It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Aryan Heritage: Learn about your real spiritual heritage

page: 10
113
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

So I am not sure why you are trying to draw some difference between the 2


There are no differences between the two. Jesus was a true Aryan, and tried to awaken the people living under the Abrahmic tyranny. Why else do you think he was crucified? The early Christians espoused Aryan values and Aryan teachings as taught by Jesus, why else do you think they were persecuted and driven out of the state?

The Christianity that later took root was a complete perversion by the Abrahmic elite. Have you ever wondered why the Old Testiment is accepted as a part of Christianity, and yet it was exactly the Old Testimant religion that Jesus rejected? What Christianity really is is a religion based on the distortion of the real life teachings of Jesus, used for ideological control. This is why it was adopted by Constantine as the state religion


Well, I agree that Christianity != Jesus, and talk about that pretty often. Jesus was killed by the "abrahamic elite", or "pharisees" as they were known in that day, and yes, Christianity is a distortion of what Jesus said and did, at the hands of the same pharisees who killed Jesus.

However, Jesus was not against the OT at all. He came to "fulfill" the law, not change it. Which means he came to show and bring understanding on how to follow the commandments properly, because the pharisees and way of the day was based on hypocrisy rather than understanding. Jesus says - the pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, and they still do even under Christianity.

So, they ALSO manipulated the meanings and such of the OT as well, which should bring the complaints toward them, rather than the abrahamic god.

Wisdom, knowledge and understanding come from the father, who is pure consciousness, that which is "I am" within us. I think, there for I am. Our "soul" is simply an individuality within the greater amount of consciousness. When I speak of consciousness and such in this ways, I see people of all religions being able to understand(those who understand anyway). I know Jewish people who for example know exactly what I am talking about. This bit about consciousness is not all focused on any single religion.

Others have tried to pass this off as meaning they are all fake, or handed down etc. But wisdom, understanding and truth are universal. And so it makes sense to me that all religions express these understandings within their own cultures. Which is why I am saddened to see you define yourself as being a certain culture and only that culture is correct and so on. Because such is a lie and status quo by those who keep these understandings hidden.

The way corruption works in all things, from religion to politics to business is that the corruptor outwardly embraces the religion, country or whatever. It gives the appearance of being "one" of them, but then diverts attention away from the principles and original understandings. This is done by getting people to instead focus on the idols, nation and other symbolisms rather than the wisdom and understanding.

At which point, as the cultures differ, and people are looking out at the symbolism and cultures rather than the principles and understandings they see only differences and suddenly the other side plays the evil for it. Just as you have set off the abrahmiac religions at the evil side here in your thread.

But if you instead look at the understanding and wisdom contained within each religion, then you will start to see similarities, and that is because real truth and understanding is universal. And it is those who manipulate these things into false idols and symbolism rather than the understandings who are the ones who are being accepted when they shouldn't be. They are accepted and promoted only because people no longer understand what the meaning was.

I am nothing but consciousness, I belong to no culture, no body, no society, no groups, no organizations and no belief systems. I do however live within a culture, within a body, within a society, among groups, organizations and belief systems. But such things only define my experience, they do not define me or who I am. To call yourself these things is associate yourself with external "additives".

It's like why can someone think of themselves as being a "race". My skin is white sure, but just because another white man invented something, it doesn't mean I invented it just because I was born white. Ever notice how racists do these things? They associate themselves as being that race, and then by default associate the things other people like that did as being their own, and of course only the good things. A white man invented the radio! Great I would say, what did YOU do?

So when you talk about "our aryan heritage", I don't get it. I don't have any such heritage. My heritage started 32 years ago. Such is collectivism, which views people in terms of groups rather than individuals. I'm "white", I'm "American", I'm "this", I'm "that". All nonsense. If you want to be something, then being "someone who does this", someone who did that, someone who doesn't murder, someone who doesn't steal and so on. Those are things that define who you are, not some physical replacement nonsense where you are taking other peoples achievements and what someone else did as claiming it as your own.

See what I am getting at? This thread is all in "the name of", the building of something external as a way of validating oneself and so on, rather than about understanding.




