doubt that it is anything but a party. Don't think for a second that anything legitimate is hyped as much as Bohemian Grove is.
[/quote]
So how do you square video evidence of a mock human sacrifice with that? And the pictures of world leaders in drag? The elevation of homosexuality and male prostitutes? These are leaders of people who, on average, find TAILGATE parties the most fun that they get. I really don't think Beltway Conservatives would be down with veneration of moloch and baphomet.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 04-01-2016
Quote: (03-31-2016 10:31 PM)Clockwerk Wrote:
This would be my suspicion as well. The constant BS about it alone is enough for me to doubt that it is anything but a party. Don't think for a second that anything legitimate is hyped as much as Bohemian Grove is.
Quote:Quote:
So how do you square video evidence of a mock human sacrifice with that? And the pictures of world leaders in drag? The elevation of homosexuality and male prostitutes? These are leaders of people who, on average, find TAILGATE parties the most fun that they get. I really don't think Beltway Conservatives would be down with veneration of moloch and baphomet.
Are you talking about those pictures earlier posted?
I learned a long time ago that pictures are generally evidence of nothing.
Everything that you mention could be LARPing for satirical purposes similar to any themed party. What is the evidence of the elevation of Homosexuality and the use of male prostitutes at Bohemian Grove? I'm ready to put stock in what you are saying should enough compelling evidence be presented, and I concede that I may have missed it in the thread. Though, assuming theoogabear's account is factual then how did his Grandfather and Uncle miss the sincere occult rituals of the party? Why were they invited?
I would guess that a lot of these guys are used to LARPing occult-ish ceremonies from Ivy fraternities and that anything done at this party, even if one off and for thematic party purpose, is elevated to the level of conspiracy by out-of-context photos. Really and in addition, I'm hard to convince that anything that Alex Jones attempts to infiltrate is a legitimate secret meeting. Maybe that's my bias, but it's one that probably works well most of the time.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - captain_shane - 04-01-2016
Esoteric knowledge isn't inherently evil at all and definitely not satanic. What these celebs and other people do, I don't have a clue to be honest. But I challenge anyone on here to find something evil with the teachings in this book.
The Kybalion
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Orion - 04-01-2016
Quote: (03-31-2016 09:55 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:
You assume that so called esoterism (western) isn't a single system, yet I'd challenge you to explain what it is if it is not. "Esoteric" simply means hidden. If you know of another system of hidden knowledge, then enlighten us. However, I hold that the only esoteric system in the West is Kabbalism buttressed by neo-Egyptian mythology. What other system are you referring to? Imagining one doesn't count.
Yes, hidden is one way to describe it, but not just hidden, but also "inner" as opposed to only outward expressions of religious systems in form of rituals and festivities. Esotericism refers to obscured part of religious teachings that are available only to those who are qualified to understand them,.
Quote:Quote:
Can you give a compelling reason why this system should not be stigmatized?
Actually it goes other way round. Burden of proof is on those who bring up accusations.
Quote:Quote:
Can you even tell me what this system is?
What system ? Esotericism ? It's a belief system.
Quote:Quote:
Catholicism, while tainted with it, has been anti-Freemasonry for centuries. The entirety of mainstream Christianity, with the exception of newer cults, has stigmitzed it and for good reason that it is the opposite of what traditional Christianity teaches.
I just gave you example of some scholars who didn't oppose it, but you just dismissed it easily. Actually, there are countless more examples, for example, even Buddha got included to be a Christian saint in form of St. Josaphat.
Quote:Quote:
It is literally satanic/luciferian.
According to a baptist preacher who preaches in a business suit. I get it.
Quote:Quote:
Calling it satanic is not going overbaord.
That is why it is very important to ask on which scale is it NOT going overboard ? On a scale of Catholic theology there is slight difference between lies, superstitions, delusions, and satanism. In Baptist theology, or Calvinist there is Calvinist and Satanist, and nothing in between. So if you are a Calvinist, to you it is satanism, but so is everything else.
Quote:Quote:
Hyperbole aside, when they label this system as Satanic they are being correctly literal.
What system ? You are using same label again.
Quote:Quote:
Appeals to authority aren't convincing.
What was that ? I merely noticed that ancient scholars had different opinions than modern scholars (Baptist preachers in business suits who preach in shopping malls)
Quote:Quote:
Second, fuck Islamic scholars.
Ok, lol.
Quote:Quote:
Third, "early Christian scholars" included every type of theorist under the
sun.
Ah, yes. Early Christians got it all wrong, so 400 years later (or even 1500 years later) couple of guys appeared who got it all right and correct. Give me a break.
Quote:Quote:
Do you know anything about the first few hundred years of the Church in the Patristic period? There was little agreement and subversives were rampant.
Couple of hundred years later, after centuries of institutionalization, they got it all right, without a trace of interference or error. Sure.
Quote:Quote:
Ah yes, Noble Savage
Yes, savage is a good term to describe middle east in the era of advent of Torah, where unruliness, anarchy and disobedience run rampant. But it would be ignorance to describe Bronze Age Greece or Egypt as savage, since they represented apex of civilization at the time.
Quote:Quote:
What, specifically, is wrong?
Applying modern abstract science, modern thought, interpretations based on knowledge not available in ancient times, interpretations based on observations not available in ancient times, to conclude how an ancient man or an ancient scientist or wise man thought.
Quote:Quote:
What?
You make a leap of "i think" to conclude everyone engages into homosexuality to achieve unity between sexes as supposedly taught by those who belief primordial man was a hermaphrodite. I ask, why not sexual intercourse between male and female ?
Quote:Quote:
Books.
What books ?
Quote:Quote:
Also, are you proposing that they take initiates through thirty plus degrees of further intitiation without knowing what any of it means?
No, i suspect.
Quote:Quote:
And maybe the moon is made of cheese. What's the point of this?
I'm questioning modernity. Does modern Foreign Legion resemble original one ? No it doesn't. Does modern Catholic Church resemble that of 200 years ago ? Not at all. Does modern Orthodox Church resemble old one ? No. Do modern protestants resemble old ones ? No. Republicans ? No. Democrats ? No. Buddhists ? No. Commies ? No. Southern Baptists ? No.
So how come you quickly conclude that Masons do ?
Quote:Quote:
How do you know what they know? I doubt anyone knows much of any of these group's rituals, supposed information / disinformation included.
Much of it is available here and there. Many masons wrote about it. Albert Pike wrote a whole book, even describing rituals. So did Rene Guenon.
Quote:Quote:
The best one can do is read primary sources to put the theology together. The rituals are fairly meaningless next to the belief system.
Are you a priori going to conclude whatever they believe is Satan ? That's the whole point. If you are, it doesn't matter what they believe in.
If their god was Czocholo, or Butan, or Dikembe, or Hualpa, or El Chapo Guzman, to you it will be translated as Satan. So why would anyone take your opinion on it ? You don't have any objective measure to make any distinction whatsoever, but the one that you have already in your mind - your opinion and satanism as everything opposed to it.
Quote:Quote:
On either count, how would you know?
As previously said, it's available.
Quote:Quote:
The Sabbath, by biblical mythological definition, is the seventh day.
Ok, so how did you conclude that Sabbath falls on modern Saturday, which is in modern week, 6th day of the week.
Quote:Quote:
Saturday is the seventh day
No, Saturday is 6th day of the week.
Quote:Quote:
and the Sabbath as verified by Orthodox Jewish belief and observation.
No, Sabbath is 7th day. But we have no idea is Sabbath Saturday or Wednesday. Nobody ever kept record on which day exactly did the first recorded Sabbath in history fall on. It maybe fell on Thursday.
Quote:Quote:
If you believe that they would observe a different day than the Sabbath, then you are mistaken. Keep in mind that they are the arbiters of the esoterism that you mention. Are you proposing that Sunday is the Sabbath?
No, Sunday is the 7th day of modern week.
Quote:Quote:
However, I think that for anyone to accept your proposal that you need to provide an alternative orientation justification for the days of the week. Astrological, biblical, whatever.
Justification for what ? Week is entirely and arbitrarily constructed way of orienting in time. It could be made to have 10, 16, 20, or 30 days. It has nothing to do with astrology. 7 day week has been adopted some time around Babylon.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Easy_C - 04-01-2016
Also keep in mind that most esoteric disciplines hail back to a single source with ancient Tibetan/Indian writings, who in turn received it from their Masters.
I've sent files to some members but another good book is Oedipus Judaicus. Interesting history behind the book and it does a good job of demonstrating links between Eastern and Western allegories and astrology.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Easy_C - 04-01-2016
For those with a VERY open mind this stuff is weird but interesting.Taps into a lot of what we're taking about here but keep in mind that this guys research is not leading to correct conclusions. It's been significantly improved on by more recent researchers.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - SigmundSauer - 04-01-2016
Quote: (03-31-2016 09:55 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:
Quote: (03-29-2016 10:54 AM)Orion Wrote:
1) Putting all esoteric teachings in one basket and applying them a common label (usually as anti-christian) is charlatanism.
You assume that so called esoterism (western) isn't a single system, yet I'd challenge you to explain what it is if it is not. "Esoteric" simply means hidden. If you know of another system of hidden knowledge, then enlighten us. However, I hold that the only esoteric system in the West is Kabbalism buttressed by neo-Egyptian mythology. What other system are you referring to? Imagining one doesn't count.
Quote:Quote:
Particularly because the level of stigma and demonization of them stems from pretty much protestant/Calvinist/baptist theology.
Can you give a compelling reason why this system should not be stigmatized? Can you even tell me what this system is? Catholicism, while tainted with it, has been anti-Freemasonry for centuries. The entirety of mainstream Christianity, with the exception of newer cults, has stigmitzed it and for good reason that it is the opposite of what traditional Christianity teaches.
Quote:Quote:
Ok, i can't say that these teachings aren't opposed to Christianity, but there is a slight difference in tone between "false" and "satanic.
Why not call it what it is; to avoid hurting feelings? It is literally satanic/luciferian. That's it's literal belief system. Calling it satanic is not going overbaord. It's hitting the descriptive target in the precise center.
Quote:Quote:
Baptist preachers are particularly prone to labeling everything that breathes as satanic, demonic and work of Satan, which is pretty base.
Hyperbole aside, when they label this system as Satanic they are being correctly literal.
Quote:Quote:
Take for example teachings of Hermes. Many early Christian and Islamic scholars considered him a prophet and wise man.
Appeals to authority aren't convincing. Second, fuck Islamic scholars. Islamism isn't dissociated from western esoterism at its foundation. It's an evil and stupid religion for third world barbarians. Third, "early Christian scholars" included every type of theorist under the sun. Do you know anything about the first few hundred years of the Church in the Patristic period? There was little agreement and subversives were rampant.
Quote:Quote:
First and foremost: To ancient people it wasn't' all hocus-pocus. There was a natural, intimate and realistic relationship with divine for ancient peoples. Remember, they didn't have "theories". They didn't have relativity, or computer, or Wikipedia, or any abstract thought on picture whatsoever. To an ancient man, Saturn was there, he either saw it with his own eyes, or he didn't know about it. He couldn't just read about it and take that abstract explanation for granted. So for an ancient man, Saturn was more than just an object of abstract theory. It was a living planet and for him, a living god was thought to be identified with it. It was out there in the sky !
Ah, yes, the noble savage.
Quote:Quote:
Charlatan applications of ancient theology therefore, to modern mindset trained from birth only to think in abstract without any direct observations, calculations and experiences is a recepy for getting it wrong.
What, specifically, is wrong?
Quote:Quote:
4) How everyone concludes that natural way to establishing unity between sexes is hermaphroditism, without anyone ever coming up with idea of sexual intercourse ?
What?
Quote:Quote:
If they even perform certain rituals correctly, what guarantees in today's century of dissolution, that they have any knowledge of their true meaning or significance ?
Books. Also, are you proposing that they take initiates through thirty plus degrees of further intitiation without knowing what any of it means?
Quote:Quote:
Maybe today's masons are posing masons, who are simulating masonry.
And maybe the moon is made of cheese. What's the point of this?
Quote:Quote:
Same goes for Illuminati. That could explain many things, from how did their membership come to include so many profane individuals
How do you know what "their" (if they exist - I doubt it) membership contains?
Quote:Quote:
how did so many of supposedly secret aspects of their practice reach day of light for everyone to see.
How do you know what they know? I doubt anyone knows much of any of these group's rituals, supposed information / disinformation included. The best one can do is read primary sources to put the theology together. The rituals are fairly meaningless next to the belief system.
Quote:Quote:
I think that many of leaks are genuine, and many of them discover that they indeed engage into hocus-pocus to which it is questionable to they have any understanding of it.
On either count, how would you know?
Quote:Quote:
Sabbath is not Saturday. We don't know what day is Saturday, or any other day. Sabbath is identified with Saturday, and we assume that Saturday is 6th/7th day. But no one knows which day is which one. We work 6 days and rest the 7th, but exact order of days is not known to anybody. Our naming of days of the week and the week itself is practical invention.
While appreciating the attempt at critical thought, I think that you've over-thought this. The Sabbath, by biblical mythological definition, is the seventh day. Saturday is the seventh day and the Sabbath as verified by Orthodox Jewish belief and observation. If you believe that they would observe a different day than the Sabbath, then you are mistaken. Keep in mind that they are the arbiters of the esoterism that you mention. Are you proposing that Sunday is the Sabbath? I'm open to reading about your further justification. However, I think that for anyone to accept your proposal that you need to provide an alternative orientation justification for the days of the week. Astrological, biblical, whatever.
Hydrogonian, are you a 7th day sabbatarian?
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 04-02-2016
Quote: (04-01-2016 01:56 PM)Orion Wrote:
Yes, hidden is one way to describe it, but not just hidden, but also "inner" as opposed to only outward expressions of religious systems in form of rituals and festivities. Esotericism refers to obscured part of religious teachings that are available only to those who are qualified to understand them,.
