What is it with the Vatican and Aliens?

I mean, I can kind of understand Stephen Hawking going all ET on us.

But, and it's not the first time btw, what is up with this?

"Pope's astronomer says he would baptise an alien if it asked him"

But nobody asked him. It's like, 'okay, you weren't even inquiring about that, it was completely off topic, but I'll just go ahead and tell you anyway'.

Why the alien, or raelien, PSYOP?

HG Wells started the PSYOP a century ago, and his story sent naive radio listeners running scared. Here. So you could say it fits in with the earthly NWO agenda, get the whole world united against an external common enemy, a kind of interplanetary Bin Laden.

Certainly some people believe this is possible.

Yet, that's kind of crap. A light show. No, that makes no sense at all, not without other elements to make it real, a real piece of mystery school terrorism. But still I put little faith in that idea, just makes no sense, (except of course to some Christian fundies whose #1 concern is that people might abandon Jesus for a dancing Bluebeam sky show).

Anyway, some people believe it's all about this:

[The strategy that Wernher Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered to be the enemy. In fact, in 1974, they were the enemy, the identified enemy. We were told that they had “killer satellites”. We were told that they were coming to get us and control us – that they were “Commies.”

Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow. We heard a lot about terrorism. Then we were going to identify third-world country “crazies.” We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons.

The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it. Asteroids- against asteroids we are going to build space-based weapons.

And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare. And over and over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card. “And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens and all of it is a lie.”] (source)

They want nothing more than for you to worship them. I mean, they've got the Christians kneeling before the egotistical, murdering psychopath Jehovah, who frankly, well if that is really God then I'm an atheist, I'll put it that way. The atheists think they are free from the madness, but most of them worship government, and at risk of being cliche, their demogogy can be surely as much a religion as any other.

And then we have a third group emerging out of the Hegelian dialectic. Just as Communitarianism seems to be the synthesis of the right and left, so there is a kind of religious synthesis emerging from the clash of atheism and monotheism, order out of chaos. The new religion I suppose, new agey, alienish, and altogether toxic, in my opinion. Certainly in the way it is promoted. Something very cult like about the whole thing, you get that sense from many UFO sites too. If you need a laugh google Sherry Shriner, taking note that Shriner = Mason.

There, I've criticised just about everyone, atheists, monotheists, pantheists as I could loosely be called (with an emphasis on loosely), everyone. I think you've just got to go your own way and not let these possessed cocksuckers control you if you can help it.

Something as simple as Pascal's Wager holds billions of people in line. How sad is that. Even I wonder sometimes, do people really get burned forever for what is in essence the equivalent of picking the wrong box on Deal or No Deal? In a just universiality I doubt it.

...but what if I'm wrong?...

...damn you Pascal.

I Don't Support the Destruction of Christianity, Either

"We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." - Albert Pike (alleged), 'Three World Wars' letter

This is a difficult one because on one hand I am not a Christian, I do not view the Bible as the Word of God, and I do not believe that only through faith in this one (admirable) fellow, we can avoid being burnt for all eternity by God, who of course loves us very much. Three thousand years' worth of Stockholm Syndrome and endless war and killing of 'heretics' have not convinced me.

The last attempt at global governance (before the modern NWO) was via the Pope and the Vatican, who had so much power that kings and queens swore allegiance to him, and he would mediate in European elite disputes.

The number killed during 'Christian' campaigns, the Crusades, Colonialism, may even surpass the death toll of Communism in the 20th century, thus making institutional Christianity or more generally institutional monotheism, Judaism-Christianity-Islam, the deadliest ideology in history. And remember that there are lots of good people who are Christians or Jews or Muslims, just like there are lots who were Marxists back when that was fashionable, or today subscribe to proto-Marxist 'progressive' ideology.

There's the whole Jordan Maxwell angle that says Popeye is still running the show but in my humble opinion he lost that game of chess a long time ago. At least it seems so. Templars/Masons/Talmudists/(Protestants?) vs Vatican, sort of a medieval Alien vs Predator, whoever wins we lose. And the Vatican lost. You certainly don't pay taxes to the Vatican, or if you do (I guess in Italy?) it's not much, not like the good old days of Pardon bribes, and the Vatican doesn't offer you AAA derivatives or low rate adjustable mortgages or carbon credits.