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Yep, the Gnostics were Aryans. Much of Western Gnosticism is based on Platonism. Platoism in turn is based on Hinduism and Buddhism and Hinduism and Buddhism are both based on Aryan religion or Vedic religion.

The Pagans and the Gnostics are one and the same people. They have all descended from Aryans.

By the way the Gypsies are the Indians. Look it up.


Just because someone first got credit for something doesn't mean all events after are based upon that first credit, or that it came from that. Truth and understanding is universal and it is always there for those who seek it.

This understanding and wisdom comes from the father, and so you will see true understandings popping up all over the world independent from one another. Each carries similarities because they are expressions of the same universal understanding.

I always find it odd that we treat things as if original thought is something that no longer happens, and that once someone says it, only from that source can it come. Nonsense if you ask me.

Now you are just trying to give credit to anything that resembles that understanding to 1 original source which you are building up for credibility and authority to apply as an extension of yourself.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I am not a relativist bad media. I am going to post an extract from my earlier post on page 1 to illustrate my point:


Abrahmic:

Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23

Abimelech killed 69 of his brothers on a stone. Judges 9:5, BT

Doeg the Edomite killed 85 priests and all the men, women, children, infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep with a sword. 1 Samuel 22:18-19, BT

Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12

David killed 200 Philistines to purchase his first wife with their foreskins. 1 Samuel 18:25-27, BT

Abishai killed 300 men with a spear. 2 Samuel 23:18, 1 Chronicles 11:20, BT

The chief of David's captains killed either 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11) or 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) men with a spear. (Sometimes it's hard to correctly count the number of dead bodies in a massacre.)

Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
(The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)

Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an ox goad. Judges 3:31, BT

Samson killed 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. Judges 15: 14-15, BT

Aryan:

O mankind! I bind you together towards one objective - the welfare of man. Toil together with mutual love and goodwill. May you share the comforts of life equally. May you accomplish your work with mututal accord and finally may you, in the pursuit of your ambition at all times, engage in working together with goodwill - AV 3.30.7

One is barbaric and demonic and the other is noble and divine.


I can call a spade a spade without any hestitation at all. The Abrahmic religion is behind all the evil in this world and all my research cries that out to me. Jesus did not support this religion at all, which is why he was crucified and his real disciples were persecuted and made to flee. His teachings are the complete antithesis of Abrahmic religion.

I believe you said that you had not read this thread properly. This may explain why you have misunderstood what I mean by "Aryan heritage" I do not mean race or ethnicity. I mean nobility and virtue. The Aryan heritage is not the heritage of any human group, it is a cosmic heritage, which all enlightened beings in the universe share. It teaches pure spirituality and reveals the secrets of creation, being and reality. It puts man into contact with the real truth and with the universe. This is why it should be reclaimed.

Nobody is Aryan by default, it is only those that live true spiritual lives, guided by divine values and act noble in their thoughts, speech and actions, who have the honour of being called Aryan.

We must reclaim our Aryan culture to resurrect a true noble and enlightened era for humankind, where man is once again in touch with his self and the universe. Aryan religion is pure, it promotes the freedom of the soul and teaches us how to think independently, expand our mind, refine our intellect and skills and how to realise the truth for ourselves. It is teaches us to be self-sufficient, healthy, strong, intelligent and positive.

I really cannot see who would have a problem with something so noble, other than somebody unnoble.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


If you were looking at the entire world from the beginning until the end, you would simply be seeing time as a another dimension like length, width, or depth. When you contemplate a movie then you are looking at it not only from a 3 dimensional construct in you mind, but also in a 4th dimensional construct that considers the dimension of time. It is like looking at a 2 dimensional picture, and seeing the third dimension of depth. Time actually has a structure, and if you see it, then you see the dimension of time.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


If it exists, then it is real.

Just because you stop observing something, doesn't mean that it ceases to exist or to be real. Even Illusions actually exist, and the conditions that create the illusion do not go away simply because you recognize them as an illusion. It in fact has a separate and independent existence, and this can be observed by observing that others also observe the illusion, or the passing of time, or the ground beneath our feet.