Yes, qualified. Also, again, what other system are you referring to?
Quote:Quote:
Actually it goes other way round. Burden of proof is on those who bring up accusations.
Clever. However, what isn't clever of you is that this thread is one long list that meets your burden of proof; at least in my prior posts. Read it.
Quote:Quote:
What system ? Esotericism ? It's a belief system.
lol. And water is wet. What does this system of esoterism that should not be stigmatized believe in?
Quote:Quote:
I just gave you example of some scholars who didn't oppose it, but you just dismissed it easily
No you didn't. Stop wasting my fucking time with a nonsensical runaround that doesn't match what you said. You said "Christian and Islamic scholars" without naming anyone. You also said "Hermes" who is a mythological figure.
Quote:Quote:
Actually, there are countless more examples, for example, even Buddha got included to be a Christian saint in form of St. Josaphat.
For fuck's sake. Point?
Quote:Quote:
According to a baptist preacher who preaches in a business suit. I get it.
You haven't even read this thread and get nothing.
Quote:Quote:
That is why it is very important to ask on which scale is it NOT going overboard ? On a scale of Catholic theology there is slight difference between lies, superstitions, delusions, and satanism. In Baptist theology, or Calvinist there is Calvinist and Satanist, and nothing in between. So if you are a Calvinist, to you it is satanism, but so is everything else.
Nope. It's what they say they believe in.
It's not just the view of any Christian sect. Lucifer brings the light of human reason in their religion, which trumps the wisdom of God. Satan means "adversary" and, when used at all anywhere, it is generally used to describe a force that opposes God. That's precisely what the Luciferian religion does and claims to do.
"Satanism" is a concept oriented to anti-Kabbalism and thus it is not really used in esoterism, but yet it has meaning in describing the essential struggle between Kabbalism and Christianity. The Kabbalists, when being honest, would instead refer to Lucifer.
Christians tend to use Lucifer / Satan interchangeably, thus allowing for the interchangeable use in a discussion wherein you don't have the inclination to explain_every_fucking_little_thing to someone who can't do their own reading to keep up with accurate use of basic concepts.
Quote:Quote:
What system ? You are using same label again.
The system described in the rest of the thread.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Appeals to authority aren't convincing.
What was that ?
When you appealed to "Christian and Islamic Scholars" without naming anyone.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Second, fuck Islamic scholars.
Ok, lol.
Yup.
Quote:Quote:
Ah, yes. Early Christians got it all wrong, so 400 years later (or even 1500 years later) couple of guys appeared who got it all right and correct. Give me a break.
Yes, because putting words in my mouth is a legitimate form of argument. It's not that they got it all wrong, its that only some of them were correct and accepted as being legitimate Christian theologians by the Church. Thus, it isn't enough to say "early Christian scholars". You have to be specific.
Second, you are also assuming that the Early Christian Empires had spiritual Christianity's best interest at heart and didn't corrupt the theological meaning for reasons of empire expansion. For instance, can you explain to me the hybrid theological nature of the Catholic Church? There is no reason to believe that later scholars, removed from the influence of the Empires, could not crystallize better what was intended. Thinking otherwise is basically an admission that you believe Orthodox Christian theology to be correct, even though it is still evolving, and even though most of the World is Roman Catholic (having a vastly different theology). Who was and is correct? Why?
Quote:Quote:
Couple of hundred years later, after centuries of institutionalization, they got it all right, without a trace of interference or error. Sure.
If you knew anything about the Patristic period and the evolution of early Christian theology then you wouldn't be so glib. It's clear that you don't have a notion about what you're speaking to. Read a book.
Quote:Quote:
Yes, savage is a good term to describe middle east in the era of advent of Torah, where unruliness, anarchy and disobedience run rampant. But it would be ignorance to describe Bronze Age Greece or Egypt as savage, since they represented apex of civilization at the time.
Okay, but your frame was one which justified itself due to man at that time being 'purer' or closer to nature. That's what the phrase "noble savage" refers to when it is used, not actual savagery (though this is too often present). It essentially refers to a fallacy in which a greater degree of wisdom credibility is given to a less technologically advanced man for reasons that aren't so rational.
Quote:Quote:
Applying modern abstract science, modern thought, interpretations based on knowledge not available in ancient times, interpretations based on observations not available in ancient times, to conclude how an ancient man or an ancient scientist or wise man thought.
But that doesn't mean that the assessment is wrong. Everything can be known about the esoterism that you are referring to, from the resources of the esoterism itself. It isn't so hidden, lost, or misunderstood. In fact, it is alive and practiced by large groups who have books written about it.
You may be referring to animism, which is lost to an extent but survives through uncivilized tribes in the present.
Or the actual knowledge lost in the Library of Alexandria. That has not claimed to be survived in any form that isn't a (likely largely concocted or distorted) sub-routine of the esoterism being discussed in this thread (ie: Hermeticism).
The actual Egyptian religion is largely understood and I can recommend some good books if you wish. It's interesting stuff, and it is useful for understanding the esoterism that we are speaking about in this thread as they have largely co-opted a lot of the symbolism and mythology from it. A lot of them present their modern esoterism as a continuation of the ancient Egyptian religion. I don't think that it is, but it is in fact elaborate distortion, but whether you do or don't accept that assertion the Egyptian religion is well studied and you can read about it.
There is also Greek philosophy and paganism that is useful starting with Socrates, then Plato, then Aristotle. There is a good podcast on the web that quickly covers ancient philosophy if you want a low effort review (suggested). Some claim that Plato stole his ideas from Egypt and thus that this tradition, into neoplatonism, is a continuation of the Egyptian religion. There are good arguments on both sides. After the tradition migrated to Rome, a myriad of occult systems propagated that were influenced by anything and everything that you can think of. Though, none were major traditions except perhaps Mythraism that descended from Zoroastrianism (that descended from Vedism).
The only other major traditions that we have that arguably aren't derivative or completely lost, outside of Asia and the Indian tribes, are that of the Vedic religion and the Sumerian religion. We have very little of the Sumerian religion except for some stone tablet fragments that tell the story of Gilgamesh, but we do know of their pantheon. It's fairly safe to say that their religion meshed into other religions of the region that proceeded it, to include the Hebrew religion. There is a lot of available original text for the ancient Vedic religion, but it also seems to be an evolution of the religion that we see expressed in Egypt. I have a good book to recommend on this if you would like.
In essence, any so called esoteric system can be referenced and studied assuming that it is worthwhile to do so.
Quote:Quote:
You make a leap of "i think" to conclude everyone engages into homosexuality to achieve unity between sexes as supposedly taught by those who belief primordial man was a hermaphrodite. I ask, why not sexual intercourse between male and female ?
I didn't say that average homosexuals have sex for esoteric reasons. They clearly do so because they are homosexuals. Certain representatives of the esoterism being discussed in this thread have admitted to this type of intercourse for this purpose, or have pointed to this being the purpose: Aleister Crowley being one. Aleister Crowley also being the modern founder of the major Freemasonry associated occult group the O.TO. These groups are all Kabbalistic.
If you had read my prior posts closer, I pointed to the fact that the major goal of this occult practice is to cross the Kabbalistic "Abyss" into Godhood. To do this, social and personal behavioral norms likely need to be violated in a major way. This is why heterosexual engagement in homosexual sex is practiced, in addition to symbolizing the creation of the "perfect first man" hermaphrodite. Note that the Egyptian religion also held that the first moments of creation represented perfect creation, that was strived for in Egyptian civilization in a similar respect to how a representation of the first man is strived for in this occult system.
At least do me the favor of reading my prior posts.
In the Mormon religion, that seems to only be concerned with crossing the much lower Kabbalistic Veil instead of the more advanced Abyss, only heterosexual union is stressed. Antinomianism is not.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Books.
What books ?
lol. Their super secret Satan books. I don't know. Buddy, you made some ridiculous point about how we couldn't be sure that they knew their own system. I told you that they likely had it written down. In addition to anything held in secret, there are dozens of older books available for free (try archive.com) by Freemasons that go into some of the rituals and degrees. Though, don't expect everything that they do in fine detail. For a book on general esoteric mythology, the classic go-to is The Secret teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall. But take it with a grain of salt. It's incredibly well written and presented, but some very select but crucial information is wrong. You will learn how to spot that sort of thing by reading primary sources in Kabbalah, Egypt, and Mormonism. It is a great resource, nevertheless.
Quote:Quote:
I'm questioning modernity. Does modern Foreign Legion resemble original one ? No it doesn't. Does modern Catholic Church resemble that of 200 years ago ? Not at all. Does modern Orthodox Church resemble old one ? No. Do modern protestants resemble old ones ? No. Republicans ? No. Democrats ? No. Buddhists ? No. Commies ? No. Southern Baptists ? No.
So how come you quickly conclude that Masons do ?
You're assuming that Masonry isn't modern nor created in the Angloshpere. It's both. It isn't an ancient religion. It's a modern political hack used to forward Kabbalists and Kabbalism in society. I'm not saying that every or even most lodges are anything but benign fraternities in practice, especially in the present. But the religion/system of masonry is not lost, because it is so new, for those that are chosen to practice it. If Kabbalism is not lost, then neither is Freemasonry.
Quote:Quote:
Much of it is available here and there. Many masons wrote about it. Albert Pike wrote a whole book, even describing rituals. So did Rene Guenon.
Okay, so it isn't lost correct? They don't know it but you do? The fact is that you have zero method of confirming the validity of the information in your non-specific resources. Yes, these estoeric systems that hid for centuries allow Joe Fucktard to discover accurate representations of their rituals on the interwebz via supposedly accurate texts supposedly written by members or outside observers. That's a serious case of egotistical delusion. You mean the Albert Pike book that my grandma knows about? You mean the Renee Guenon book available and popular on amazon? Do you have any idea of the nature of the organization that you are speaking about?
Quote:Quote:
Are you a priori going to conclude whatever they believe is Satan ? That's the whole point. If you are, it doesn't matter what they believe in.
This isn't a debate. Kabbalism isn't a debate. You can read what they believe in. I don't care if you are convinced by what I say or not, and last I'm completely unconvinced that you get the concept of "Satan" enough to be using it in an argument. This is like having an algebra debate with someone who is still on long division, no offense.
Quote:Quote:
If their god was Czocholo, or Butan, or Dikembe, or Hualpa, or El Chapo Guzman, to you it will be translated as Satan.
No retard. You're clueless as to what I would do as you are clueless in this discussion, and clueless about theology let alone esoterism. Next time, if you don't want such a negative reaction, refrain from telling people in arguments what they "would do" you retarded mutt.
Quote:Quote:
So why would anyone take your opinion on it ?
I don't care what you take.
Quote:Quote:
You don't have any objective measure to make any distinction whatsoever, but the one that you have already in your mind - your opinion and satanism as everything opposed to it.
Was that word salad designed to be English syntax? I can't tell. My "objective measure" is years of studying of scholarship on these systems, as well as primary sources. Your "objective measure" seems to be Wikipedia, what you feel to be correct, and stunted perceptions of theological concepts.
Quote:Quote:
On either count, how would you know?
Quote:Quote:
As previously said, it's available.
Yes, I read what you said. lol.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Ok, so how did you conclude that Sabbath falls on modern Saturday, which is in modern week, 6th day of the week.
Quote:Quote:
Saturday is the seventh day
No, Saturday is 6th day of the week.
Quote:Quote:
and the Sabbath as verified by Orthodox Jewish belief and observation.
No, Sabbath is 7th day. But we have no idea is Sabbath Saturday or Wednesday. Nobody ever kept record on which day exactly did the first recorded Sabbath in history fall on. It maybe fell on Thursday.
From your friend, Wikipedia:
Quote:Quote:
In Judaism, Sabbath is the seventh day of the Hebrew calendar week, which in English is known as Saturday. The term has been used to describe a similar weekly observance in any of several other traditions; the first crescent or new moon; any of seven annual festivals in Judaism and some Christian traditions; any of eight annual pagan festivals (usually "sabbat"); an annual secular holiday; and a year of rest in religious or secular usage, the sabbath year, originally every seventh year.
The occult system in question is built on Jewish belief. Thus, What the Jews hold to be the correct numeration of the weekly cycle as well as the Sabbath is what is correct for this esoteric system. According to them, Saturday is the seventh day. Thus Saturday is the seventh day. Their messianic belief also holds the seventh millennium to be the Sabbath, or the millennium of rest and peace.
There is widespread disagreement as to whether Saturday or Sunday ends the week. Asserting one or the other isn't controversial or wrong, its just a different system. This esoterism, interacting with Judaism/Christianity, uses that weekly calendar.
Though, you are going beyond this common discrepancy, correct?
Even though you are attempting to be clever, I hope to god you have a source for this cleverness otherwise its a complete waste of my time. You should have posted this source by now. Everyone's masturbatory theories should be worked out in their own time. Here's the flaw in yours: you are debating what the seventh day is named, and are contesting whether or not Saturday is the seventh day. The answer is who_the_fuck_cares. The Jews have named the seventh day Saturday. That's what it is in this esoterism. Besides, the name doesn't matter but likely for some secondary astrological reason if that. The number in the cycle matters. The Sabbath is always celebrated on the seventh day. If you think that there is a conspiracy toward changing the day in the cycle of the Sabbath, please elaborate as to why that would occur and any evidence for it.
Quote:Quote:
However, I think that for anyone to accept your proposal that you need to provide an alternative orientation justification for the days of the week. Astrological, biblical, whatever.
Quote:Quote:
Justification for what ? Week is entirely and arbitrarily constructed way of orienting in time. It could be made to have 10, 16, 20, or 30 days. It has nothing to do with astrology. 7 day week has been adopted some time around Babylon.
For engaging an internet stranger with your pet calendar theory while providing no logical reason nor support for it.