Taking it back to Communism again, I am happy to generalise, as are most people, and say that Communism was evil as a whole, regardless the 'useful idiots' who naively helped the manipulators implement it, and make no mistake this still happens today. (At least when the evil in the right wing wants to kill lots of people, they're pretty open about it. There's a difference between 'bomb bomb bomb Iran' and 'pursue equality and tolerance for all people and end discrimination', yet ultimately giving power to the people preaching either will result in millions of dead.)

However I cannot bring myself to make the same generalisation of Christians. One, because so many Christians are staunchly anti-Marxist, anti-social engineering. Two, because Christianity is to many people not just a source, but the source for their moral values, most of which are commendable. And three, because as in the quote at the start of this post, the NWO agenda is to destroy all religions, and all nations, in order to implement a corporate communist world government and a new Dark Ages under a new world church with a new world god, presumably. In other words, Christianity is fair game for criticism because it is no longer much use, just like you can criticise the Nazis but you cannot criticise the Communists, because one ideology has already run its course and the other is still alive and very much part of the game plan.

I'd take them over the Ba'hai or any other freak show any day. It is Christians who tend to be the most upstanding for genuine family values and not for the subversive elements of feminism (please note I said 'elements' there), as well as the hedonistic drugs-violence-sex corporate societal overload, the atrocious degenerate/ritual pop culture, and the promotion of homosexuality and gender distortion (the latter of which again is one of those 'subversive elements' of feminism).

Again, I'm having to hedge here, just so there's no misunderstanding. Christians calling for gays to be killed 'because it says so in the Bible' (how many people have died due to that one? or the qu'ran etc), very bad. Homosexual elements of the establishment calling for kids in school to be taught 'gay tolerance' etc, and largely the same groups along with the paedophiles calling for sex education of younger and younger kids, also very bad. And Christians being arrested (by a "LGBT Liason Officer", no less? Where is the Herterosexual Liason Officer hmm?) because they say that homosexuality is a sin according to Christian teaching, because 'someone might get offended', plain wrong. Got it?

So no, I don't support the Antichrist-ian Commies or the brave new world they are creating, in which ultimately all children are to be raised by the state and molded into perfect citizens. Can you imagine what our ancestors would have thought of the concept of "Hate Speech". Oh, unless it was blasphemous speech against the Church, of course. Ah yes, that was the Old World Order...

Nothing new about the NWO, except those who we will be revering will have changed slightly, outwardly at least. If you want to know where the power lies, ask who you cannot criticise. Those who you can criticise are not really in power.

My Trinity of Spiritual Balance

The concepts linked here are not exactly fixed, but I tend to associate them like this, in a right-brain way. Obviously there is room for crossover here in many ways, but don't get too caught up on the titles 'Atheism', 'Christianity' or 'New Ageism'. Those are nay more than my perceptions and associations and are anything but definitive.

Oh, and don't be paranoid over the fact that it's a triangle pointing down, which is apparently the alchemical symbol for water. I'm not trying to get inside your mind with black magick...oooooo...spooky.

(click for bigger version)
The painting, by the way, is Cruciform by Damian Callan. Yes, I turned it upside down so it would be the right way up, if that makes sense.

I think we need all three in moderation - in fact I think it's not possible to be 'sane' as we perceive it without some elements of the three. It's pretty self-explanatory what happens if one of these concepts is in excess - one may become cold and detached, as in the case of hyper-materialist scientists like Dr Eric Pianka; one may become a hyper-judgemental Fundie Christian whose favourite hobby is telling everyone else how they're going to Hell; or one may become a wishy-washy type who, frankly, has lost their grounding here on Earth (can't think of any examples right now, but if I do, I'll link it).

Classical religion has, I would suggest, created disharmony by suppressing the spiritual female and overemphasising the male, perhaps (chicken or egg) this is a cause of traditional mistreatment of women. And by 'mistreatment', I DO NOT mean what most feminists consider to be 'inequality' today...I mean back when women were actually viewed as property. Or I mean what still goes on today in the Islamic world.

That brings me to another point - naming the religions and spiritual doctrines. Obviously Christianity is my personal experience, but if I lived somewhere else in the world it would be Islam or Judaism, which both fit the same bill, IMO, as hyper-male, militaristic (homosexual?) religions. But what if it was Buddhism or something like that? That would probably belong on the left instead.

Finally, when I say 'male' and 'female', I am clearly not just talking about physical males and females. These are spiritual concepts and psychological ones too. They're just associated with males and females for obvious reasons. Everyone has some element of both, and rightly so.

I just made this as a diagrammatic representation of what I consider to be a healthy spiritual/psychological state...if you find yourself expressing too much of one concept, chances are the solution can be found in one of the other two. It's all about balance.