There is more to this world than we are ever capable of understanding, all we can offer is what we have learned from our own perspectives.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It depends on what you mean by "real" The word real has a technical definition in philosophy:


Philosophy Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


All objects that we observe are represented to us, and thus all we observe are representations, and not the actual objects in themselves. Thus all objects have a contingent existence based on our observation. If we are not there to observe, the object cannot exist for us. You said that if you are not observing the object it does not cease to exist? However, the great skeptic philosopher Hume demonstrated that we cannot possibly know that. There is no proof that the object that you observe exists when you are not observing it . This is supported by Quantum physics(non Copenhagen interpretation) which shows that there are no quantum effects without observation.

The Aryans explain this as well that the entire physical universe is really just waves occuring within the cosmic mind and these waves only occur when an observer collapses the superpositioned state of the absolute, this collapse leads to the subject-object duality and space-time. Space and time cease to exist in absolute reality, just as your reality ceases to exist in the state of deep-sleep. The empirical world is none other than a world of names and forms - thought forms occuring within the substratum of consciousness. If there is no observer, there is no empirical world. This is a tautology actually. The very definition of an empirical world is one that is generated through the senses and the mind, and if there is no observer to sense the world, there cannot be an empirical world.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Objects cease to exist when we can no longer observe them, not when we stop observing them. We can verify this by checking with others to verify that the object still exists. In addition, we can conduct tests and investigations that verify that an object has continued to exist.

A more accurate thing to say would be that objects only exist as we are able to perceive them, which is not their true state. Our perception of objects ends when we stop observing that object, and as we experience time, that perspective of any object that we once observed no longer exist, because not only has the object changed, but we have changed, and the entire world has changed.

I would agree that time does not exist as we are capable of perceiving it, and the same is true of all of reality. When put in this perspective I think that this is something on which everyone can agree.

The aphorism, "The More I learn, the less I know" comes to mind.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I also have another question for Indigo_Child, Can humans also obtain wings? because i have done the technique on this site once, Opening Of The Wings, and have been feeling some tingling between my shoulderblades and spine.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


If you ask another to confirm that an object exists, they too are going to only have a representation of the object. All that verfication proves is that there are other minds that perceive the world just as you do, not that the world is real.

Here is what is happening when you observe an object: You the subject send an information signal to the object that you are observing, the object responds by sending an information signal back

S : O

There is an information interaction between the subject and the object, and the interaction that takes place between the subject and object takes place in in time. This is a basic cause and effect relationship. Remember the point A and B example, time is the measure between cause and effect. The time it takes for the cause to become the effect is what is the real definiton of time. In your case all you ever observe is effects only and never causes. There is in fact a cause, in fact a very long chain of cause and effect, but because the mind is incapable of detecting more subtle phenomenon, only the effects appear to it. It's just like a movie projector, if you watch it at 24fps images appear to have a continuous motion, when in fact the motion is discontinuous.

We have already discovered through science some of those hidden cause and effects that we cannot sense: The light rays entering the eyes/sound hitting the ear drums etc, the transmission of electrical signals, the computation by the brain.

The S:O interaction is exactly the same. The world appears to be continuous, when in fact it is not continuous at all. It is changing every moment at infinite speed, but because the speed of change is infinite, it appears to be solid. At every moment, the the entire universe is actually being created and annihilated. To visualise this imagine the universe flashing in and out of existence every moment.

Now if you slow down the frame-speed on a movie projector, you will begin to see the frames and even the hidden frames. Likewise, if you slow down time in the S:O interaction, you will become aware of the hidden causes and effects. This process is done through the act of meditation whereby your shift-time by entering higher states of consciousness, revealing hidden causes and effects. It is then you will realise, just like the Aryan sages have, that the apparent world is not real and is underlined by finer realities, which progressively become finer and finer until you realise the that that S and O are both the same.

The S:O interaction is a false dichotomy. There really is only that absolute reality. Brahman is the true reality of all existence.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


To add to the above it is worth taking a look at Aryan quantum physics described in the Samkhya Sutras:


1. Investigating the triad of the interactive stresses(gunas) confirms that such interactive modes of stress exist, but it would not have have been detectable, had it not been for the existence of super coherent, perpetual, dynamic existence of the substratum.