The seven day week is NOT arbitrary. It's represents the seven days of biblical creation. It's a run-up to the Sabbath, and represents a seven millennium time cycle.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 04-02-2016
Quote:Quote:
Hydrogonian, are you a 7th day sabbatarian?
Yes and a Kabbalist, and an OTO member, and a Jewish person, and a Jew for Jesus, and Freemason, and a Hollywood orgy participant and every other thing that we've been talking about on this thread because we know that everyone believes religiously in whatever they read about, hold to be factual, or address in a discussion.
Either participate or eff off with the personal questions until you have a higher post count.
Try better editing your posts beforehand. There isn't a reason to preface with a block quote like that for a seven word question.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Orion - 04-02-2016
Quote: (04-02-2016 02:06 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:
Yes, qualified. Also, again, what other system are you referring to?
When i say belief system im not referring to a messianic religion. Esotericism refers to whatever inner, hidden tradition there is. Be it an obscure cult, esoteric components of religions such as Christianity or Islam, or even a mixture of many religions and many teachings, as long as it is a spirituality that seeks for answers inside the practitioner by using hidden hints or even elaborate manuals, as opposed to practice of exoteric religion (going to a festival or praying).
Already mentioned Rene Guenon argued for esoteric symbolism in Christian religion in his book "Christian Esoterism"
Julisu Evola, Italian philosopher and esotericist opposed Guenon and claimed Christianity has no such tradition, but only elements of such influence which he considered foreign.
Quote:Quote:
Clever. However, what isn't clever of you is that this thread is one long list that meets your burden of proof; at least in my prior posts. Read it.
Yes, my first post was answer to all of that. You put a bunch of different religions, from different scopes into one basket together with modern scientific knowledge, and labelled it all Satanism. Ridiculous.
Quote:Quote:
What system ? Esotericism ? It's a belief system.
While many esoteric teachings have similar propositions, not all of them are same. Actually, many are completely different, and many scholars of these teachings dont agree with each other and call each other phony, hocus pocus, or accuse each other of not understanding tradition.
Quote:Quote:
lol. And water is wet. What does this system of esoterism that should not be stigmatized believe in?
There is no agreement at all between them. However often recurrent idea is that a path to man's spiritual realization is within his own being, through positive, affirmative spiritual action - transcendence.
Quote:Quote:
No you didn't. Stop wasting my fucking time with a nonsensical runaround that doesn't match what you said. You said "Christian and Islamic scholars" without naming anyone. You also said "Hermes" who is a mythological figure.
St. Augustine of Hippo
Numerous Islamic scholars
Quote:Quote:
For fuck's sake. Point?
Buddha's path of spiritual realization ? Meditation, Nirvana, contemplation, middle path, inner realization. Ring a bell ? That's an esoteric teaching par excellence, which is impossible to be pursued in a casual, exoteric way.
Quote:Quote:
Nope. It's what they say they believe in.
No they don't stop making things up. I can only think of Alistair Crowley who invented his own cult and ironically called himself satanist for sake of laugh, but im not talking here about hocus-pocus.
Quote:Quote:
It's not just the view of any Christian sect. Lucifer brings the light of human reason in their religion, which trumps the wisdom of God.
No he doesn't. Esoteric pursue of enlightenment isn't outward at all (towards and through an outer being). It's inward, through your own being.
Quote:Quote:
"Satanism" is a concept oriented to anti-Kabbalism and thus it is not really used in esoterism, but yet it has meaning in describing the essential struggle between Kabbalism and Christianity. The Kabbalists, when being honest, would instead refer to Lucifer.
Thanks for pointing out that they don't believe in Satan whatsoever. So we are back at "muh opinion" again.
Quote:Quote:
The system described in the rest of the thread.
You described everything in this thread, with more or less accuracy. Egyptian religion, astronomy, Christian religion, Kabbalah.
Quote:Quote:
Yes, because putting words in my mouth is a legitimate form of argument. It's not that they got it all wrong, its that only some of them were correct and accepted as being legitimate Christian theologians by the Church. Thus, it isn't enough to say "early Christian scholars". You have to be specific.
Which one ? Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran ? We have at least 30 mainstream Christianities. "The Early Church" was probably even more disunited than later ones, which is why numerous councils were needed to bring doctrine closer.
But my point is, some medieval scholars did not recoil as a venomous snake to hearing about other religious teachings or more importantly - earlier teachings and early traditions including pagan ones. They discussed them with open mind, which is minimum requirement for anyone who claims to be objective.
Quote:Quote:
Second, you are also assuming that the Early Christian Empires had spiritual Christianity's best interest at heart and didn't corrupt the theological meaning for reasons of empire expansion.
No i don't, that's exactly what i assume.
Quote:Quote:
For instance, can you explain to me the hybrid theological nature of the Catholic Church? There is no reason to believe that later scholars, removed from the influence of the Empires, could not crystallize better what was intended. Thinking otherwise is basically an admission that you believe Orthodox Christian theology to be correct, even though it is still evolving, and even though most of the World is Roman Catholic (having a vastly different theology). Who was and is correct? Why?
Early Christianity, you know, the one in which people still didn't eat pork, or where people still Celebrated Yom Kippur was completely unacceptable to the major demographic core of Roman Empire - white, pagan Europeans. That's why we have Catholic and Orthodox Churches where people celebrate birth of Christ at the exact dates when Europeans celebrated rebirth of Sun, and where people eat pork and celebrate Mary as a some for semi-goddess.
Quote:Quote:
If you knew anything about the Patristic period and the evolution of early Christian theology then you wouldn't be so glib. It's clear that you don't have a notion about what you're speaking to. Read a book.
![[Image: cryingbabyincrib.jpg]](http://www.parentnormal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/cryingbabyincrib.jpg)
Quote:Quote:
Okay, but your frame was one which justified itself due to man at that time being 'purer' or closer to nature. That's what the phrase "noble savage" refers to when it is used, not actual savagery (though this is too often present). It essentially refers to a fallacy in which a greater degree of wisdom credibility is given to a less technologically advanced man for reasons that aren't so rational.
No, i argued that meaning and significance of Saturn to modern man and ancient man was different on so many planes, as well as religious feelings. Modern men in majority of chases pursue "personal religion" where it all revolves around them. For ancient men, religion was pretty much the whole world around them. Almost everything had some religious significance. Modern men, without open mind and without trying to abandon their modern brain programming, has difficult time to imagine that, particularly when surrounded by traffic and apartment blocks.
Quote:Quote:
But that doesn't mean that the assessment is wrong. Everything can be known about the esoterism that you are referring to, from the resources of the esoterism itself. It isn't so hidden, lost, or misunderstood. In fact, it is alive and practiced by large groups who have books written about it.
Just few replies bellow, you say it can't, and that it is all hidden and that we have no idea what Masonic degrees mean.
Quote:Quote:
You may be referring to animism, which is lost to an extent but survives through uncivilized tribes in the present.
I'm not. I refer to esoteric teachings, which borrow their core tradition from same place where mainstream religions do - religious traditions.
Quote:Quote:
The actual Egyptian religion is largely understood and I can recommend some good books if you wish. It's interesting stuff, and it is useful for understanding the esoterism that we are speaking about in this thread as they have largely co-opted a lot of the symbolism and mythology from it. A lot of them present their modern esoterism as a continuation of the ancient Egyptian religion. I don't think that it is, but it is in fact elaborate distortion, but whether you do or don't accept that assertion the Egyptian religion is well studied and you can read about it.
There is also Greek philosophy and paganism that is useful starting with Socrates, then Plato, then Aristotle. There is a good podcast on the web that quickly covers ancient philosophy if you want a low effort review (suggested). Some claim that Plato stole his ideas from Egypt and thus that this tradition, into neoplatonism, is a continuation of the Egyptian religion. There are good arguments on both sides. After the tradition migrated to Rome, a myriad of occult systems propagated that were influenced by anything and everything that you can think of. Though, none were major traditions except perhaps Mythraism that descended from Zoroastrianism (that descended from Vedism).
It's not just Egyptian and Greek. All Indo-European pagan religions are similar, at least in deities they observe, which often not only have similar natural domains, but also appearances. Wotan, Perun and Zeus are almost same. And it wasn't just imposed or imported from elsewhere. Indo-European people practiced these cults in similar forms from ancient, pre-historic times. Hence we use word tradition. Such religion was simply, in nature of the continent. We don't know which one is older.
Quote:Quote:
The only other major traditions that we have that arguably aren't derivative or completely lost, outside of Asia and the Indian tribes, are that of the Vedic religion and the Sumerian religion. We have very little of the Sumerian religion except for some stone tablet fragments that tell the story of Gilgamesh, but we do know of their pantheon. It's fairly safe to say that their religion meshed into other religions of the region that proceeded it, to include the Hebrew religion. There is a lot of available original text for the ancient Vedic religion, but it also seems to be an evolution of the religion that we see expressed in Egypt. I have a good book to recommend on this if you would like.
It's dangerous to use word derivative in this context unless someone can specifically prove that one particular thought was completely adopted from abroad.
While we have older records of say, some Egyptian cult that is simiar to a Greek cult, we don't know for sure that such cult is older. We simply don't have as old record in Greek culture. It is possible that something similar was for example, practiced by Celts. And hence, "adoption" from a foreign religion would amount to nothing but an adaptation, because of an otherwise common religious system.
Quote:Quote:
I didn't say that average homosexuals have sex for esoteric reasons. They clearly do so because they are homosexuals. Certain representatives of the esoterism being discussed in this thread have admitted to this type of intercourse for this purpose, or have pointed to this being the purpose: Aleister Crowley being one. Aleister Crowley also being the modern founder of the major Freemasonry associated occult group the O.TO. These groups are all Kabbalistic.
Yes, Alistair Crowley is almost a central figure to any instance of satanism or homosexuality being brought up in relation to esoteric tradition, and is usually mentioned instantly.
But unfortunately, also exclusive.
Quote:Quote:
If you had read my prior posts closer, I pointed to the fact that the major goal of this occult practice is to cross the Kabbalistic "Abyss" into Godhood. To do this, social and personal behavioral norms likely need to be violated in a major way. This is why heterosexual engagement in homosexual sex is practiced, in addition to symbolizing the creation of the "perfect first man" hermaphrodite. Note that the Egyptian religion also held that the first moments of creation represented perfect creation, that was strived for in Egyptian civilization in a similar respect to how a representation of the first man is strived for in this occult system.
Abyss you are referring to is a part of "Thelema" teaching, not Kabbalah. Thelema was invented by Alistair Crowley in 20th century.
Quote:Quote:
lol. Their super secret Satan books. I don't know. Buddy, you made some ridiculous point about how we couldn't be sure that they knew their own system
So don't bring up stuff you cannot back up, it's simple.
Quote:Quote:
I told you that they likely had it written down. In addition to anything held in secret, there are dozens of older books available for free (try archive.com) by Freemasons that go into some of the rituals and degrees. Though, don't expect everything that they do in fine detail. For a book on general esoteric mythology, the classic go-to is The Secret teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall. But take it with a grain of salt. It's incredibly well written and presented, but some very select but crucial information is wrong. You will learn how to spot that sort of thing by reading primary sources in Kabbalah, Egypt, and Mormonism. It is a great resource, nevertheless.
Exactly, Masons actually discovered what many of their rituals look like (but not necessarily what they mean, particularly the ones in upper stages of initiation).
Quote:Quote:
You're assuming that Masonry isn't modern nor created in the Angloshpere. It's both. It isn't an ancient religion. It's a modern political hack used to forward Kabbalists and Kabbalism in society. I'm not saying that every or even most lodges are anything but benign fraternities in practice, especially in the present. But the religion/system of masonry is not lost, because it is so new, for those that are chosen to practice it. If Kabbalism is not lost, then neither is Freemasonry.
I was actually rather moderate - i wondered whether Masons are more than modern hocus-pocus. Yet you claim with 100% certainty that Kabbalism is not lost as if you ever saw anyone practice it, let alone cross the supposed Kabbalist Abyss.
What we know for certain, is that lodges are many, that they are different, that they have different structures, even different degrees, and accept membership according to different requirements.
In my local lodge, which is regular, many members are known, here are their professions: Lawyer, chief editor of a local newspaper, CEO of a local powerful company, an artist, a politician.
Why aren't there any bearded mystics in their ranks ?
Obviously in modern times, most intellectually capable, noble persons will usually come from upper tiers of society. It's natural it will always be like that. But Masons almost have no exceptions. They are almost exclusively well do to, rich and influential people.
Which brings up legitimate suspicion as to whether their gatherings, and to what extent, are spiritual, and whether such spirituality is something with genuine purpose, or whether it is hocus-pocus.
Quote:Quote:
Okay, so it isn't lost correct? They don't know it but you do? The fact is that you have zero method of confirming the validity of the information in your non-specific resources. Yes, these estoeric systems that hid for centuries allow Joe Fucktard to discover accurate representations of their rituals on the interwebz via supposedly accurate texts supposedly written by members or outside observers. That's a serious case of egotistical delusion. You mean the Albert Pike book that my grandma knows about? You mean the Renee Guenon book available and popular on amazon? Do you have any idea of the nature of the organization that you are speaking about?
Yes, many of their rituals are known. But not necessarily their meaning.
Yes books are written and usually available to be acquired. Fantastic, innit.
Quote:Quote:
This isn't a debate. Kabbalism isn't a debate. You can read what they believe in. I don't care if you are convinced by what I say or not, and last I'm completely unconvinced that you get the concept of "Satan" enough to be using it in an argument. This is like having an algebra debate with someone who is still on long division, no offense.
I know what Kabbalism is, but to you it is something much wider it appears. To you Kabbalism includes apparently all non-Christian beliefs to a lesser or higher degree.
Quote:Quote:
No retard. You're clueless as to what I would do as you are clueless in this discussion, and clueless about theology let alone esoterism. Next time, if you don't want such a negative reaction, refrain from telling people in arguments what they "would do" you retarded mutt.
