The God of Enlightenment is not Satan

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: vethumanbeing

erm you should read my op, verrry carefully

I quoted your OP statement in entirety; and yes read it verrry carefully. You have not answered other than to deflect.

ever seen this?
rawa.org...

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: vethumanbeing

erm you should read my op, verrry carefully

I quoted your OP statement in entirety; and yes read it verrry carefully. You have not answered other than to deflect.

i'm not an evolutionist so i didn't think it was relevant

the good and evil part is a reference to procreation via male and female intercourse. females were considered evil, males were considered good.

Sorry, but you are taking a few great leaps of logic here. In other words, any time we are talking about good, that is a code word for men, and evil is a code word for women?

Anyone who considers the Bible, most likely thinks of it as a book about goodness, and that it comes from God. And also that we were created in the image, i.e. we had that capacity through God of goodness, and we got corrupted and fell away. And that we can be redeemed.

If it wasn't about basically that, no one would give a tinker's damn worth of attention to it.

And like I said, it is a massively symbolic book, which symbols are so dense, it SEEMS like it is literal. In my college days, I learned that most literature has an outer story, and one that is in the inside, the symbolic meaning.

Well the Prof used "The Lord of The Rings," to make his point, e.g. Gandalf would be the part of us that is wise and guides us etc. In reading that book, all characters represent archetypes that live inside of us.

What if the Bible was like that?

In other words, the creation story starts out with the Earth being void and empty. Now consider this verse from Jeremiah:

"My people is stupid, they have not known me; they are foolish sons and are not intelligent; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. I beheld the Earth, and lo a void and emptiness, and the heavens, and they had no light. (Jer 4:22)

Why does he first talk about his people being evil basically, and then juxtaposing that with the empty state of the Earth and heavens? The only way that makes sense is if the Earth and heaven represent archetypal states.

So in other words, the creation story was a progresssion, from a state of spiritual emptiness, to being made in the image. It is spiritual regeneration or redemption. Sorry if that seems quite far out, but it comes from Emanuel Swedenborg's "Arcana Coestia," or Heavenly Secrets. You probably never heard of him. Lived 250 years ago, and one of the most intelligent to grace us, but you never see him mentioned.

That combining the spiritual with descriptions of envirionmental stuff is all over the Bible, but ancient people thought like that quite naturally. Think of the Indians etc.

a reply to: Higherway

okay, when jesus answered the question about divorce, he said that it was worse than they thought, that even thinking about it, was akin to doing it. in other words, the god of this world made the laws governing human behavior so anti-human that it was impossible to keep them, and here's the big clue: he did it on purpose. jesus came to stop that whole process. i theorize he struck a deal, and satan, thinking he could convince him to make the wrong choices, once he was in a human body, found out he was wrong. jesus at that moment, ended blood sacrifices by being the final and last blood sacrifice. something the book of daniel refers to as the work of the bad guy, which in reality, is the exact opposite. for thousands of years, blood sacrifices (of animals, of humans), were popular and they were all started by that same guy in the garden who condemned humans, not because he created them, but because he didn't like them being on his planet. you'll figure this out eventually.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: vethumanbeing

erm you should read my op, verrry carefully

I quoted your OP statement in entirety; and yes read it verrry carefully. You have not answered other than to deflect.

i'm not an evolutionist so i didn't think it was relevant

Why then the basis of your theory; not exactly discrediting it or giving a validation effect to anything else. God is not Satan? Of Course IT IS as IT's creator allowed for that being/idea form to exist just as IT allowed for you to have been born and express ITS will (you may think you have free-will) YOU DO NOT. Whether this is relevant or not is left up to your discriminatory process; argue your point to those that respond that are interested in your thoughts (why dodge) its your thread; NEWBIE, nurture those that contribute to it (FIRST RULE OF THREAD CREATION). I might believe those numbers of yours if bribed.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

you mean my stars? it's a glitch in the system. i have, however, been a member since 2005

in cultures where female children weren't killed at birth, they were abused in various other ways, such as mangling of the clitoris, stuffing them in large sacks of cloth and making them stay inside most of their lives, stoning them to death for just about anything you can name (including rape). this is actually the work of that guy who condemned humans. that is why his laws were often "you gotta be kidding me!" awful.