2. Standard methods of evaluation through detection are affected by distortion, attenuation, and inferior resolution to detail, but an alternate method that is totally satisfactory, is based on the principle of discriminating the basic and dynamic substratum into its appropriate components of the unmanifest, manifest, the self-potential and kinetic state.

7. Extremely far or near distances, mental and sensory inefficiencies, subtle or attentuated conditions, occultation or eclipsing of an object, poor background contrast, camoflaging effects are the causes of non detection/non-measurements of phenomenon.

8. The non-detectability of the substratum is due to the extremely attentuated reactions put out and not because the substratum does not exist. Only reactions are detectable. For when the reaction of the first displacement takes place then a sequence of oscillations are detected which are either in their original form or harmonics.


There is a lot going on at the unconsious level you are not privvy too. Simply put every event that is taking place within this universe is taking place within you as well, and you can detect it. I will give a very basic example of such a detection: An earthquake is coming and you become aware of it(many animals react by instinct) in some form(fear, anxiety, vision) You can, if you develop your mind enough, become aware of every event taking place on this planet. Your higher self exists in subspace, where there is no space-time, enabling you to know anything and everything.

When a question is posed to you that you don't know the answer to, your higher self has already transmitted the answer to you. If I ask you for example, "What is happening in Area 51 right now" That very instant the higher self has transmitted the visuals of what is happening there.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If you were looking at the entire world from the beginning until the end, you would simply be seeing time as a another dimension like length, width, or depth. When you contemplate a movie then you are looking at it not only from a 3 dimensional construct in you mind, but also in a 4th dimensional construct that considers the dimension of time. It is like looking at a 2 dimensional picture, and seeing the third dimension of depth. Time actually has a structure, and if you see it, then you see the dimension of time.


Yes, but you are looking at time as only being linear, as a "4th axis". But this is not really the case. Our path and our perspective views time as only being a 4th axis, but in reality time is not linear and only 1 more axis, but atleast 3.

So add X Y and Z axis to "time".



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am not a relativist bad media. I am going to post an extract from my earlier post on page 1 to illustrate my point:

I can call a spade a spade without any hestitation at all. The Abrahmic religion is behind all the evil in this world and all my research cries that out to me. Jesus did not support this religion at all, which is why he was crucified and his real disciples were persecuted and made to flee. His teachings are the complete antithesis of Abrahmic religion.


This thread is starting out by talking about how people have done things in the names of Aryan which has given them a bad rep. I think that should be a clue and something you should look at when dealing with others.

Have to see the difference between those who do things in the name of something, and what that something is actually about at it's base. Many of the stories in the OT are allegorical/metaphorical and aren't meant to be taken literally. But it is those who preach and get people stuck on the literal that are the problem among ALL religions and all things.



I believe you said that you had not read this thread properly. This may explain why you have misunderstood what I mean by "Aryan heritage" I do not mean race or ethnicity. I mean nobility and virtue. The Aryan heritage is not the heritage of any human group, it is a cosmic heritage, which all enlightened beings in the universe share. It teaches pure spirituality and reveals the secrets of creation, being and reality. It puts man into contact with the real truth and with the universe. This is why it should be reclaimed.


I read the rest of the thread after my first reply. I am also not talking about race or ethnicity exactly either. What I am talking about is using external factors and the accomplishments of others as an extension of ourselves. I mention the race and such because they are obvious examples of people doing this.

Another example would be like atheists and science. Many of them talk about science being the end all be all and so forth, and then they use science as an extension of themselves as if because they praise science it is about them. When in truth the majority of them don't even understand basic physics etc. But they cling to science because they treat it as an authority, and thus they are more "credible" and such because science they claim as an extension of themselves.

And you do this when you claim "Aryan Heritage" or anything like that. It's not just about race and such. People do it with countries, flags, religion and on and on. They do it to the point where they end up fighting for the flag, religion and so forth rather than the principles they were founded on. Easy to see in politics, just look at all the flag wavers. Such is the deception, and you are waving a flag here.



Nobody is Aryan by default, it is only those that live true spiritual lives, guided by divine values and act noble in their thoughts, speech and actions, who have the honour of being called Aryan.


Your words here are hollow. Meaning, they are generalizations which are empty in meaning so that the person on the other end fills the words with their own meanings.