Quote:Quote:
Was that word salad designed to be English syntax? I can't tell. My "objective measure" is years of studying of scholarship on these systems, as well as primary sources. Your "objective measure" seems to be Wikipedia, what you feel to be correct, and stunted perceptions of theological concepts.
In other words, you melt down whenever we won't take your word for something you claim to be 100% truth.
Quote:Quote:
No, Saturday is 6th day of the week.
Yes, for you. For my neighbor it's 7th. There is no objective justification for a 7 day week. 7 day week is human, completely made up system of orientation.
Quote:Quote:
[b]In Judaism, Sabbath is the seventh day of the Hebrew calendar week, which in English is known as Saturday. [/b]The term has been used to describe a similar weekly observance in any of several other traditions; the first crescent or new moon; any of seven annual festivals in Judaism and some Christian traditions; any of eight annual pagan festivals (usually "sabbat"); an annual secular holiday; and a year of rest in religious or secular usage, the sabbath year, originally every seventh year.
You see ? Concept of Sabbath as 7th day is entirely subjective, to those who belong to that tradition. But we still do not know on what day of modern week does Sabbath appear. The only thing that matters is that we rest the seventh day. Whether seventh day will be Wednesday or Monday or Sunday cannot be either known, or matters.
Some cultures had no weeks at all. And some cultures had something similar that lasted, 4, 5 or 10 days.
Quote:Quote:
The occult system in question is built on Jewish belief. Thus, What the Jews hold to be the correct numeration of the weekly cycle as well as the Sabbath is what is correct for this esoteric system. According to them, Saturday is the seventh day. Thus Saturday is the seventh day. Their messianic belief also holds the seventh millennium to be the Sabbath, or the millennium of rest and peace.
No, according to them, Sabbath is 7th day. Saturday is a day of the modern week which Americans consider to be 7th and Russians for example consider to be 6th.
Quote:Quote:
There is widespread disagreement as to whether Saturday or Sunday ends the week. Asserting one or the other isn't controversial or wrong, its just a different system. This esoterism, interacting with Judaism/Christianity, uses that weekly calendar.
Yes, and it is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of theology, since every day of the week is completely same and equal. Their "ordering" as being 1st, 3rd or 7th is completely arbitrarily made up and fit into a format of a week. The only religiously important thing is that we work 6 days and rest 7th day an celebrate it as God's day.
Quote:Quote:
Even though you are attempting to be clever, I hope to god you have a source for this cleverness otherwise its a complete waste of my time. You should have posted this source by now. Everyone's masturbatory theories should be worked out in their own time. Here's the flaw in yours: you are debating what the seventh day is named, and are contesting whether or not Saturday is the seventh day. The answer is who_the_fuck_cares. The Jews have named the seventh day Saturday. That's what it is in this esoterism. Besides, the name doesn't matter but likely for some secondary astrological reason if that. The number in the cycle matters. The Sabbath is always celebrated on the seventh day. If you think that there is a conspiracy toward changing the day in the cycle of the Sabbath, please elaborate as to why that would occur and any evidence for it.
There is no objective justification for a 7 day week
There is:
1) Religious justification - religious texts.
2) Arbitrary - me and you sit down on a table and make a deal that week will have 7/10/20 days and we give them names and ordering and start recording them.
Both of these are subjective.
Quote:Quote:]
The seven day week [b]is NOT arbitrary. It's represents the seven days of biblical creation.
You just refuted your own claim. Bible is not objective. It is subjective - it matters to those who believe in it - belief is completely subjective. To a Zho Shun from China it has zero relevance.
edit: and more important, whatever day as our 7th day of the week it would be Sabbath. If it was monday, it would be monday. It has zero significance.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Killer Joe - 04-02-2016
Thanks for clearing that up, Orion.
I read hydrogonian's posts several times and they still didn't make sense.
Later I realized that was because they're mostly bullshit.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - MiscBrah - 04-02-2016
Quote: (04-02-2016 09:24 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:
I read hydrogonian's posts several times and they still didn't make sense.
Later I realized that was because they're mostly bullshit.
I've noticed you have a habit of attacking established members here. First MikeCF and now hydrogonian.
And yet, I never notice posts of value coming from you. Maybe you should spend more time contributing and less time attacking other guys.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Roosh - 04-03-2016
3 day ban for Killer Joe.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 04-05-2016
delete
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - hydrogonian - 04-05-2016
Quote: (04-02-2016 09:24 PM)Killer Joe Wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up, Orion.
I read hydrogonian's posts several times and they still didn't make sense.
Later I realized that was because they're mostly bullshit.
First, that's rude considering my good-faith effort here for the benefit of anyone who might take the time to understand.
As an aside, I'm not going to do all of your work for you. I couldn't if I wanted to.
This process is gradual and it will only click as you do your own reading and as time passes to allow your own mind to build a framework. I did my best to give the full over-arching framework, in my first post, while keeping it reasonably short. That's a tall task, and the result will necessarily be concept dense and short on elaboration. Anyone reading is supposed to take key-words and concepts from the post and run with them.
Realized based on what exactly?
You not picking up what I'm putting down doesn't mean it's bullshit. It means that you don't understand.
I'm vaguely inclined to recap what I offered that gives anyone who reads it, and grasps the gravity of what I said, a valid and solid platform for moving forward in their own study; but it's going to be a waste of time in your case.
It's my mistake. I should have merely pm'd Roosh. Essentially, I was writing for Roosh in response to his request for more information.
It's clear that Orion is more bent on "winning" his internet argument than he is on clarifying anything legitimate. To that end, he's making things up out of whole cloth (as he did prior), presenting vague or otherwise uninformed assertions that waste my time in mandating a response, creating strawmen to attack, and even responding to his own assertions as if I said them - hilariously arguing against himself just so he can win his internet argument.
Select responses:
Quote:Quote:
When i say belief system im not referring to a messianic religion. Esotericism refers to whatever inner, hidden tradition there is. Be it an obscure cult, esoteric components of religions such as Christianity or Islam, or even a mixture of many religions and many teachings, as long as it is a spirituality that seeks for answers inside the practitioner by using hidden hints or even elaborate manuals, as opposed to practice of exoteric religion (going to a festival or praying).
Here, he's avoiding answering my question. He can't specifically name an esoteric system outside of the one I am referring to. He just cites "hidden tradition", "esoteric components", "mixtures of teachings", and "a spirituality that seeks answers inside the practitioner". The key is that there is use of "hidden hints" or "elaborate manuals" (which?) and that it specifically avoids practice that is not hidden (exoteric).
It's all very Indiana Jones in its exciting vaguery and necessarily exclusive if for nothing but his inability to say anything substantial about "it". For Orion, the prospect of a map, and everything that can be imagined about it, is more exciting and legitimate than the actual map and "treasure" itself. I'm sure that my even posting here about any of it is scandalous to him. It makes him feel good to at once be able to claim that he is defending a vague, exclusive knowledge that even he can't point directly to.
Again, note the absence of specificity let alone a wider framework. Good luck with your clarity. He's essentially insisting on backing out of any framework derived clarity for a non-specific awe of "esoterism".
He's probably referring to Gnosticism without realizing that Gnosticism is irrevocably part and parcel with Platonism and Kabbalism (more on this below). He's rejecting the framework that allows for the proper identification and categorization of religious practice even when the superficial names and details of these various "systems" change.
Quote:Quote:
Yes, my first post was answer to all of that. You put a bunch of different religions, from different scopes into one basket together with modern scientific knowledge, and labelled it all Satanism. Ridiculous.
All of what? He didn't rebut a single thing. He then proceeds to recreate his "Satansim" straw-man while reinforcing the take-away that he fails to grasp the concept of "Satanism" even though I bent over backwards to explain how the concept is used.
Ironically, he before reinforced that his vague "esoterism" is "Satanism" as it is perceived by anyone who acknowledges the concept, by claiming that it is a process of the "inner" person.
In sum, he doesn't understand his own arguments and his concept of "Satanism" is, indeed, the superficial and reactionary view of any "exoteric" Catholic or Protestant. He's only transferring the pearl-clutching, in response, to apply to his beloved vague "esotorism".
Okay, Orion, your "inner" esoterism isn't Satanist or Luciferian. Feel better? What you believe about "it" is entirely inconsequential.
Quote:Quote:
While many esoteric teachings have similar propositions, not all of them are same. Actually, many are completely different, and many scholars of these teachings dont agree with each other and call each other phony, hocus pocus, or accuse each other of not understanding tradition.
To reassure that forum that you aren't making things up, because you haven't been specific yet, please explain some various and differing traditional forms of Western Esoterism and their primary text sources.
St. Augustine, the arguably premiere Doctor of the Early Church, was a proponent of a so-called esoteric Christianity (assumingly non-Kabbalistic, non-Gnostic, and non-Platonic)? How so? Explanation? Proof?
Kabbalism / works-centric "esoterism" is what I am referring to, and therefore it is what you are attempting to tell me is not the only form of esoterism. That can't be it.
I already acknowledged Platonism, so that can't be it. Furthermore, Platonism and Neo-Platonism aren't esoteric.
Gnosticism (being saved by virtue of secret knowledge), Platonism, and Kabbalism are all species of religious practice within the same works-centric family. They comprise one end of the religious spectrum, although the former two systems are widely dead in named practice, outside of some remaining and minor influence within exoteric Christianity, in favor of Kabbalism that incorporates both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Kabbalah
http://www.newkabbalah.com/gnos.html
http://www.newkabbalah.com/plato.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatoni...Gnosticism
Also, you're welcome to the language that I have now provided to you that you were before grasping for. Now feel free to educate me on all of the systems that I mentioned that you before couldn't name.
Hermeticism, as it is practiced in the West, as I before mentioned is a subroutine of Kabbalistic magic and Kabbalistic Freemasonry. It is long departed from any minor Greek practice that connected Hermes to Thoth (mediator of the Law). Doing any serious reading on any of these subjects, or reading on legitimate sources for the Egyptian religious practice, would readily illustrate this fact. It's an invention with no legitimate connection to Egypt aside from made-up speculation/myth that it was lost in the Alexandrian Library burning and then recovered. Sadly, the Egyptians forgot to mention it in any of the several millenia of detailed religious documentation studied by legitimate Egyptian scholars.
Islam has long been inundated with Kabbalism if it wasn't begun specifically on its premises, as after all it is a works based religion. Follow Sharia Law to be saved, do xyz to recieve your 72 virgins in heaven. It's a religion with a deep connection to Kabbalistic magic and numerology. Its primary esoteric sect, the Sufis, are foundationally no different than magical practitioners from any other western Kabbalistic tradition. Feel that magic in your feels, boys.
There, I now gave you some more language that you can proceed to educate me on.
Quote:Quote:
Buddha's path of spiritual realization ? Meditation, Nirvana, contemplation, middle path, inner realization. Ring a bell ? That's an esoteric teaching par excellence, which is impossible to be pursued in a casual, exoteric way.
Saint Josephat was never canonized, and the story is a myth. It isn't theology. Cultures that intersect trade myths all of the time, and none of it means that actual religious practice is formed from the intersection. In short, its a specious assertion that you connect so-called esoteric Christianity with Buddhism based on this common myth. It's one of many weak arguments that waste everyone's time, mostly my own.
You haven't demonstrated that you know what Buddhism is. This is another example of you merely assigning a high value to something because it is mysterious to you. Calling it an "esoteric teaching par excellence" is illustrative of your over-excited values system when it comes to this subject matter. I'll never be impressed by you listing a litany of words from the new-age bookstore.
One long-dead Kabbalist who knew more than you or me in regard to religion, in an attempt to sum up Buddhism beyond the hype and buzzwords, once described Buddhism as merely "the religion with the aim of obliterating the soul". And he had a point. That's what it is. You are attempting to cease your own existence. If that's your religion "par excellence", then I wish you luck with what you don't understand and your over-excited values system.
Furthermore, for the most esoteric of Buddhism variants, Tibetan Buddhism, there have been detailed accusations of the exact sort of rituals that I describe for higher level Kabbalistic practice: namely homosexual rituals practiced by heterosexual men and other methods of antinomianism. Note that these accusations were not made in comparison with Kabbalism, but merely to point out the dangers of Tibetan Buddhism. Good luck with the higher levels of "initiation", Orion.
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm
Quote:Quote:
No they don't stop making things up. I can only think of Alistair Crowley who invented his own cult and ironically called himself satanist for sake of laugh, but im not talking here about hocus-pocus.
The concept of Lucifer as a helpful being is common to all Kabbalistic practice. The only person making anything up is you. Ironically, in spite of you defending this esoterism, you cannot help but to assess it from the values system and terminology of the lowly "exoeteric" religions. A true western esoterist, such as perhaps what you aspire to be, would be proud of Lucifer's role in man's ascension when asked.
Crowley didn't "invent" anything, but expanded on Kabbalistic practice. A true western esoterist, or anyone who knows anything about Crowley, knows this. Stop making assertions on subject matter that you have no knowledge of. It's wasting everyone's time. Thelema is no more separate a "cult" from Kabbalah than any other Kabbalstic sect is a separate "cult" from another.
All esoterism is "hocus pocus" to use your loaded terminology. That is, it is based on, as you say, "inner" search or "working" toward "enlightenment". All "work" is considered magic in these systems. In western esoteric theology, "work" and "magic" are generally interchangeable and are parallel concepts.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
It's not just the view of any Christian sect. Lucifer brings the light of human reason in their religion, which trumps the wisdom of God.
No he doesn't. Esoteric pursue of enlightenment isn't outward at all (towards and through an outer being). It's inward, through your own being.
See above. Also, the myth of Lucifer is a precisely a myth that connects directly to your "inward" practice. Your false dichotomy of so called "outward" Luciferian myth and inward practice does not exist. Again, stop making claims on subject matter that you don't understand.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
"Satanism" is a concept oriented to anti-Kabbalism and thus it is not really used in esoterism, but yet it has meaning in describing the essential struggle between Kabbalism and Christianity. The Kabbalists, when being honest, would instead refer to Lucifer.