Why stop there, at the abuse of females? There has been so many atrocities done in the name of God. But that didn't mean that he did them. We are fallen creatures now.

a reply to: Higherway

well i use to think that as well, till i realized that it didn't make sense. for example:

apostle paul said that he didn't let women speak in the church because of eve. then he goes on to explain his reasoning was that eve was fooled but adam was not and did it anyway. now bare with me a second: if eve was fooled, then she wasn't guilty. if adam wasn't fooled and did it anyway, he was guilty. so the guy who did it anyway, is the more trustworthy, than the person who was fooled. you can't make this up. so eve is supposedly condemned, her lifespan shortened (well effectively we went from being eternal bodied people to being temporary bodied people, essentially sentenced to death) and plagued with pain in childbirth and all because she was outsmarted by the trickiest and most beautiful of all of god's creation. i'm sorry but WTF?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: vethumanbeing

you mean my stars? it's a glitch in the system. i have, however, been a member since 2005

I understand that or would not have brought it up. Membership accolades goes to you; I was not alive at this/that point in time on this forum. Why are you bothering with an 'interested poster' you demean (not worthy) underlying; "God Of Enlightenment Itself" has its platform and is speaking from it. Why am I thinking you are manipulating thought forms that do not subscribe to your own. ITS YOUR OP and can do as you wish (underhanded sneaky) however dishonest they seem.

even if you remove the argument about guilty or not guilty, you still have a human being who was essentially just learning the ropes, being pitted against the supposedly most intelligent and trickest and beautiful being god had ever created. it's ridiculous to assume a god of love, would put his creation in that kind of jeopardy and then condemn them for either being gullible or stupid, whichever one the text is suggesting. if she was either one, she was that way because he had made her that way, but ya see, i don't think that's the case at all. i think it really means the following:

adam already KNEW. meaning he was already procreative before eve was, and then eve became procreative when adam's procreative dna was used to make eve procreative as well.

end of blaming women and calling them stupid and gullible, end of assuming god would be that mean to his creation and time instead to realize that the bad guy is not the creator god, but rather, the god of this world, who the bible identifies as satan.

p.s. enki's name has 2 important meanings: lord of the earth, lord of life. some have assumed the "lord of the earth" title means he's the god of this world, but it didn't mean of the planet, it meant of the clay of creation, of the soil. he fashioned the adapa (the adam) in some kind of clay thing.

originally posted by: undo
p.s. enki's name has 2 important meanings: lord of the earth, lord of life. some have assumed the "lord of the earth" title means he's the god of this world, but it didn't mean of the planet, it meant of the clay of creation, of the soil. he fashioned the adapa (the adam) in some kind of clay thing.

You must include Enlil and Anu; as brother and father as well.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: undo
p.s. enki's name has 2 important meanings: lord of the earth, lord of life. some have assumed the "lord of the earth" title means he's the god of this world, but it didn't mean of the planet, it meant of the clay of creation, of the soil. he fashioned the adapa (the adam) in some kind of clay thing.

You must include Enlil and Anu; as brother and father as well.

anu=heavenly father jesus prayed to in gethsemane
enlil=bad jehovah, owner of planet earth. lord of the air/wind

i wanted to clarify this verse

Gen 3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

--

what that's saying is "ye shall be as gods, (pro)creating males and females in your images." the big difference between humans creating more humans and god creating more humans is, the first adam males and females created in the image of elohim, were not procreated, they were copied, similar to cloning from the sounds of it. and that was the sticky point, the issue that made the god of this world flip his wig and demand human dna be modified, in that if we were going to be procreative instead of cloned, we couldn't also be eternal - thus the blocking of the tree of life in our dna.

to track the god of this world, in the text, consider the following

Eph 6:12: For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers,
against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

whatever could it mean "against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places"? rulers of darkness? the first thing that comes to mind is that this is referencing evil spirits in the night sky/dark spirit realm, but there appears to be an additional application as well.

gods were likened to planets. stars and angels (spirit beings) were interchangeable in the text, which lead me to research it from the perspective of astronomy science, rather than just the normal route of spiritual entities or astrological applications. what are stars? huge orbs of energy. what are planets ? huge orbs of energy in various states of flux. could it be the text was referencing (amongst other things) the various energetic forces (which are invisible to the naked eye, like spirits) but which impact the planet in negative or positive ways?

in effect, we, and our planet, wrestle against the forces of nature. the tides created by the moon, the earthquakes created by celestial and terrestrial mechanics of various kinds involving the moon or other celestial objects, the negative and positive impact of solar energy, the bombardment by celestial debris (asteroids, meteors, meteorites), the forces of gravity, neutrino bombardment, gamma ray bombardment from distant quasars (particularly the milky way galaxy's very own super massive black hole suddenly ejecting radiation jets of recycled star stuff into the galaxy proper).