Like when a politician says - "I'm going to give you better healthcare". Hollow words, because they don't actually say what that details. And you say things like "true spiritual lives", guided by "divine values", and "act noble in their thoughts etc". Each and every one of those things are hollow and left up for interpretation.

Who doesn't want "divine values" and "true spiritual lives"? And when someone reads that, they will see their own "divine values" and "true spiritual lives" as they fill your hollow words with those things. Because when you start to fill those words up yourself with what you think that means, then people will start jumping ship.

These are methods of deception.



We must reclaim our Aryan culture to resurrect a true noble and enlightened era for humankind, where man is once again in touch with his self and the universe. Aryan religion is pure, it promotes the freedom of the soul and teaches us how to think independently, expand our mind, refine our intellect and skills and how to realise the truth for ourselves. It is teaches us to be self-sufficient, healthy, strong, intelligent and positive.



More hollow words. Again, what does it mean to be a "true noble". What is "enlightened" What is pure, and what do you consider freedom of the soul?

How can one have freedom of the soul, while at the same time being required to "reclaim" some culture and take on some religion. You speak in hollow words, and then you contradict yourself in meaning here.



I really cannot see who would have a problem with something so noble, other than somebody unnoble.


Being noble is completely subjective and just because say it is noble doesn't mean it is. Hollow words.

All I see in this thread is you marketing a religion. Creating positions and titles of authority, of which you even carry yourself as if that is supposed to give you some credibility. So that people will "accept" what you say, rather than them coming to understanding themselves. Sure you give lip service towards understanding, towards freedom and towards many good things, but when I look at what you say people should do it's all towards a religion and culture YOU want and think people should follow, and then have the nerve to call that freedom?

I already know the father. And the father taught me that it is never the culture, the idols, the religion or any of these such things that matter, but the understanding any such things may give that matters. I was taught there is only 1 authority, the father who gives in understanding and knowledge, rather than literal dogma. To not seek titles or favor among men, but to instead stay true to wisdom and understanding no matter if men agree or not. And creating authority figures and such is contradictory to understanding, wisdom and enlightenment.

That includes all religions, yours included. God doesn't need a religion. If you talk on understanding, might find some agreements. But if you are simply pushing idols and religion, then you are no different than most Christians to me. I can talk about understandings and agree with them a good bit, but as soon as they start on the promoting of religion and idols and such, then we no longer find agreement.

Understanding is a universal language. Cultures, idols, messengers and symbols are merely those which have expressed those things at certain times and places. Praises the cultures, idols and messengers is like giving a cat a bowl of milk, and then he licks the bowl that brought the milk rather than drinking the milk given to him.



[edit on 1-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


As I said I am not a relativist. For me there is such thing as a real truth.

There is no way to spin it really, the OT parts I cited were barbaric and evil. There is no metaphor or allegory here. It is the true face of the Abrahmic religion which is the antithesis of all that which is divine.

You say that you know the father, and yet you dispute what is divine and noble. I say that if somebody is stuck at the stage of interpreting what is divine and noble and what is demonic and evil they don't know the father.

It sounds like you're trying to have your cake(the good stuff) and and eat it at the same time(the bad stuff) I have talked to many Christians and Muslims who talk of all that that is good, and conveniantly pretend that all that is bad is not there in their scriptures. Of course, if there is anything bad, then all of a sudden it is a metpahor - "God is not really ordaining the massacre of men, women and children, actually what it is saying is..."

You seem to be arguing against religion, saying the soul doesn't need one - but what your real intention is to argue that we don't need Aryan religion, while covertly trying to defend Abrahamic religion. If you were really were honest about us not needing religion, you wouldn't condemn one and favour the other.

Actually we do need religion, but true religion. The human does not come to this planet with knowledge, it needs to gain knowledge and guidance through the various institutions in society: family, education and religion.
You did not come out of your mothers womb, saying, "Oh father, you are pure consciousness" rather you learned about this much later. Moreover, you did not even learn about this from Christianity. This is not at all an orthodox doctrine, but a heretical doctrine in Christianity - you've added this yourself later and you got this from Aryan teachings scattered in the new-age and Gnostic religions.