Thanks for pointing out that they don't believe in Satan whatsoever. So we are back at "muh opinion" again.
You got me. You've made quite the rhetorical point by ignoring the fact that no one cares about what any sect thinks of themselves in regard to "Satanism" except for the LARPers that started the "Satanist" religion in roughly the 1950s (founded on individualism and free will) and, ironically, exoeteric religionists who freak out at the term. Unlike you, I'm using the term objectively. I would never call something "Satanist" in base my derision solely on that accusation. I would go on to describe why I dislike the system in question. If I were a believer in it, unlike you, I would have no issue in describing the system as luciferian or "satanist" if I were to use the latter terminology of exoetric practioners to describe myself. "Satanism", specifically, is a relative concept that describes any enemy of the opposite system of Kabbalah. Do most armies describe themselves using the terminology of the enemy?
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Yes, because putting words in my mouth is a legitimate form of argument. It's not that they got it all wrong, its that only some of them were correct and accepted as being legitimate Christian theologians by the Church. Thus, it isn't enough to say "early Christian scholars". You have to be specific.
Which one ? Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran ? We have at least 30 mainstream Christianities. "The Early Church" was probably even more disunited than later ones, which is why numerous councils were needed to bring doctrine closer.
Here you go again, making arguments merely to say something opposite to what I said, even though you are essentially arguing against your prior point.
First, you implied that it was ridiculous that I though that later Christian scholars could have clarified early Christianity to a better degree than the early scholars.
I responded, essentially refuting your false dichotomy that one period of scholars, as a broad category, has to be wrong for the other to be correct. I implied that there were a plethora of "early Christian scholars" and therefore citing them all in one category is not legitimate. I stated that some were adopted into legitimacy by "the Church" while others were not. Citing them all together is not a complete or otherwise discernable argument.
Then, in spite of the conversation clearly being about the "early" Church, by virtue of your own statements as well as my responses to those statements, you go on to throw a list of early, mid, and later denominations at me in an attempt to rebut my statement of the Church legitimizing some "scholars" and not others.
In one breath, you appeal to the authority of the early scholars and the early church against my argument for later scholars, and in the next you appeal to an argument that de-legitimatizes the "early church" in its choice of scholars because it is one of "thirty mainstream Christianities".
You don't want a legitimate argument or clarity in this conversation, but to win at all costs.
For your information, the "early Church" when it is described as such did and does not include Lutherans or "thirty mainstream Christianities". But you know this.
You are merely attempting to throw anything at the wall in hopes that it will stick, regardless of how it makes sense in the context of our continued conversation.
Quote:Quote:
But my point is, some medieval scholars did not recoil as a venomous snake to hearing about other religious teachings or more importantly - earlier teachings and early traditions including pagan ones.
How do you know who "recoiled like venomous snakes" to what doctrine?
Quote:Quote:
They discussed them with open mind, which is minimum requirement for anyone who claims to be objective.
Who ever told you that the requirement for religion was so called "objectivity" or, to give you a better word, "tolerance" for all views?
How do you know that these men were not well past the point of considering other views when they became Doctors of the Church and were instead arguing for what they believed to be the "objective" truth in the face of destructive paths and lies?
You are assigning a false sense and requirement of modern liberal religious tolerance to men that you didn't know and that were, incidentally, instrumental in the formation of a rigid religious doctrine that changed the world for all time.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
For instance, can you explain to me the hybrid theological nature of the Catholic Church? There is no reason to believe that later scholars, removed from the influence of the Empires, could not crystallize better what was intended. Thinking otherwise is basically an admission that you believe Orthodox Christian theology to be correct, even though it is still evolving, and even though most of the World is Roman Catholic (having a vastly different theology). Who was and is correct? Why?
Early Christianity, you know, the one in which people still didn't eat pork, or where people still Celebrated Yom Kippur was completely unacceptable to the major demographic core of Roman Empire - white, pagan Europeans. That's why we have Catholic and Orthodox Churches where people celebrate birth of Christ at the exact dates when Europeans celebrated rebirth of Sun, and where people eat pork and celebrate Mary as a some for semi-goddess.
In no way, shape, or form did you respond to my statement. If anything, you are making an argument for my assertion that it is not unreasonable for later scholars to coax out a less culturally and politically biased form of Christianity.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
If you knew anything about the Patristic period and the evolution of early Christian theology then you wouldn't be so glib. It's clear that you don't have a notion about what you're speaking to. Read a book.
This is a predictable response to me pointing out that you don't have knowledge on the subject matter.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Okay, but your frame was one which justified itself due to man at that time being 'purer' or closer to nature. That's what the phrase "noble savage" refers to when it is used, not actual savagery (though this is too often present). It essentially refers to a fallacy in which a greater degree of wisdom credibility is given to a less technologically advanced man for reasons that aren't so rational.
No, i argued that meaning and significance of Saturn to modern man and ancient man was different on so many planes, as well as religious feelings. Modern men in majority of chases pursue "personal religion" where it all revolves around them. For ancient men, religion was pretty much the whole world around them. Almost everything had some religious significance. Modern men, without open mind and without trying to abandon their modern brain programming, has difficult time to imagine that, particularly when surrounded by traffic and apartment blocks.
Yes, the noble savage. Cosmogeny vs. a religion that revolves around man himself, very good. However, your further explanation fails to mete out the true theological significance of these two worldviews - let alone their history. Last, your phrasing is inundated with all sorts of modern biases (ironic, no?) regarding "closed minds" and "brain programming" that I'm used to hearing from another contingent.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
But that doesn't mean that the assessment is wrong. Everything can be known about the esoterism that you are referring to, from the resources of the esoterism itself. It isn't so hidden, lost, or misunderstood. In fact, it is alive and practiced by large groups who have books written about it.
Just few replies bellow, you say it can't, and that it is all hidden and that we have no idea what Masonic degrees mean.
You're confusing what I said. The theology can be known because it is so widespread across different Kabbalistic religions, clubs and sects. The specific passwords and other minutia is difficult to know reliably due to group specific secrecy on those matters. Though, it can also be known perhaps to a degree from some text sources, I would just never claim that I knew the minutia of the myriad of masonic rituals, for instance, without being there myself. I don't assume that all sects use the same rituals or go as far as the next.
Quote:Quote:
It's dangerous to use word derivative in this context unless someone can specifically prove that one particular thought was completely adopted from abroad.
I disagree that it is "dangerous" given the relative success in being able to date these various civilizations. Most can be positioned on a timeline that shows clear predating.
This will mostly be a matter of choice in perspective. I stick with the scholarly view, in general, and should any rational person. Constantly asking "what if" in willful ignorance of evidence is a recipe for simply stating that we can't trust archeological knowledge. I'm a fan of trusting it until an opposing view can be proven.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
I didn't say that average homosexuals have sex for esoteric reasons. They clearly do so because they are homosexuals. Certain representatives of the esoterism being discussed in this thread have admitted to this type of intercourse for this purpose, or have pointed to this being the purpose: Aleister Crowley being one. Aleister Crowley also being the modern founder of the major Freemasonry associated occult group the O.TO. These groups are all Kabbalistic.
Yes, Alistair Crowley is almost a central figure to any instance of satanism or homosexuality being brought up in relation to esoteric tradition, and is usually mentioned instantly.
But unfortunately, also exclusive.
He's not exclusive in the context of the aforementioned link to Tibetan Buddhists engaging in roughly the same thing, or written accounts of O.T.O. members and other "sex magic" practitioners engaging in the consumption of menstrual blood mixed with semen, or the Frankist antinomians, and therefore likely an number of other advanced Kabbalstic "esoteric" practitioners" (all different, but of course).
And then there is Crowley. I'm no more a fan of dismissing him than I am dismissing any central piece of evidence merely because it is too widely mentioned or taken for granted.
Last, this thread is (or was) specifically about Satanic rituals in Hollywood. If you follow Roosh's links out from his recent pertinent article, the primary claims are that new up and coming celebrities are forced to engage in homosexual practice as initiation and continued ritual.
Quote:Quote:
Abyss you are referring to is a part of "Thelema" teaching, not Kabbalah. Thelema was invented by Alistair Crowley in 20th century.
Oh, Orion, just stop responding if you need to continuously invent assertions. Sometimes they are a passable excuse for a proposal for an argument, and sometimes they are unquestionably false and thus just a blatant invention. In this case, the situation is the latter.
The "abyss" is not made up by Crowley, but an actual physical part of the Kabbalstic tree where Da'at (invisible on illustrations of most trees, leaving only the abyss) resides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da'at
![[Image: 288px-Ktreewnames.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Ktreewnames.png/288px-Ktreewnames.png)
See where Da'at is? Da'at is usually not depicted and that wide space, where it is, is the "abyss".
Crossing the Abyss refers to crossing that space on the Tree. Being a physical part of the Kabbalistic Tree, it is a part of all Kabbalistic systems that attain to reach that far up the tree.
A system that does not attain to reach that far, or at least in any of its teaching that anyone outside of itself knows about, is Mormonism. This system, as illustrated by its own cosmological language, attains for only the Veil; crossed after physical death.
![[Image: treeveil.jpg]](http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/kabalah/treeveil.jpg)
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
lol. Their super secret Satan books. I don't know. Buddy, you made some ridiculous point about how we couldn't be sure that they knew their own system
So don't bring up stuff you cannot back up, it's simple.
I'm only taking your cue.
But more specifically, this was nothing that required "backing up". I was being glib with you because of your silly assertion that Freemasons don't know their own rituals. It is reasonable to assume that they have this practice written down, and that no one is required to provide evidence that they do to you. Nobody cares about every little "what if" that you have, and you certainly shouldn't be using such thoughts as argument. The Freemasons exist and continue to practice, so it is reasonable to assume that they are practicing Freemasonry. There is no remotely reasonable evidence to the contrary. How do we know that the Buddhists are actually practicing Buddhism? How do we know that the Native Americans are actually practicing their religion? Have you ever read a better book on Freemasonic myth or ritual by a Mason? Whatever they practice, that's what Freemasonry is. I'd venture that it is true Freemasonry, and if it isn't then it is now. Whatever the case, the argument is silly and absolutely irrelevant.
Quote:Quote:
I was actually rather moderate - i wondered whether Masons are more than modern hocus-pocus. Yet you claim with 100% certainty that Kabbalism is not lost as if you ever saw anyone practice it, let alone cross the supposed Kabbalist Abyss.
Please go study and come back:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...bbalah.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
Quote:Quote:
In my local lodge, which is regular, many members are known, here are their professions: Lawyer, chief editor of a local newspaper, CEO of a local powerful company, an artist, a politician.
Why aren't there any bearded mystics in their ranks ?
Who said that most masons know anything beyond some mythology?
How do you know who is in your local lodge?
Quote:Quote:
Obviously in modern times, most intellectually capable, noble persons will usually come from upper tiers of society. It's natural it will always be like that. But Masons almost have no exceptions. They are almost exclusively well do to, rich and influential people.
That's simply and blatantly untrue. I'm in one of the premiere cities for the free-masonic tradition in the nation, and cops and union workers are common in the membership. I know this from personal relationships, but I'm still curious as to how you know what a wide swath of your town's membership includes absent of membership yourself or the lodge simply being an undisciplined boy's club (possible); though this latter state of affairs would go against your exclusivity assertion.
My impression is that lodges vary, but what I also get is that there is no significant initiations in the regular lodges but only for the members (probably very few) who move beyond them. For most members, it's a charitable fraternity that teaches Kabbalistic mythology in the form of rituals. I'm not even sure that most members read a single book on the subject.
"Freemasonry" doesn't imply that higher level initiations occur in those lodges, let alone in front of the common membership. It is possible and common to teach varying levels of Kabbalistic doctrine, and I'm not asserting that I know specifically how far any one sect takes it (beyond the sects for which there is varying degrees of evidence).
Last, I would never assume that taking a guys rod up the cornhole, or drinking cum and menstrual fluid, would lead to a beard and an aura of mysticism. Degeneracy isn't legitimately mystical in my mind. This assertion is a symptom of your spiritual over-valuation of these systems.
Quote:Quote:
Which brings up legitimate suspicion as to whether their gatherings, and to what extent, are spiritual, and whether such spirituality is something with genuine purpose, or whether it is hocus-pocus.
Well, on this we can agree.
Quote:Quote:
I know what Kabbalism is, but to you it is something much wider it appears. To you Kabbalism includes apparently all non-Christian beliefs to a lesser or higher degree.
I believe that all religion can be placed on a gamut of practice within a framework, with one type of Christianity representing the polar end of that practice. However, I would never frame the method of characterization as having anything to do with Christianity. I look at the structure of the religion, not belief in Christ. Theoretically, another religion (perhaps the original Hebrew religion for instance) could be placed on the same place on the gamut. Similarly, I judge other religions by their philosophy of practice, not whether or not they are Christian.
How one values any one of those religions is up to the individual, and I have my individual views as well. I'm always open to a debate (though perhaps not in this thread that is all but dead) on the relative merits of religion on the gamut. I will say that I tend to be a person who believes in pure practice and I tend to discount hybrid systems, no matter what end of the gamut they favor. If I were a Kabbalist, I'd attempt to be the purest Kabbalist that I could be.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
Was that word salad designed to be English syntax? I can't tell. My "objective measure" is years of studying of scholarship on these systems, as well as primary sources. Your "objective measure" seems to be Wikipedia, what you feel to be correct, and stunted perceptions of theological concepts.
In other words, you melt down whenever we won't take your word for something you claim to be 100% truth.
In other words, I couldn't understand your writing and, yes, I don't hold your sometimes Wikipedia-only context-free research to be worthy of debate at this point. Your better insights, yes, but not when you are obviously just throwing stuff on the board to see what will stick.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
No, Saturday is 6th day of the week.