Bible Contradictions

Excellent video. Contradictions in the Inerrant Word of God?



via Skeptical Eye

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Best Convert To Every Religion Just In Case

After all, what would you do if after death your heretic unbelief was confronted by the righteous judgement of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?



No, I don't think death is the end. (Or indeed that birth is the beginning.) But I may be wrong. We'll find out the hard way :)

Egyptian Religion: Precursor to Judeo-Christianity

Who really invented monotheism?

Egyptians' Ideas of God

"Give thyself to God, keep thou thyself daily for God; and let to-morrow be as to-day."

"Now the God of this earth is the sun who is the ruler of the horizon"

The Legend of Osiris

"The story of Osiris is nowhere found in a connected form in Egyptian literature, but everywhere, and in texts of all periods, the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Osiris are accepted as facts universally admitted."

The Doctrine of Eternal Life

I am Shu [the god] of unformed matter. My soul is God, my soul is eternity.[3]

When the deceased identifies himself with Shu, he makes the period of his existence coeval with that of Tmu-Ra, i.e., he existed before Osiris and the other gods of his company.

Doesn't take much to go from Shu to Yeshua, now commonly known as Jesus, the Christ, who is indeed believed to bring eternal life to those who identify themselves with Him. Shu is one with the Father, as you can see 'my soul is God, my soul is eternity' Shu was also born unusually, though not of a virgin, but via masturbation. Tee hee

The Origin of the Ten Commandments

The Egyptian Book of the Dead:

"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee. I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .
I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .
I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.
I have not blocked the God at his processions.

I wonder if there might be some similarities there...

So let's get this straight. The Israelites, whoever they were, slaves or rulers of Egypt, left there or were kicked out, and came up with their own religion based on the militant, authoritarian God of the Bible (that's no exaggeration), Yahweh/Iehovah. Is it not a fair guess that by making their belief system, at least ostensibly, viciously anti-pagan in all forms, is it not fair to suggest perhaps they are overcompensating for, or covering up, the real roots of their religion? It is ludicrous to call Israelites the first monotheists, completely seperate from all those other heathen, evil Pagan nature worshippers. And totally independent of the Egyptian sun religions, oh yes.

This seems to be the secret held in the societies like Freemasonry; that the masses are blinded by the 'illumination' of Lucifer (son of the morning), Jesus (the light of the world) and a myriad other sun figures good and evil, and that this has been going on since Egypt. (hence one reason for the Masonic pyramid symbolism etc)


Horus above, Jesus and St. Andrew below. They have suns around their head because it is telling you plainly, these are not meant to be taken literally. The artists are telling you they are painting not literal people, but sun icons. Check out Da Vinci's 'Last Supper' too, it's just the Sun/Son and the Four Seasons. He knew.

Tsarion, you are an effing genius. Druids and tree reverence, west to east migration, the Yew trees, the Iews, Iudah, Judah and Jews. Dru-daism, Dru-deo-Christianity :D That's where the burning bush comes from; also explains why particularly Judaism is hostile to the use of tree iconography. "Don't reveal our true source! We killed all those Druids so you would never find out!" Same goes for Christianity and of course Islam too, one big militant scriptural incestuous family.

Crucified Gods in History

'Before Christ'

Dionysus (Greek/Roman)

Ixion (Greek)

Quetzalcoatl (Aztec)

Isis (Egyptian)


Egyptian Ankh symbol, with a certain 'saviour' on the right.

See more:
Cruciforms/Gods on Crosses
How many ancient religions had saviors dying on a cross?

Linguistic paralells:
Shu (as in Yeshua)
Hesus (like...er...Jesus/Iesous)

The stories are similar, not because one was necessarily stolen from another, but because they are all based on personified astrotheology, and thus share common solar, lunar, planetary and stellar themes. This does not mean none of the figures are based to some extent on real people, just that we have been severely misled by religious institutions expecting us to interpret their stories literally when often nought but metaphor is written. Solar religion is neither inherently sinister nor good; it is what it is. Manipulating solar stories and history so that people are force fed what are supposedly literal factual accounts, that is the real crime.


This is how mad it has become - we fight over religous differences when they more often than not share the same sources: 1. The sky, 2. Psychedelic substances (look into it if you don't believe me), 3. Paranormal phenomena, and 4. Human desire to control others' minds. I am not an atheist, let alone a materialist; I would suggest idealism and perhaps pantheism are better explanations of our world anyway. That doesn't mean the Bible should be ignored; it is a fascinating numerological document, for example. More on that to come, definitely.