We are born into an Abrahmic society and indoctrinated into Abrahmic ways as soon as we are born. We are made to think their way is the only way, the best way, and no other way exists. As I said earlier the devil does not play fair. So we already have a religion forced onto us at birth. The religion of Satanism, the worship of the cult of ego, the worship of power, control and greed. These are exactly the values which characterize Abrahmic religion.

But as I said this is not fair. We need a choice. I should be able to choose if I want to go with Abrahmic ways or Aryan ways. While Abrahmic teachings do not give you the choice of choosing Aryan ways, Aryan teachings does give you the choice of choosing Abrahmic ways. That is because we have free will and we have the freedom to make mistakes, because that is how the soul learns.

The antidote to the Abrahmic tyranny of this world is the resurrection of Aryan culture which Abrahmic tyranny has desperately tried to suppress through the ages. Do not pretend that you are impartial to religion, it clear you are not and you speak in favour of Abrahmic religions. There is nothing wrong with that, you're entitled to it, but then don't go around censoring the rights of people to talk about Aryan religion, and pretending to be objective. I can see right through Abrahmic hypocrites that extoll their own religion, and suddenly become relativists and objective for other religions.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
As I said I am not a relativist. For me there is such thing as a real truth.

There is no way to spin it really, the OT parts I cited were barbaric and evil. There is no metaphor or allegory here. It is the true face of the Abrahmic religion which is the antithesis of all that which is divine.


And I point out those evil things all the time. I would even go so far as too suggest that those "evil" things have nothing to do with the father, that the bible contains a mixture. I know the new testament for example is about half and half. I reject nearly 50% of the new testament. If the things said don't hold up, then they don't hold up.

I could care less about religion and go ahead and review some of my posts talking with Christians. You'll see that I talk about the EXACT same things with them that I have brought up with you.

You are simply taking the parts you want to paint it in the light you want. That is all. No different than those who point out only the good things in the religion. I find both good and bad in all religions, and rather than put down all of it, it is best to separate the 2. So when it comes to say a Christian, there are 2 kinds that I see. Those who focus on the literal religion, dogma and the church system, and those who focus on the understanding and wisdom. I have nothing for those who focus on the religion itself, but plenty for those who focus on understanding and wisdom. And this would be true of all religions.



You say that you know the father, and yet you dispute what is divine and noble. I say that if somebody is stuck at the stage of interpreting what is divine and noble and what is demonic and evil they don't know the father.


Oh please, I never questions what is divine and noble. I questioned your use of the world in a general manner without real definition. As I said such words and generalizations are hollow because what you think is noble and divine I might not agree with.

Furthermore, to claim your religion has some kind of monopoly on such things nothing more than status quo.



It sounds like you're trying to have your cake(the good stuff) and and eat it at the same time(the bad stuff) I have talked to many Christians and Muslims who talk of all that that is good, and conveniantly pretend that all that is bad is not there in their scriptures. Of course, if there is anything bad, then all of a sudden it is a metpahor - "God is not really ordaining the massacre of men, women and children, actually what it is saying is..."


I'm not even a Christian. Like said, go read some of the things I say to Christians, i tell them they belong to an anti-christ, satanic and evil religion. And that is because they do exactly the same things you do. You are no different than those you point fingers at period.

I don't' give a crap what name you have for the things, you are still focused on the idols and such.



You seem to be arguing against religion, saying the soul doesn't need one - but what your real intention is to argue that we don't need Aryan religion, while covertly trying to defend Abrahamic religion. If you were really were honest about us not needing religion, you wouldn't condemn one and favour the other.


ALL religion is FALSE. ALL of it. The only reason I stick up for it to begin with is because you paint a dishonest picture of it, as a means to give your own more credibility. Such is intellectually bankrupt and full of deception. Sorry, but I don't give a crap what another religion has done or how evil you can claim it to be on this topic. It has absolutely nothing to do with validating your own religion. That you would even bring it up in the first place as a way of validating your own religion shows you are simply compensating.

Sound like some ignorant christian who wants to point out the bad things muslims do as a way of trying to validate their own religion. Get that ignorant crap outta my face thank you very much, I have no need for it.