but how does that explain the gods as planets idea (spiritual darkness in heavenly places), i really had no clue till i made a list of obvious heavenly bodies. then it dawned on me: the moon. the moon is a heavenly body that is typically only visible in the night sky. using that concept i started looking for references to the moon in the text, to see if it, and the god of this world, were interchangeable or if the symbol could be further defined as it related to its phases, like the full moon or the crescent moon. the full moon is reflecting all the light of the sun that it is capable of reflecting, whereas the crescent moon is mostly hidden in darkness (an energetic (spiritual) darkness due to lack of sunlight). well i knew of at least one such symbol being prominent in the ancient world: the crescent moon and the idea of lack of light (darkness) might further define it. so off i went to find references to the crescent moon.

in ancient sumer, the moon god, SIN (yes that was his name believe it or not) was a son of ENLIL. whammo, there it was. enlil, the god of this world, who's offspring is the moon god SIN, who's symbol is the crescent moon, which represents lack of light - it didnt' mean people with dark skin, it didn't mean people with white skin, it meant people who followed the moon god, sin, symbolized by the crescent moon. after that, it became real easy to track it in mesopotamia, but what about the rest of the world? have you ever seen the chinese flag? what about the flag of russia? or the flags of most of the near and middle east? see the crescent moons all over the world? oh yeah, the god of this world is satan and he owns the planet, that much is glaringly obvious.

but believe it or not, he is not the serpent in the garden.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: undo
p.s. enki's name has 2 important meanings: lord of the earth, lord of life. some have assumed the "lord of the earth" title means he's the god of this world, but it didn't mean of the planet, it meant of the clay of creation, of the soil. he fashioned the adapa (the adam) in some kind of clay thing.

You must include Enlil and Anu; as brother and father as well.

anu=heavenly father jesus prayed to in gethsemane
enlil=bad jehovah, owner of planet earth. lord of the air/wind

Where does Enki fit in this familiar Shakespearian tragic tail of families in opposition? It is the tale of centuries/lost civilizations.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: undo
p.s. enki's name has 2 important meanings: lord of the earth, lord of life. some have assumed the "lord of the earth" title means he's the god of this world, but it didn't mean of the planet, it meant of the clay of creation, of the soil. he fashioned the adapa (the adam) in some kind of clay thing.

You must include Enlil and Anu; as brother and father as well.

anu=heavenly father jesus prayed to in gethsemane
enlil=bad jehovah, owner of planet earth. lord of the air/wind

Where does Enki fit in this familiar Shakespearian tragic tail of families in opposition? It is the tale of centuries/lost civilizations.

genesis 1:2 didn't originally say "and the earth was void and without form", rather it originally said "and the earth BECAME void and without form", which means that what we are witnessing in the creation chapters is not the first creation but a re-creation following a cataclysm. however, several times now i have found 2 stories and sometimes even 3, meshed together in the text, and i haven't taken the time to separate them all out from each other. and not all of the verses are effected, it's mostly in the areas where there's alot of detail of import, such as creation, the fall narrative, the flood account, for starters.

to answer your question about enki: enki is the eldest son of anu. i have no idea what to make of it, other than to suggest that whatever happened prior to the creation of the adam males and females and the re-terraforming of the earth, is lost to history (unless it's written down in some coded text or mystery school super secret database. i'm mostly concerned that this is actually just a cycle, at the end of which everyone dies except a few, and it starts all over again. that would suck.

apostle paul said that he didn't let women speak in the church because of eve. then he goes on to explain his reasoning was that eve was fooled but adam was not and did it anyway. now bare with me a second: if eve was fooled, then she wasn't guilty. if adam wasn't fooled and did it anyway, he was guilty. so the guy who did it anyway, is the more trustworthy, than the person who was fooled. you can't make this up. so eve is supposedly condemned, her lifespan shortened (well effectively we went from being eternal bodied people to being temporary bodied people, essentially sentenced to death) and plagued with pain in childbirth and all because she was outsmarted by the trickiest and most beautiful of all of god's creation. i'm sorry but WTF

It is hard to understand it that way I think. But if you think of the Bible as a symbolic book, and dealing with archetypal states, then what we are talking about here is a story that is being used to represent a change of state from when humans were "made in the image" or led from the inside by love, to where we eventually wound up now, which is removed from a connection to love, and from real intelligence.

Let me summarize it archetypally. We used to be led by God, love, however you want to call it. That is what "Eden" is. Then we desired to have and know from our own self. That is what eating from that tree is.

So this is a turning away or cutting the connection from love. A loss of innocence or purity. That is basically what the story means. Eve (or what she represents) couldn't have been fooled without that inner need in other words.