Videogames, Metaphysics and Life

You know, it may sound silly, but I have had some of my most significant realisations while parked in front of a console. I am not a fan of cheesy analogies, but here I must make exception.

See, life is indeed a lot like a videogame. We temporarily suspend our previous state of existence to enter a world, where we assume an avatar in order to experience that virtual world, to participate in it and perhaps to learn from it.

In theory, anything could happen in that world, although in practice limitations have been put in place by the designer of the videogame; laws, rules, things like 'game physics', all of which are arbitrary conditions dependent on the will of the designer. Really, although these are in one sense limiting, they are also essential - for without limits there can be no challenges and thus no acheivement.

But things can go wrong when playing videogames. I can attest to the fact that it is possible to literally go into a trance-like state and actually not hear things going on around you; this kind of thing has occasionally happened to me while playing that reptillian-brain-fest also known as Call of Duty online mode. Literally, people talk to you and it takes you a while to snap out enough to listen to them so that you can never tell what they-damn don't they understand that stoned American kid is shooting at me? Shut up!

And this recollection brings me, inevitably, to Bill Hicks. See, as he almost said, we can play a videogame, and it's got bright lights and it goes round and round, and some of us who've been playing for a long time, we start to think the game is real, and then some people who've remembered come back and tell us, "hey, it's just a game." And we - kill those people. (Or just yell at them!)

But I am done with videogames. I figured shooting in effigy thousands of people wasn't doing much for my soul or my psyche.

Alas, perhaps we have become transfixed on the game of life, and in starting to think it is 'real', that our material possessions are real and so on, we have lost sight of any sense of purpose here. Oh, it's a bloody important game - we do not know for sure that you can respawn once it is over - but a game it is nonetheless.

And that's where we are asking only half of the question. Everyone, rightly, wants to know what happens when we die. Nobody wants to stop existing...which implies that we intuitively know there is a purpose to our existence, despite constantly pleading to know 'why we are here'. But is it not an equally legitimate question, perhaps central to understanding the answer to the other one, that we ask what we were before birth?

Western religion does not discuss this at all, but I reckon if we believe we may exist beyond death, I say it's equally legitimate - perhaps essential - to consider that we may have existed before birth. If so, did we choose to come here? Would you, really? And if so, what are you here to accomplish? I rather naively hope we get some answers about all this when the game is over. For now though, enjoy the bright lights!

I Fell Into A Burning Lake of Fire

Reason #888 to become a blood washed child of Kristos right now...

The Justice of the Lake of Fire

(you don't want to go into a lake of fire forever, do you?)

Good Intentions

"I'll pray for you."

Source of Bible Covenant with God discovered?
by D.M. Murdock

Archaeologists working in Turkey have unearthed an Assyrian tablet dating to around 670 BCE that "could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites." What this fascinating discovery suggests, of course, is that the Bible tale of a divine pact does not represent "history" or a "factual" event, but is instead a fictional rewrite, borrowing or plagiarism of this older Assyrian treaty.

Over the centuries, many Bible critics, minimalists and mythicists have asserted that much of the Old Testament constitutes not factual history but a rehash of ancient myths and traditions dating to before the founding of the Jewish kingdom. This new find apparently adds more evidence to that theory, and it is quite refreshing that both the scholars and the media are spelling out clearly this possible "borrowing," without prejudice in favor of bibliolatry or upholding unprovable matters of faith.

Ancient treaty resembles part of the Bible

Canadian archeologists in Turkey have unearthed an ancient treaty that could have served as a model for the biblical description of God's covenant with the Israelites.

The tablet, dating to about 670 BC, is a treaty between the powerful Assyrian king and his weaker vassal states, written in a highly formulaic language very similar in form and style to the story of Abraham's covenant with God in the Hebrew Bible, says University of Toronto archeologist Timothy Harrison.

Although biblical scholarship differs, it is widely accepted that the Hebrew Bible was being assembled around the same time as this treaty, the seventh century BC.

"Those documents...seem to reflect very closely the formulaic structure of these treaty documents," he told about 50 guests at the Ottawa residence of the Turkish ambassador, Rafet Akgunay.

He was not necessarily saying the Hebrews copied the Assyrian text, substituting their own story about how God liberated them from slavery in Egypt on the condition that they worship only Him and follow His commandments.

But it will be interesting for scholars to have this parallel document.

"The language in the [Assyrian] texts is [very similar] and now we have a treaty document just a few miles up the road from Jerusalem."...