Yes, for you. For my neighbor it's 7th. There is no objective justification for a 7 day week. 7 day week is human, completely made up system of orientation.
See, here you are responding to your own post, as quoted, and arguing against it.
It's really too much.
Your original post about Saturday being the sixth day can be found near the bottom of this post:
thread-53191...pid1266713
You're simply throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick; even if it means arguing against yourself.
This conversation has officially become a parody of itself.
Yes, there is an "objective" justification for the seven day week.
Objectively, the seven day week has a Biblical connotation of the seven days of creation; as I before explained. That's why it is used.
What you mean to say is that there is not a non-bliblical reason for the seven day week. And, yes, the Bible is an "objective" source for the Hebrew creation mythology. Yet, here we are and arguing about it, especially absent any greater "esoteric" calendar knowledge won't get you very far in internet arguments with strangers or in any other capacity. What, precisely, is the point of this specific argument? Do you have any further knowledge of the calendar?
Other than the yearly and daily cycle, most other "orientations" are esoteric or astronomical calculations that are prioritized and and valued for esoteric reasons. Though, the yearly and daily cycles also have large esoteric meaning.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
In Judaism, Sabbath is the seventh day of the Hebrew calendar week, which in English is known as Saturday. The term has been used to describe a similar weekly observance in any of several other traditions; the first crescent or new moon; any of seven annual festivals in Judaism and some Christian traditions; any of eight annual pagan festivals (usually "sabbat"); an annual secular holiday; and a year of rest in religious or secular usage, the sabbath year, originally every seventh year.
You see ? Concept of Sabbath as 7th day is entirely subjective, to those who belong to that tradition. But we still do not know on what day of modern week does Sabbath appear. The only thing that matters is that we rest the seventh day. Whether seventh day will be Wednesday or Monday or Sunday cannot be either known, or matters.
Some cultures had no weeks at all. And some cultures had something similar that lasted, 4, 5 or 10 days.
What's the point of your argument?
Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
The occult system in question is built on Jewish belief. Thus, What the Jews hold to be the correct numeration of the weekly cycle as well as the Sabbath is what is correct for this esoteric system. According to them, Saturday is the seventh day. Thus Saturday is the seventh day. Their messianic belief also holds the seventh millennium to be the Sabbath, or the millennium of rest and peace.
No, according to them, Sabbath is 7th day. Saturday is a day of the modern week which Americans consider to be 7th and Russians for example consider to be 6th.
The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on the seventh day. Thus, Saturday is the Sabbath and the seventh day.
This is like getting a tooth extracted, as you run this argument around in nonsensical circles. What, precisely, is your point?
Wait, don't tell me, I have absolutely zero interest.
I didn't say that it was a theological argument. I didn't say it was a good argument. I didn't ever say that I knew what your supposed point is, or why you insist on discussing this with me or anyone else.
The days are NOT the same and equal because they are a part of the solar year. Yes, they are made to fit into the format of one week. And?? Yes, it is religiously important. And??
Wait, like I said, don't tell me.
Quote:Quote:
There is no objective justification for a 7 day week
There is:
1) Religious justification - religious texts.
2) Arbitrary - me and you sit down on a table and make a deal that week will have 7/10/20 days and we give them names and ordering and start recording them.
Both of these are subjective.
Not subjective, but also who cares.
Quote:Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Quote:
The seven day week [b]is NOT arbitrary. It's represents the seven days of biblical creation.
You just refuted your own claim. Bible is not objective. It is subjective - it matters to those who believe in it - belief is completely subjective. To a Zho Shun from China it has zero relevance.
edit: and more important, whatever day as our 7th day of the week it would be Sabbath. If it was monday, it would be monday. It has zero significance.
Again, there's that tenuous grasp of the meaning of "objective" and "subjective". Religious belief is "subjective". Bible mythology is comprised of precise words that most people agree on, at least more than almost any other text in translation, and thus it's mythology is not "subjective". Objectively, the creation myth is comprised of seven days.
The Judeo-Christian mythology is a part of Western culture and traditional religious belief, and it has resulted in a seven day cycle that fits into a monthly lunar cycle, a 365 day solar cycle, and helps us to keep track of time and mark yearly milestones. No, you don't have to believe in it but, people who were smarter than you and me though that having a small cycle in-between the lunar and daily cycle would be useful, and if you want to get to work on the correct days then I suggest you adhere to the seven day biblical weekly cycle as your "orientation" regardless of your "subjective belief".
Alright, I'm done.
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - No Habit - 04-05-2016
I like how open minded a lot of us are. Don't accept or reject anything but look into it for yourself.
Once you start looking you'll notice things. I live in a major German city and went into the oldest biggest cathedral there. Sure enough in the biggest colored window behind the altar in the highest point was that Freemason all seeing eye. You think Jesus would be the center... Nope it's that same eye that's on the dollar bill. Also when you put the two symbols of the bill together the eagle will touch the letters a, m, n, o, s with wings and tail. I also read that 'freemason' originates from the Egypt 'P'hre Ma' which means sons of the sun if I remember correctly.
All those symbols and patterns spread all through the world. I don't believe that there is such a thing as coincidence in life, anymore.
I also wonder where those 7 days originate from. The proto-people used the thumb and the 4x3 finger segments to count which were 12. That's why there are 12 months. The Sumerians also used 60 and 360 which are multiples of that but never ended something with 7 as far as I know.
This whole thing is just dogma and rituals and not true religion in the ordinary sense, that's what makes it so destructive.
Keep up the investigation!
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - h3ltrsk3ltr - 04-05-2016
I'm still trying to understand the who, why, what and how here.
What is the cultist arm of Hollywood trying to accomplish?
From what I can tell by checking out movies since the 60s, the arts have been very progressive in pushing feminist ideology. But, can we look at movies throughout the years and, based on the themes, identify the Illuminati/kabbalah (or whatever cult's) influence on the writing, screenplay, and score? Are the images and ideas promoted by movies and TV shows effective at controlling our minds?
What the fuck is going on?
Is there a connection between Jews, feminism, two World Wars, the holocaust, the Industrial Revolution, the Cold War, nuclear weapons, the Internet...
Wait, don't answer that. We know there are connections to be found or supposed. Is there really a way to identify a hostile force within them? Are there multiple factions fighting for power? Can you give me an idea of which one's are aligned with views I might have?
People making hand signs, even over the years, isn't evidence of a cult. Not that anyone's saying that. I understand that when you compound a lot of these connections and rumors it seems pretty suspicious. I'm pretty suspicious right now, but I want to make sure I'm not seeing something that isn't there.
For example, I'm pretty sure that every actor in Woody Allen movies uses the term "engaged to be married" as a sort of inside joke. I've never been able to find info on why actors in those movies don't just say "she got engaged" they seem to always add "engaged to be married".
Apparently the theatrical world is replete with inside jokes of this kind (assuming that's even one of them). A lot of people know that theater-types won't refer to the Shakespeare play "Macbeth" by its name for fear of accidents happening on stage. I don't suppose anything sinister to be at work here, it's just a superstition like "break a leg" (also from the theater), "lighting never strikes twice" or the idea that eating the gum from the MREs will make it rain.
I'd never have known about the MRE superstition if I hadn't been in the Military. I'd probably find a lot of inside knowledge in the entertainment industry.
I think it's safe to say that queers tend to gravitate toward the arts. They have the social sensitivity of women and an aversion to masculinity.
Seeing gay sex exchanged for career boosts isn't that surprising. Queen Latifa corn-holing Emma Watson in the name of Satan seems like a bit of a stretch, not that I can't imagine it. Anyone else ever simultaneously barf and jerk off?
Who are we fighting?
I've seen the article about Jews running Hollywood. I don't think anyone is suggesting we fight "the jews" but is the main cult or whatever it's called, a Jewish-run thing? While I'm ready to occam (used as a verb on purpose) in favor of Jews simply having developed a monopoly in the industry more or less accidentally (a persecuted group finding refuge and growing numbers in the early 20th century in the USA might be considered right-place-right-timers), I also find that merely disliking Jews doesn't seem a likely cause for multinational, round-em-up genocides.
Can we pinpoint an enemy at all? Currently, it's called feminism. Can we get more specific? Is there something behind it?
How does the Hollywood Kabbalah (or whatever) undermine our way of life?
Maybe the easiest question. I see it pushing me to spend frivolously, destroy the family unit, and stop thinking for myself. Is there anything else it promotes that might help us to understand what's going on?
Why are they doing this?
Is there a reason the Illuminatiwould want to destroy humanity? Are they monsters? Aliens? Crazy? Just plain stupid?
Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult? - Orion - 04-06-2016
Quote: (04-05-2016 03:58 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:
Here, he's avoiding answering my question. He can't specifically name an esoteric system outside of the one I am referring to. He just cites "hidden tradition", "esoteric components", "mixtures of teachings", and "a spirituality that seeks answers inside the practitioner". The key is that there is use of "hidden hints" or "elaborate manuals" (which?) and that it specifically avoids practice that is not hidden (exoteric).
Firs of all, there is no established theory regarding scope, aspects, nature and meaning of esotericism. There is some form of loosely based consensus that esotericism refers to all knowledge that was rejected by both positive science during rennaisance, and mainstream religion.
However, I'm not keen on that definition too much. If we take the literal meaning of the word, esotericism would refer to inner, concealed, spirituality.
That being said, there are many schools. Hindu esotericism, Buddhist esotericism, Islamic esotericism (Sufi Islam schools), Kabbalah, Neo-Paganism, Old Paganism, Indo-European neo-paganism (exploration of symbolic, exotic meanings of all major European pagan pantheons). Pardon me if i hadn't used everywhere the most popular term. Then, there is also some Christian esoteric tradition, for example Grail Myth and it's alleged mysteries, cult of Templar order, etc.
Quote:Quote:
It's all very Indiana Jones in its exciting vaguery and necessarily exclusive if for nothing but his inability to say anything substantial about "it". For Orion, the prospect of a map, and everything that can be imagined about it, is more exciting and legitimate than the actual map and "treasure" itself. I'm sure that my even posting here about any of it is scandalous to him. It makes him feel good to at once be able to claim that he is defending a vague, exclusive knowledge that even he can't point directly to.
Hold on for a second. I'm not defending esoteric teaching as being legitimate or truthful at all. I'm objecting it's dogmatic demonization which lacks any basis and often relies on pseudo-historicity of applying modern obsessions to ancient cultures that were completely oblivious to it, that other religions often avoid simply because they are either too exotic, or too obscure for westerners, or some other forms of hypocrisy.
Quote:Quote:
Again, note the absence of specificity let alone a wider framework. Good luck with your clarity. He's essentially insisting on backing out of any framework derived clarity for a non-specific awe of "esoterism".
Obviously esotericism belongs to spiritual framework. That being said, clarity or specificity is missing whenever there is comparative religion, and most definitely when somebody is trying to get into the roots - etiology of a certain religious traditions. Lack of clarity is simply mandated. Not even major Abrahamic religions are clear in their origins. Was Judaism always monotheist ? Was it at first Monolatric ? Are Yahwe and El related ? Etc. etc. These are things that theologians obsessed over and tried to clear out, without any form of definitive conclusion anywhere in sight. Aren't these mysteries as well ?
You claim as if only esoteric teachings have mysteries.
Quote:Quote:
He's probably referring to Gnosticism without realizing that Gnosticism is irrevocably part and parcel with Platonism and Kabbalism (more on this below). He's rejecting the framework that allows for the proper identification and categorization of religious practice even when the superficial names and details of these various "systems" change.
Yes, and faith based spirituality is part and parcel of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Does it make these religions one and same ? No it doesn't.
Quote:Quote:
He didn't rebut a single thing. He then proceeds to recreate his "Satansim" straw-man while reinforcing the take-away that he fails to grasp the concept of "Satanism" even though I bent over backwards to explain how the concept is used.
Satan is in Abrahamic religions a fallen angel who promised to lure people away from God and tempt them into sin. Obviously, concept of Satan, when applied, is very very wide. And above all - Completely subject to dogma of tradition. For any Christian tradition (Protestant, Orthodox, Independent), Satan will be any teaching they deem as false - because that's what Satan does - he deceives. So for Orthodox Christians, Protestantism is deception.
But therein lies the problem. Anything can be deception, and anyone can be the deceived one. Even when you read the Bible, meaning that you derive from it can be your own illusion or deception. Hence objectivity.
Quote:Quote:
Ironically, he before reinforced that his vague "esoterism" is "Satanism" as it is perceived by anyone who acknowledges the concept, by claiming that it is a process of the "inner" person.
It really depends on your definition of Satanism. For some people, inner realization does not mean letting yourself be open to influences of dark forces. It can even be opposite.
Quote:Quote:
Okay, Orion, your "inner" esoterism isn't Satanist or Luciferian. Feel better? What you believe about "it" is entirely inconsequential.
What mine Esoterism ? You wan't to say that you no longer consider Egyptian religions as source of Satanism or that you think that they are irrelevant for modern theological problems, or something else ? Or are you going to agree with me that ancient teachings have been deeply misunderstood, abused, misapplied for modern contexts, without any necessity to do that.
Actually, Christian concept of Satan is so self-sufficient that introducing ancient religions into the whole story as some sort of prelude to NWO etc. created an unnecessary mess for no other reason but to give it some sort of false "mystery", conspiracy, drama, and exoticism. Or as you put it - Indiana Jones.
Quote:Quote:
To reassure that forum that you aren't making things up, because you haven't been specific yet, please explain some various and differing traditional forms of Western Esoterism and their primary text sources.
Told at the beginning of my reply.
Quote:Quote:
St. Augustine, the arguably premiere Doctor of the Early Church, was a proponent of a so-called esoteric Christianity (assumingly non-Kabbalistic, non-Gnostic, and non-Platonic)? How so? Explanation? Proof?