Notable is the fact "it is widely accepted that the Hebrew Bible was being assembled around the same time as this treaty," i.e., during the 7th century BCE. The case for this "late" dating of the Old Testament's compilation - with a significant part of it also written later, after the Jews' "Babylonian Exile" (597-538 BCE) - has been made by Israeli archaeologists, including and especially Israel Finkelstein in The Bible Unearthed.

Although the article states that the archaeologist Timothy Harrison "was not necessarily saying the Hebrews copied the Assyrian text, substituting their own story about how God liberated them from slavery in Egypt," it is nonetheless raising that very issue in a manner which breaks with the centuries-old tradition of bending all finds in the "Holy Land" and other places of biblical interest to fit the Bible, in attempts to prove the "Good Book" as "history." It is obvious that this sort of bibliolatry appeasement from the more scientific segment of society is losing ground precisely because of such discoveries - and the implication of this one is a doozy.

No historical covenant with God?

It needs to be emphasized that this intriguing development concerns not just any biblical event but the very covenant between God and the Israelites - here indicated as not something supernatural that actually occurred but, rather, as mere human propaganda based on older texts from other cultures. This discovery, therefore, would essentially negate the basic premise of the Old Testament: To wit, that the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews are the "chosen people" of the Lord of the universe.

Needless to say, for those of us who have been stating as much for many years - and getting pilloried for our efforts - this archaeological find is very exciting, as it adds to the growing body of hard, scientific evidence that the Bible is not "God's Word" but a manmade cultural artifact designed for propagandistic purposes.

Furthermore, as the Old Testament is thus apparently in significant part a rehash and rewriting of the traditions and myths of other cultures, so does the New Testament story of Jesus Christ represent a remake of the mythical motifs of pre-Christian cultures, combined with OT scriptures serving as "blueprints" for the gospel tale's creation.

Original Article


The road to Hell is paved with good intentions!
by Jake Jones

Atheists don't believe and agnostics are not sure. However, they feel the need to tell Christians just how wrong they are about the Bible, creation, prophecy and everything else about Christianity. In reality, atheists just don't get it, they haven't figured out that if they allow Jesus into their heart, they will see more clearly.

Are they dense? No! Just unwilling to look at reality, the truth and fact of archaeological digs in the middle east and history itself. They consistently tell Christians that they are wrong! They simply must always be right! Atheists can’t see the forest for the trees. Atheists simply don't want anyone or anything telling them how to live their lives with the exception of government. For some strange reason they are more than willing to toe the mark for government. Uncanny!

Most believe that the atheists are good intentioned people who are kind, generous and have the best of intentions for their work in trying to disprove Christianity. The problem with that is that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

Christians believe the Bible to be the perfect, divinely inspired word of God himself. For some reason, atheists just can't get their head around that idea. Oh my, they say, a book that was written 2,000 years ago just can't be accurate; while science has proven a substantial number of Biblical incidents, locations, buildings, wars, famine and more. Check out the accuracy of the Bible here.

Using scientific theory to disprove the Bible is like using gasoline to put out a fire. The reverse of that would be using the Bible to prove the existence of UFO’s, it can’t be done! By using scientific theory to disprove the Bible and Christianity, atheists only create more questions for themselves, but atheists would never admit that.

There are many things that science, scientists and yes, even NASA have discovered which have helped mankind, but Atheists seem to have a mental block about the reality of the real truth about who is/was responsible for even their own individual existence. However, they are more than willing to put their trust in some guy named ‘Charlie’ Darwin who wrote a book titled “On the Origin of Species” or what is commonly knows as the Theory of Evolution 150 years ago this year. But, good old' Charlie was rather lame in his execution of his investigation.

The Bible is filled with witnesses to the events described in it. Additionally, it is filled with witnesses to prophecy; both to prophecy as it was being fulfilled, as well as witnessing the Prophet giving the message, but Atheists are not willing to believe, it’s just a fairy tail to them.

The understanding of true Christianity is something that Atheists will never grasp until that proverbial light comes on. Prayerfully, that proverbial light comes on in time!

Note to all atheists: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Original Article


A while ago I read something a Christian actually wrote, saying that 'just being a good person is not enough!' [to be saved]. Really sums it up for me. The road to Hell, in this world or otherwise, is indeed paved with good intentions. And whose 'good intentions' have helped to pave the road to Hell, historically?

(Just for the LMAO factor...)

Joseph sounds a bit like Jesus to me...

Genesis 30:22-24
22 Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. 23 And she conceived and bore a son, and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” 24 So she called his name Joseph, and said, “The LORD shall add to me another son.”

Genesis 37:26-28
26 So Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? 27 Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother and our flesh.” And his brothers listened. 28 Then Midianite traders passed by; so the brothers pulled Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.

Genesis 42:13
13 But they replied, "Your servants are twelve brothers, the sons of one man, who lives in the land of Canaan. The youngest is now with our father, and one is no more."

Just happened upon this while perusing the Zeitgeist transcript. Eeenteresting.

Of course, there is an explanation as to why many different historical deity figures share similar characteristics...the only problem is it involves astrology, which is a satanic work of the devil! (You see, the irony is that if it is true that astrology is 'eeevil', then Christians are - unwittingly - the most eeevil astrologers of all. Boy they must have laughed about this one in the Mystery Schools for centuries...)

Easter: Our Babylonian-Judaic Fertility Celebration

I was going to write something about the real origins of Easter, but others have beaten me to it.

See here

1. Ishtar

2. Passover - literally a solar event, the spring equinox, day 'passes over' night I guess

3. The moon - Ishtar is a moon goddess, Easter (doesn't it sound a little similar?) changes date each year to correspond with moon phases

4. The easter bunny is not an innocent child-friendly character anymore than Satan Claus is; the bunny is very much an adult fertility symbol

5. Ah yes, the egg...symbol of fertility, rebirth, and relates to the traditions of Babylonian fertility celebration

What is important this Ishtar

I think we have become separated from the original intention of this religious holy-day. Today we just want to buy children the biggest chocolate egg, and big business has made it this way for their own profits. Christianity also has not helped, hijacking this holy-day with their own human sacrificing Sun story. We have forgotten what Ishtar Sonday is really about. So let us take some time out this Ishtar to celebrate fertility and rebirth, which was the original meaning of this holy-day.

Amen-Ra.

As an addendum, and here's something I have not heard before, I have seen most if not all of David Icke's interview with Credo Mutwa a while ago, where he mentions the old Zulu stories of creation and such. And one of the things he describes is that the 'chitahuri', the 'gods', came to earth in eggs...like, from the moon? Like Ishtar, the moon goddess who also supposedly arrived here in an egg? Of course it is possible to read too much into the similarities between different ancient tales, but then what is reading into things too much and what is not is up to you I guess.

The Gospel of Judas

"The Gospel of Judas is what is termed a Gnostic text, a term which means 'knowledge' or 'those who have knowledge'. What though is this knowledge? They know secrets that are said to bring salvation. Salvation though to a Gnostic did not come through going to church or worshipping God, or even by doing good deeds, but rather, by knowing the truth - the truth about the world that we live in, and the nature of God, in particular by understanding that God is not some far off ethereal father who sits on a white cloud, but rather, exists in each and every one of us. The knowledge that the Gnostics taught was therefore self-knowledge, knowledge of our own inherent divine nature. Part of this knowledge was knowing that the body, like the physical material world, is illusion and that death is therefore an act of liberation, where the spirit, our true essence becomes free to fly home. Thus it was that in condemning Jesus to die, by turning him over to the authorities, Judas was actually carrying out a great act of kindness, for it was this that enabled Jesus to leave his body and ascend."

Full Article

(This is part of an elaborate Pagan Satanist plot to delegitimise Christianity! It's the devil who wants you to question everything; moral people are true Bible believers!)

Speaking of which, quote of the day from this article:

"I dare not trust my own human reason on such an important matter. I must look to the Bible alone to find out the truth."

The First Cause Argument

I have, as long as I can remember, been a fan of this simple piece of logic.

We live in a finite world. We live for a finite time. And the further we journey away from this finite world and finite timeframe (if, indeed, we could do so), who knows what we may find, but we may understand what has caused our current finite situation to be.

So what caused the Universe? And what caused the thing that caused the Universe? etc ad nauseum.

Now this could go on for quite some time, but the theory is that eventually some kind of infinite would be reached. Perhaps a God, though not necessarily anything like a human conception of God. Or perhaps we would find that energy existed for infinity as per the first law of thermodynamics, in which case we are all made of 'God'.

Today scientists discuss a 'prime mover' that may have set all energy in motion. While I am hardly a scientist, it seems that science is still grappling with similar ideas. And then there are legitimate scientific ideas about different dimensions, paralell universes, and so on. Which again could go on indefinitely, if indeed they exist. Apparently, quantum physics, now we're waaay out of my league here believe me, I'm no expert in the white coat department, but apparently that raises doubts about the nature of our reality too.