I never said that ? I said he referred to Hermes Trismagistus without any stigma or demonization as an example of early positive spirituality.
Quote:Quote:
Kabbalism / works-centric "esoterism" is what I am referring to, and therefore it is what you are attempting to tell me is not the only form of esoterism. That can't be it.
It would mean that only people from Levant in the entire wold had inner teachings in antiquity. That is such an absurdity that it requires no further objections.
Quote:Quote:
I already acknowledged Platonism, so that can't be it. Furthermore, Platonism and Neo-Platonism aren't esoteric.
Well, philosophy, as a path to wisdom, is necessarily an inner discipline. There is no such thing as mass philosophy.
Quote:Quote:
Gnosticism (being saved by virtue of secret knowledge), Platonism, and Kabbalism are all species of religious practice within the same works-centric family.
I can give this statement some credit. It's not too incorrect. But you also need to define "works". If it refers to making favors to God, or sacrifices or anything like that, than you would be wrong.
Inner path has that one thing common with outer path. They both claim to be seeking the one and only universal truth. And that truth has nothing to do with works. Reaching Truth means acknowledgment of Truth. When you acknowledge something, it's not works at all.
So if you mean by "works" "path towards discovering truth" let's call it works then, but It's a bad word to use really. Acknowledging Truth is an entirely mental activity.
Quote:Quote:
They comprise one end of the religious spectrum, although the former two systems are widely dead in named practice, outside of some remaining and minor influence within exoteric Christianity, in favor of Kabbalism that incorporates both.
Obviously, if you refer to occult rituals, then let's say woks can be defined as an important component of occultism. But if occult rituals are only an object of reaching Truth, than how does that separate them from any other religious rituals ?
In other words, there is no religion without established rituals. It's a common fallacy, that Baptists for example abuse. To them, Hindu rituals are works, but Baptist prayers, marriages, baptisms etc. are not works. That's total jibberish. Their measure of who is working and who believes is completely subjective, and remains nothing but an unqualified "muh opinion"
Quote:Quote:
Hermeticism, as it is practiced in the West, as I before mentioned is a subroutine of Kabbalistic magic and Kabbalistic Freemasonry.
I can make much closer relation between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Do i make them one and same ? No i don't
Quote:Quote:
It is long departed from any minor Greek practice that connected Hermes to Thoth (mediator of the Law). Doing any serious reading on any of these subjects, or reading on legitimate sources for the Egyptian religious practice, would readily illustrate this fact. It's an invention with no legitimate connection to Egypt aside from made-up speculation/myth that it was lost in the Alexandrian Library burning and then recovered. Sadly, the Egyptians forgot to mention it in any of the several millenia of detailed religious documentation studied by legitimate Egyptian scholars.
You just described history of any ancient teaching - uncertain authorship, uncertain date, uncertain connections to other religions/teachings/philosophies of the time, uncertain place of origin etc. That being said, same uncertainties are present for origins of Christianity.
Quote:Quote:
Islam has long been inundated with Kabbalism if it wasn't begun specifically on its premises, as after all it is a works based religion.
Many modern schools of Islam consider Kabbalah to be Satanic. Actually, most of them.
Quote:Quote:
It's a religion with a deep connection to Kabbalistic magic and numerology. Its primary esoteric sect, the Sufis, are foundationally no different than magical practitioners from any other western Kabbalistic tradition. Feel that magic in your feels, boys.
More opinions. More extremely wide definitions. Magic and numerology. I mean these two are inherently present in almost any religion, particularly Abrahamic and middle-eastern ones. Magic and important numbers are all over the Bible. But when they are present in the Bible, they somehow don't constitute anything Biblical whatsoever. They only constitute "deep and inherent" part of other traditions, that you don't agree with when they are mentoned.
Quote:Quote:
Saint Josephat was never canonized, and the story is a myth. It isn't theology. Cultures that intersect trade myths all of the time, and none of it means that actual religious practice is formed from the intersection.
What ? How did you derive that conclusion ? You said it as it it was the most logical conclusion that they don't form practice from intersection, not the other way round - It's absolutely logical that intersection leads to imported practices.
Quote:Quote:
In short, its a specious assertion that you connect so-called esoteric Christianity with Buddhism based on this common myth. It's one of many weak arguments that waste everyone's time, mostly my own.
Well, yes, it really is the "so-called" Esoteric Christianity. It's a debated topic. But so is your own claim of universality of Kabbalah to all non-Christian teachings.
Quote:Quote:
You haven't demonstrated that you know what Buddhism is. This is another example of you merely assigning a high value to something because it is mysterious to you.
I don't see any mystery in Buddha's teachings which is presented in a straight-forward way. I said that Buddhist path of spiritual realization is exclusively inner. Buddha rejects all strict religious observation, hence he made institutionalization extremely difficult and inconvenient. You can't go to a Buddhist church, or collectively pray to a Buddhist God.
Quote:Quote:
Calling it an "esoteric teaching par excellence" is illustrative of your over-excited values system when it comes to this subject matter.
Yes, calling something esoteric is such an exercise in excitement.
Quote:Quote:
I'll never be impressed by you listing a litany of words from the new-age bookstore.
What an ego trip
Quote:Quote:
One long-dead Kabbalist who knew more than you or me in regard to religion, in an attempt to sum up Buddhism beyond the hype and buzzwords, once described Buddhism as merely "the religion with the aim of obliterating the soul". And he had a point. That's what it is. You are attempting to cease your own existence.
Of what significance is this long-dead Kabbalist's interpretation to us ? Is he some authority of a sort ? And what existence are you referring to ? To cease life, commit suicide ? Is that what Buddha teaches ?
Quote:Quote:
then I wish you luck with what you don't understand and your over-excited values system.
Again, a you-me-you-me spiral. You are taking it too personal.
Quote:Quote:
Furthermore, for the most esoteric of Buddhism variants, Tibetan Buddhism, there have been detailed accusations of the exact sort of rituals that I describe for higher level Kabbalistic practice: namely homosexual rituals practiced by heterosexual men and other methods of antinomianism. Note that these accusations were not made in comparison with Kabbalism, but merely to point out the dangers of Tibetan Buddhism. Good luck with the higher levels of "initiation", Orion.
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm
According to a website whose entire content is "criticism" (demonization) of Buddhism. Pass.
Quote:Quote:
The concept of Lucifer as a helpful being is common to all Kabbalistic practice.
No it's not.
Quote:Quote:
The only person making anything up is you. Ironically, in spite of you defending this esoterism, you cannot help but to assess it from the values system and terminology of the lowly "exoeteric" religions. A true western esoterist, such as perhaps what you aspire to be, would be proud of Lucifer's role in man's ascension when asked.
You are making things up again.
Quote:Quote:
Crowley didn't "invent" anything, but expanded on Kabbalistic practice.
Yes, and David Koresh expanded Christian practice, and Osama Bin Laden Islamic one. Your point ?
Quote:Quote:
A true western esoterist, or anyone who knows anything about Crowley, knows this. Stop making assertions on subject matter that you have no knowledge of. It's wasting everyone's time. Thelema is no more separate a "cult" from Kabbalah than any other Kabbalstic sect is a separate "cult" from another.
And Christianity is no more separate religion from Judaism. Hey, they even both claim a belief in deity Yahweh. That is more powerful connection than anything you can come up with that is a connection between any esoteric teachings.
Quote:Quote:
All esoterism is "hocus pocus" to use your loaded terminology. That is, it is based on, as you say, "inner" search or "working" toward "enlightenment". All "work" is considered magic in these systems. In western esoteric theology, "work" and "magic" are generally interchangeable and are parallel concepts.
Ok, that is your take on esotericism, and it's not unique. Many people consider all of that hocus pocus. Some people consider all religion hocus pocus.
Well, i consider all that "magic" hocus pocus too, that being said. Along with all these societies that cultivate a culture of super-massive egosim.
Quote:Quote:
See above. Also, the myth of Lucifer is a precisely a myth that connects directly to your "inward" practice.
How come you know what's inside anyway ? According to you, seeking inside you will find the devil. How come ?
Quote:Quote:
Your false dichotomy of so called "outward" Luciferian myth and inward practice does not exist. Again, stop making claims on subject matter that you don't understand.
Again, stop making claims on my understanding bundled with failing to explain anything. On what basis do you conclude at all what is outside and what is inside. Did you peek inside or outside ? Who did you see there ? On what basis do you claim that inner realization leads to pact with the devil ?
Quote:Quote:
You got me. You've made quite the rhetorical point by ignoring the fact that no one cares about what any sect thinks of themselves
This can be said by anyone, about anything. What is this, an argument or a brawl ?
Quote:Quote:
If I were a believer in it, unlike you, I would have no issue in describing the system as luciferian or "satanist"
Yes and if i were you behind keyboard, i would write a long post about how great Orion is. This is embarrassing.
Quote:Quote:
if I were to use the latter terminology of exoetric practioners to describe myself.
Why would anyone allow himself to be described and labelled by the other ? Do you let Muslims label you ? As a polytheist ? Do you say "Yes, i am a polytheist !". Do you say "yes, i am Infidel !". Everyone understands why self-identification is necessary to any identity, be it religious, ethnic, or any other.
Quote:Quote:
"Satanism", specifically, is a relative concept that describes any enemy of the opposite system of Kabbalah. Do most armies describe themselves using the terminology of the enemy?
Funny thing is, there is nothing in the teachings of Kabbalah that refers to Christianity in any way as an antagonistic religion. And according to Christianity, only thing we can derive as an antagonistic form is "false teachings" and "false prophets" doctrine. However, it is subject to doctrine. Some people can exclude everything that doesn't correspond to their doctrine as "false" and "wicked". Others will be less exclusive.
Quote:Quote:
I responded, essentially refuting your false dichotomy that one period of scholars, as a broad category, has to be wrong for the other to be correct. I implied that there were a plethora of "early Christian scholars" and therefore citing them all in one category is not legitimate. I stated that some were adopted into legitimacy by "the Church" while others were not. Citing them all together is not a complete or otherwise discernable argument.
But you never pointed any arguments whatsoever on why do you consider anyone to be correct, who do you consider correct and for what reason. Only thing i read is "i think". Yes we know who did The Church adopt, but then, if you take Church history as a reference, you don't answer any questions, you ask more - which Church, which era, which council, which area, which Emperor, which subjects. Who is purer, who is less idolatrous, icons or no icons, trinity or no trinity, ecumenism or no ecumenism, sola fide/sola scriptura or these + tradition.
You said "The Church" as if you pointed to some kind of well of truth, not a loose communion of local churches with different traditions that split up 1)before reaching consensus, 2)quickly after reaching consensus on theological doctrine, 3) and many centuries after that, multiple times.
Quote:Quote:
Then, in spite of the conversation clearly being about the "early" Church, by virtue of your own statements as well as my responses to those statements, you go on to throw a list of early, mid, and later denominations at me in an attempt to rebut my statement of the Church legitimizing some "scholars" and not others.
Well that is the truth isn't it ? There were from beginning many churches, therefore many schools. And many excluded opinions. But who excluded who ? Did Justinian exclude Monophysites, or did Monophysites exclude him. Who is "The Excluder". Obviously, it depends on whose side do you belong to. This is so obvious and straightforward.
Quote:Quote:
In one breath, you appeal to the authority of the early scholars and the early church against my argument for later scholars, and in the next you appeal to an argument that de-legitimatizes the "early church" in its choice of scholars because it is one of "thirty mainstream Christianities".
In other words, i acknowledge the fact that Christianity is wide, rich in different, and sometimes conflicting theologies, rich in scholarship, tradition, and inter-factional relations. And hence, i acknowledge that there are multiple, different approaches to esoteric teachings, and not one universal teaching that aligns with your opinion. Ta-da.
Quote:Quote:
For your information, the "early Church" when it is described as such did and does not include Lutherans or "thirty mainstream Christianities". But you know this.
Does it include celebration of Sol Invictus ? Or not ? Your claim that there was any universality of either teachings or practice in early Christianity is not according to any historical testimony. Particularly when you analyze process of Christianization of Roman Empire that was a disjointed, non-coordinate process that included so many approaches.
Again who is THE authority on exclusion and inclusion ? Who can say "St. Patrick was a joke", or "Slavic Christianization was a joke, as well as their tolerance to pagan wisdom". Who can say "Monophysites split from Church" and not the other way round. You simply point to either yourself or your tradition as an authority which i reject, on a basis of objectivity.
Quote:Quote:
You are merely attempting to throw anything at the wall in hopes that it will stick, regardless of how it makes sense in the context of our continued conversation.
I'm merely completely throwing away any opinionated statement as an "objective" reference.
Quote:Quote:
How do you know who "recoiled like venomous snakes" to what doctrine?
I know that Augustine didn't claim that Hermes was a Satanist. That's a mild approach, if not outright tolerance towards Paganism.
Quote:Quote:
Who ever told you that the requirement for religion was so called "objectivity" or, to give you a better word, "tolerance" for all views?
No, i never said objectivity was requirement for religion. I said non-doctrinary approach is the only method for religious people (both me and you are religious) to be objective when discussing in subject of comparative religion.
Quote:Quote:
How do you know that these men were not well past the point of considering other views when they became Doctors of the Church and were instead arguing for what they believed to be the "objective" truth in the face of destructive paths and lies?
Really, how do i ? Or, do i ?
Quote:Quote:
You are assigning a false sense and requirement of modern liberal religious tolerance to men that you didn't know and that were, incidentally, instrumental in the formation of a rigid religious doctrine that changed the world for all time.
Religious tolerance does not necessarily mean tolerance to other concepts. Muslims are not generally tolerant towards Christians, but they are tolerant, and inclusive of Jesus Christ for example.
Quote:Quote:
In no way, shape, or form did you respond to my statement. If anything, you are making an argument for my assertion that it is not unreasonable for later scholars to coax out a less culturally and politically biased form of Christianity.
But it can go both ways. Both early ones could be correct and wrong, and later ones could be also correct and wrong. And claiming that one form is not politically and more importantly, cultural biased is the most common fallacy that usually comes from ethnocentrism - not seeing your own position as culturally defined.
Many Baptists consider themselves to be culturally neutral, unbiased and universal - all while preaching in a business suit from a shopping mall on subject of how freedoms and hard work are important. Don't you see an irony in it ? They are literally preaching America.
Quote:Quote:
This is a predictable response to me pointing out that you don't have knowledge on the subject matter.
Yes, predictable response to "you know shi*" talk.
Quote:Quote:
Yes, the noble savage. Cosmogeny vs. a religion that revolves around man himself, very good. However, your further explanation fails to mete out the true theological significance of these two worldviews - let alone their history. Last, your phrasing is inundated with all sorts of modern biases (ironic, no?) regarding "closed minds" and "brain programming" that I'm used to hearing from another contingent.
They are just words. Relax. Why Cosmogeny. You are just proving that you are incapable of understanding why religion was "real" to ancient man. You simply cannot understand that what we now see as a superstition, to somebody, was a real event.
To us, Slavic concept of Oak tree as a representation of the world was powerful symbolism. No ! To primordial Slavs it was real ! World really was just like an Oak tree, with underworld at its root, and God Perun at it's top. The fact that world didn't physically resemble an oak tree had nothing to do with the "tree" concept appearing as unreal to them. Because that is the whole point, these concepts were considered universal. It was the order of all things. He could, identify with such worldview, recognize it anywhere instantly, live it both on a personal level, where noble and dark influences fought for domination, and on a level of politics, spirit, family. etc.
Malayan savage, when he stabbed a wooden doll, he didn't think he was symbolically stabbing his enemy. To him it was a literal substition for that act ! It bore no "symbolism" in modern, twisted sense. It was a real act, thought to bear real consequences. They even chanted a mantra that described how their act was passed to Archangel Gabriel, so they wouldn't bear responsibility.
Quote:Quote:
You're confusing what I said. The theology can be known because it is so widespread across different Kabbalistic religions, clubs and sects. The specific passwords and other minutia is difficult to know reliably due to group specific secrecy on those matters. Though, it can also be known perhaps to a degree from some text sources, I would just never claim that I knew the minutia of the myriad of masonic rituals, for instance, without being there myself. I don't assume that all sects use the same rituals or go as far as the next.
You are describing modus operandi of all living religion. Difference is only in level of secrecy or obscurity, but core is the same. Different practices, different rituals, different teachings.
Quote:Quote:
I disagree that it is "dangerous" given the relative success in being able to date these various civilizations. Most can be positioned on a timeline that shows clear predating.
No, dating is based on material evidence that is discovered and preserved. Most of it is neither discovered nor preserved. Proto Indo-European religion is neither known in its exact content, nor discovered nor is there any material evidence for it. But we know that it existed an that it is older than say cult of Ra in Egypt.
So "dating" refers do dates of specific historical mention. If somebody mentions something early enough, that is the earliest established date.
Quote:Quote:
This will mostly be a matter of choice in perspective. I stick with the scholarly view, in general, and should any rational person. Constantly asking "what if" in willful ignorance of evidence is a recipe for simply stating that we can't trust archeological knowledge. I'm a fan of trusting it until an opposing view can be proven.
Exactly. There is a good reason to consider European pantheons very common, and a good reason to consider them having common ancestors. And hence, a good reason not to be certain that any Pantheon/cult/religion is significantly older than other
Quote:Quote:
He's not exclusive in the context of the aforementioned link to Tibetan Buddhists engaging in roughly the same thing, or written accounts of O.T.O. members and other "sex magic" practitioners engaging in the consumption of menstrual blood mixed with semen, or the Frankist antinomians, and therefore likely an number of other advanced Kabbalstic "esoteric" practitioners" (all different, but of course).
Reports don't constitute established teachings. There are reports of children molestation by clergy in pretty much all corners of Christian world. Is children molestation Christian teaching ? No.
Quote:Quote:
And then there is Crowley. I'm no more a fan of dismissing him than I am dismissing any central piece of evidence merely because it is too widely mentioned or taken for granted.
But we can take Crowley as a definitive reference only to his own teachings. Which were highly modified, influenced, and put into practice - by him.
Quote:Quote:
Last, this thread is (or was) specifically about Satanic rituals in Hollywood. If you follow Roosh's links out from his recent pertinent article, the primary claims are that new up and coming celebrities are forced to engage in homosexual practice as initiation and continued ritual.
Later on in the thread, many other outrageous claims are made.
Quote:Quote:
Oh, Orion, just stop responding if you need to continuously invent assertions. Sometimes they are a passable excuse for a proposal for an argument, and sometimes they are unquestionably false and thus just a blatant invention. In this case, the situation is the latter.
The "abyss" is not made up by Crowley, but an actual physical part of the Kabbalstic tree where Da'at (invisible on illustrations of most trees, leaving only the abyss) resides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da'at
See where Da'at is? Da'at is usually not depicted and that wide space, where it is, is the "abyss".
Yes, that picture is the only place where i saw the concept of "Abyss" as a part of Kabbalistic tree of life. It is even so imprecisely drawn.
At the same place i can draw a similar line and write down "Chuck Norris walk of death".
Where did you draw that concept of abyss as something that is taught by Kabbalah as a specific line that need be crossed to "Become like God". I only read about it in Thelema.
Quote:Quote:
A system that does not attain to reach that far, or at least in any of its teaching that anyone outside of itself knows about, is Mormonism. This system, as illustrated by its own cosmological language, attains for only the Veil; crossed after physical death.
I never heard Mormons preach that. That's you again, isn't it.
Quote:Quote:
I'm only taking your cue.
But more specifically, this was nothing that required "backing up". I was being glib with you because of your silly assertion that Freemasons don't know their own rituals.
You mean my suggestion that they might not know their meaning.
Quote:Quote:
It is reasonable to assume that they have this practice written down, and that no one is required to provide evidence that they do to you. Nobody cares about every little "what if" that you have, and you certainly shouldn't be using such thoughts as argument. The Freemasons exist and continue to practice, so it is reasonable to assume that they are practicing Freemasonry.
But Freemasons don't practice consumable rituals. They practice initiation. That is the key difference. Initiation process is something that is rather easy to break. This is one of the key motives in research of secret societies. How did many of them come to form, change, and break.
Quote:Quote:
There is no remotely reasonable evidence to the contrary. How do we know that the Buddhists are actually practicing Buddhism? How do we know that the Native Americans are actually practicing their religion? Have you ever read a better book on Freemasonic myth or ritual by a Mason? Whatever they practice, that's what Freemasonry is. I'd venture that it is true Freemasonry, and if it isn't then it is now. Whatever the case, the argument is silly and absolutely irrelevant.
You went much farther than that. You said they practice everythinm, from Kabbalah to Saturn veneration, and veneration of Saturn hexagon discovered somewhere in this century.
Quote:Quote:
Please go study and come back:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...bbalah.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
Yes i know what Kabbalah is. One person that crossed the abyss, please mention him.
Quote:Quote:
Who said that most masons know anything beyond some mythology?
You did.
Quote:Quote:
How do you know who is in your local lodge?
Stop missinforming people that their membership is ultra secret thing. It is secretive but not completely secret. Grand Masters usually go public about it, and often some members do. Their only requirement is that they dont disclose membership of others. They can disclaim their own.
Quote:Quote:
That's simply and blatantly untrue. I'm in one of the premiere cities for the free-masonic tradition in the nation, and cops and union workers are common in the membership. I know this from personal relationships, but I'm still curious as to how you know what a wide swath of your town's membership includes absent of membership yourself or the lodge simply being an undisciplined boy's club (possible); though this latter state of affairs would go against your exclusivity assertion.
Grand Master went public about it, so did their former Grand Master, one lawyer acknowledged it after it somehow leaked out, and the other guy, the CEO of the company, i found out through private connections, etc etc.
Quote:Quote:
My impression is that lodges vary, but what I also get is that there is no significant initiations in the regular lodges but only for the members (probably very few) who move beyond them. For most members, it's a charitable fraternity that teaches Kabbalistic mythology in the form of rituals. I'm not even sure that most members read a single book on the subject.
That's my impression too.
Quote:Quote:
"Freemasonry" doesn't imply that higher level initiations occur in those lodges, let alone in front of the common membership. It is possible and common to teach varying levels of Kabbalistic doctrine, and I'm not asserting that I know specifically how far any one sect takes it (beyond the sects for which there is varying degrees of evidence).
Last, I would never assume that taking a guys rod up the cornhole, or drinking cum and menstrual fluid, would lead to a beard and an aura of mysticism. Degeneracy isn't legitimately mystical in my mind. This assertion is a symptom of your spiritual over-valuation of these systems.
What my over-valuation of what systems ? I will never allow you to generalize different things here, deal with it.
Prove that cum drinking is inherent teaching of Kabbalah or Freemasonry, or whatever or GTFO. And if you do be specific. Which ritual, which teaching.
"Yeah all of these teachings" is not a valid, precise or specific designation. I can do the same by putting all middle-eastern religions in one basket but i don't do that.
Quote:Quote:
I believe that all religion can be placed on a gamut of practice within a framework, with one type of Christianity representing the polar end of that practice. However, I would never frame the method of characterization as having anything to do with Christianity. I look at the structure of the religion, not belief in Christ. Theoretically, another religion (perhaps the original Hebrew religion for instance) could be placed on the same place on the gamut. Similarly, I judge other religions by their philosophy of practice, not whether or not they are Christian.
Yes as long as that scale is not completely fallacious, for example, claiming that all non-Christian rituals are work, and all Christian rituals are not work because we don't think they are significant.
One does not practice insignificant stuff.
Quote:Quote:
How one values any one of those religions is up to the individual, and I have my individual views as well. I'm always open to a debate (though perhaps not in this thread that is all but dead) on the relative merits of religion on the gamut. I will say that I tend to be a person who believes in pure practice and I tend to discount hybrid systems, no matter what end of the gamut they favor. If I were a Kabbalist, I'd attempt to be the purest Kabbalist that I could be.
Yes, but that would also be subjectivity. Argument about what is pure is the core of religious debates. That's the whole point. Who is the purest Christian ? Who is purest Kabbalist ?
One and same question.
Quote:Quote:
See, here you are responding to your own post, as quoted, and arguing against it.
It's really too much.
Your original post about Saturday being the sixth day can be found near the bottom of this post:
thread-53191...pid1266713
You're simply throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick; even if it means arguing against yourself.
No, I'm pointing out the relativity of week cycles, and you are still failing to prove they are not relative, but claim some form of astronomic justification which does not exist.
Quote:Quote:
Yes, there is an "objective" justification for the seven day week.
Objectively, the seven day week has a Biblical connotation of the seven days of creation; as I before explained. That's why it is used.
So according to you, Biblical justification is objective one, hence people who didn't have 7 day week didn't exist and they lived in some sort of cosmic void. Are you serious ?
Why would an Inca take your opinion on it as objective. To an Inca, there is no week. Non-existence of week is objective to him.
Quote:Quote:
What you mean to say is that there is not a non-bliblical reason for the seven day week. And, yes, the Bible is an "objective" source for the Hebrew creation mythology. Yet, here we are and arguing about it, especially absent any greater "esoteric" calendar knowledge won't get you very far in internet arguments with strangers or in any other capacity. What, precisely, is the point of this specific argument? Do you have any further knowledge of the calendar?
Exactly. The point is, subjective religious belief cannot pass as an objective truth. And doesn't need to after all. There is no reason to claim that 7 day week is objective for those who don't believe Bible. Like believers in ancinent cults for example. Most of Christian scholars also agree that it doesn't matter which day is the 7th. But there are always stubborn individuals who think they had discovered in 21. century what NASA obviously is oblivious about.
Quote:Quote:
The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on the seventh day. Thus, Saturday is the Sabbath and the seventh day.
Yes, Jews celebrate Sabbath on my Saturday. To a man who doesn't observe 7 day week, Jews celebrate Sabbath on the 7th day, after they worked for 6 days, without any day being specific or named. You see, Sabbath can fit into any day week format. You could work 6 days and rest 7th even in a week that has 20 days, by obviously, remembering how many days you worked.
Quote:Quote:
The days are NOT the same and equal because they are a part of the solar year. Yes, they are made to fit into the format of one week. And?? Yes, it is religiously important. And??
When you wake up from amnesia, even when given all knowledge of calculation and all necessary instruments of calculation, from telescope to satellites, you would not be able to tell is the day you woke up in Saturday or Wednesday. You could only find out by asking someone who had it written down by observing the human made 7 day week calendar, or by seeing it on a device that remembered it
Quote:Quote:
but also who cares.
This is what your argument boils down to.
Quote:Quote:
Again, there's that tenuous grasp of the meaning of "objective" and "subjective". Religious belief is "subjective". Bible mythology is comprised of precise words that most people agree on, at least more than almost any other text in translation, and thus it's mythology is not "subjective". Objectively, the creation myth is comprised of seven days.
Yes, objectively, Creation myth is comprised of 7 days. Not a seven day week. Or any week.
Quote:Quote:
The Judeo-Christian mythology is a part of Western culture and traditional religious belief, and it has resulted in a seven day cycle that fits into a monthly lunar cycle, a 365 day solar cycle, and helps us to keep track of time and mark yearly milestones. No, you don't have to believe in it but, people who were smarter than you and me though that having a small cycle in-between the lunar and daily cycle would be useful, and if you want to get to work on the correct days then I suggest you adhere to the seven day biblical weekly cycle as your "orientation" regardless of your "subjective belief".
Yes, exactly ! They thought it would be useful ! Not based on astronomical laws ! And yes, in order to orient in a 7 day week, i use human made institution based on consensus.