A little error I made earlier today was when I remarked that 'atheism puts people in a smaller box'. I did not mean atheism in the broad sense, I realise I specifically meant 'materialism', the doctrine that many but not all atheists subscribe to. The belief that the material world a) exists in physical form, and b) is all that exists. So, near death experiences, out of body experiences, any scientific ideas like the holographic paradigm, must not be even possible, because "the material world is all that is, hail Darwin, shut up creationist." Now that's a religion if ever I saw one! And it's my least favourite religion too, 'cause it doesn't even have a nice story to go with it.

In any case, we are where we are and we're not getting any divine assistance anytime soon, better make the best of it...

George Carlin on Religion

Legendary. Not saying I completely share his worldview, but he is legendary nonetheless. And funneh.

Christianity and Sun Worship - Ongoing Research

Thomas Paine wrote,
The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.

Could he be right?

The Cross

As I noted while discussing this recently, there is a link between the crucifixion and astrological charts, in which the Sun (Son) is very much 'on the Cross' (on zodiac diagrams with solstices and equinoxes marked by lines!).

Now of course, this is only a coincidence, since we all know Jesus was excecuted by being nailed to a cross anyway. But was he? I'm not saying he wasn't, I can't assess the validity of this, but have a look for yourself:

"Early Christians Never Used The Cross"

I can think of no other invented symbol of religion that gives a more horrific description than a man tortured in the throe of extreme agony while nailed to two wooden planks. But does the cross of Christianity really stand up to Biblical evidence?

Although a stake called a stauros (the Greek term used in the earliest Bible writings but where English versions incorrectly translate it to "cross") got used to execute criminals, there exists not a shred of evidence that a Biblical stauros describes a cross or even a T-shape. Regardless of whether you believe the cross as mythical or think it comes from the Bible, you will find nothing describing Jesus' execution with outstretched arms or nailed to a cross-like frame. I invite any Christian to look up the word 'cross' wherever it appears in the Bible and check the Greek version and see for yourself.

There occurs no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the 5th century, where it (probably) appears on a coin in a painting. The first clear crucifix appears in the late 7th century. Early Christians usually depicted their religion with a fish symbol (ichthus), dove, or bread of the Eucharist, but never Christ on a cross (or on a stick).

The first known conception of a Christian cross as a physical symbol began with Constantine's supposed 4th century conversion as a Christian. He allegedly had a miraculous vision in the sky of a cross composed of light with the inscription, "By this conquer." The Church father, Eusebius, described that, at night after his vision, Constantine dreamt that God commanded him to make a likeness of the sign to safeguard all engagements with the enemy. At dawn the next day Constantine allegedly told this to his army and ordered the symbol to be made in the form of a golden spear with a transverse bar (some traditions describe it as the Greek letter "X" (chi) with a "P" (rho) through it, the well-known monogram of Jesus). From then on Christian armies carried the cross symbol into battles. Christians who deny this story cannot escape the fact that the story derives from Euesbius's own writings and church fathers after him used this to support the symbol of the cross. Later on, and especially during the crusades, the cross became a permanent part of the uniform of a soldier. Thus the army of Christianity invented the symbol of the cross to symbolize battle (a spear) to represent Jesus and to protect their killers (the army). Christianity has remained a religious and political justification for war and violence ever since.

Any Christian who prays to a cross or wears one goes unwittingly flaunting, not only an unsupported historical assertion, but born as a war symbol from a blood-thirsty Roman ruler who forced orthodox Christianity onto the world.

The Crucifixion = fiction.

So is it possible that the cross was merely added later and that the story of Christ was either created from the start, or perverted later, to depict coded Sun/Son worship?

What about the "crown of thorns"? Could that be sun rays?

We are also told in the Bible we will see the Son coming in the clouds. Well, we may see the...sun...doing this every day! This may give an alternate meaning to other things like 'walking on water' (sun may appear to do so) and 'healing the sick' (we now know the sun's UV rays are vital for Vitamin D for our immune system) too, but that really is speculation.

The Christian Fish - Pisces

A popular Christian symbol is the fish. But perhaps this owes a lot to the astrology/astronomy of the time? We are currently in the age of Pisces, the fish, in terms of the procession of the Equinoxes. (Soon this 'age' will end, by the way, and the age of Aquarius will begin, hence the name of the 'New Age' belief systems.)

Important - see Wikipedia explanation of an 'astrological age'

Some believe that the origin of Christianity relates to the beginning of the astrological age of Pisces, perhaps that what is said to be the lifetime of Jesus was around a similar time to the 'dawning of the age of Pisces'. Although when the age of Pisces actually began is debatable (see the link immediately above). Phew, that's enough for now. To be continued. Have I offended anyone?

The 'Dark Side' of Christianity

Here's a different way of looking at some Christian rituals and practices. (It must be said that I am not an advocate of ritual and religion, though I remain very much open to the broad possibilities of our real reasons for being 'here'.)

(This post inspired to a degree by Incoming's heretical rambling. "What if", indeed.)

Each of these, on their own, may be overlooked as coincidences or such, but in combination I believe they warrant examination, for perhaps all is not as it seems.

1. The symbol of Christ on the cross.

This is a question that I believe ought to be raised - why is it that we kneel before this image? It is an apparently good guy being tortured to death! Perhaps, you may say, it represents Jesus dying for us, and to an extent I understand that point of view, but why not have a symbol of Jesus at a more dignifying point in the story of his life?

2. The altar.

I've never even thought about this until it occurred to me recently. Why is there an altar? Is something being offered to 'the gods'...a sacrifice perhaps? But that's at best 'pagan' and at worst downright evil (human sacrifice)! Doesn't go well with the deity image of a guy being strung up to die.

3. Communion.

This is the smoking gun to me at least. Here we have people, symbolically, dining on Jesus' flesh and blood...strange but true...and this is the moral institution on which we are to rely? He was killed on the cross, perhaps served on the altar, and now you're eating the guy!

So...perhaps Christians are unwittingly participating, albeit symbolically, in the same rituals as the devil worshipping human sacrificing cults? I suppose if you are coming from a Christian perspective you could look at it in terms of the Devil's trickery. But however you may interpret it, there does seem to be a 'dark side' to, or a 'darker interpretation' of, some elements of Christianity.

If you want to know more about the 'occult' symbolism which for some reason our ruling class have an obsession with hiding in plain sight everywhere, scope out Vigilant Citizen.

The pagan roots of Christianity are exposed - albeit from an atheist point of view - in the first part of Zeitgeist. Jesus may or may not have existed, though the prevalence of Sun/Son worship in this 'anti-pagan' religion cannot be ignored. And I'm not judging whether paganism is inherently good or bad, just that if Christians regard paganism as pure evil, they maybe ought to check their own faith before criticising others.

David Icke on Christianity - check out the symbolism! From Babylon to Rome...the same religion...?

Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not hostile to Christianity at all. I regard Christians as good people generally (well, I regard all people as good generally) and don't really have much time for the wedge issue Religion Wars that are used to divide our society against itself. Definitely Christianity is part of my heritage and I appreciate that, though I have to say that I also view it as a mind prison as much as any dogma is. In the modern world though, there are much more dangerous dogmas being pushed by our anti-Christian ruling class in their efforts to forge a one-world Malthusian-Huxleyite anti-human quasi-Luciferian eugenics religion.

My rough guide to religion:
"If some guy wants you to kneel, it's probably not for your own good"
"If there is an all-powerful being, he/she/it would forgive me for being a little sceptical now and then"
"Anyone who wants you to sacrifice this world for 'the next' is a liar"
"Materialism, belief in the physical existence of the outside world, is a religion every bit as much as Theism"
To me, agnosticism is merely honesty.

Heresy! - Christian Gnostics

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen06.html

The Christian Gnostics believed in reincarnation and the preexistence of the soul. They refused to believe in a resurrection of corpses at the end of time. They emphasized meeting Jesus on a spiritual level to become liberated and attain permanent citizenship in heaven. The Church of Rome of the second century A.D., on the other hand, declared that those who deny a Last Day resurrection of corpses are heretics.

Scriptural Blindfolds

Nothing turns ordinary people into little tyrants quite like a good old cult.

Jews





Muslims





and, yes, Christians (though you were more fun back in the day I guess)

I have nothing against religious people. And I am no atheist. But you know what I'm getting at...supremacism. Self righteous little nazis all ready to meat out Hell to others, just following orders from interpretations of their ancient folk history books. All different, all the same.

Ever considered that your Word may actually be carefully pre-written re-written ghost-written censored doctored controlled filtered words, the ancient equivalent of the MSM? True, not everything on the MSM is lies. It couldn't be, or the sheep wouldn't keep watching. But it draws you in and slowly devours your soul, puts you in a box, makes you submit, pits you against one another; that is its purpose.

Analogy complete.