Actually we do need religion, but true religion. The human does not come to this planet with knowledge, it needs to gain knowledge and guidance through the various institutions in society: family, education and religion.
You did not come out of your mothers womb, saying, "Oh father, you are pure consciousness" rather you learned about this much later. Moreover, you did not even learn about this from Christianity. This is not at all an orthodox doctrine, but a heretical doctrine in Christianity - you've added this yourself later and you got this from Aryan teachings scattered in the new-age and Gnostic religions.


And here you go once again trying to take credit for anything dealing with enlightenment or a personal relationship with the father. I did not learn from the bible, I did not learn from any religion. NONE. Not yours, not theirs, none of them. I learned directly from the father and source, and there is no replacement for that. All religions including yours simply try to establish themselves as an authority and a replacement for such things.

For you to try and take credit for those things is just plain out absurd. Tell me, who told them to begin with? What was their source? No different than Christians trying to tell me the bible is the word of god. Sorry, but I have no need for such ignorance and I don't care what religion you want to do it in.



We are born into an Abrahmic society and indoctrinated into Abrahmic ways as soon as we are born. We are made to think their way is the only way, the best way, and no other way exists. As I said earlier the devil does not play fair. So we already have a religion forced onto us at birth. The religion of Satanism, the worship of the cult of ego, the worship of power, control and greed. These are exactly the values which characterize Abrahmic religion.


And once again trying to use the faults of another religion to validate your own. Where is your enlightenment? You are no different than Christians.



5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.


Funny, because these verses seem to suggest otherwise. Of course, you're going to want to ignore things like this.

And if it is so false, then why does it speak such truth as this? Why does it speak and tell EXACTLY the things that happened to me in regards of the father? Sure, Christians and the actual religion don't allow for such things really, but what the bible says there is plain as day for all to understand.

Go ahead and tell me what is so evil about this. Or are you going to try and claim responsibility for this as well?



But as I said this is not fair. We need a choice. I should be able to choose if I want to go with Abrahmic ways or Aryan ways. While Abrahmic teachings do not give you the choice of choosing Aryan ways, Aryan teachings does give you the choice of choosing Abrahmic ways. That is because we have free will and we have the freedom to make mistakes, because that is how the soul learns.


Ahhh, the old trying to pigeon hole people into only 2 choices. Guess what, you can both go to hell for all I care. My choices are no where near this limited, nor am I fool enough to allow someone to pigeon hole me into them.

Neither of these religions give me choice, nor does either of them take it from me. I have choice because I am a child of god, and a part of the father. Choice is built in and given to me by god as a part of free will, not by any religion, man or whatever. Once again trying to take credit for things that have nothing to do with religion.

But hey, thanks for "allowing" me a choice.




The antidote to the Abrahmic tyranny of this world is the resurrection of Aryan culture which Abrahmic tyranny has desperately tried to suppress through the ages. Do not pretend that you are impartial to religion, it clear you are not and you speak in favour of Abrahmic religions. There is nothing wrong with that, you're entitled to it, but then don't go around censoring the rights of people to talk about Aryan religion, and pretending to be objective. I can see right through Abrahmic hypocrites that extoll their own religion, and suddenly become relativists and objective for other religions.


All religions are of "Satan". ALL OF THEM. Because they are all built upon the literal, they are all built upon false idols, traditions and so forth. They all have people pushing themselves up into positions of authority, and there is only 1 valid authority and that is the father. ALL of them are wrong. All of them are evil.

But deep under the religions there is understanding. And that understanding is what I defend. I would defend it in ANY religion, yours included if you had ever given any. But I will denounce the literal, I will denounce the idols and I will denounce anyone trying to create an authority of themselves in the name of god also in ANY religion.

Truth, wisdom and understanding have no religion, they need no religion and no religion can claim a monopoly on them. Too bad you spent this thread defending religion instead of those things, probably would have went much differently.


[edit on 2-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Ok, let's take this last statement you made, and apply it to the whole concept.


When a question is posed to you that you don't know the answer to, your higher self has already transmitted the answer to you. If I ask you for example, "What is happening in Area 51 right now" That very instant the higher self has transmitted the visuals of what is happening there.


Your higher self is always observing the world, therefore, all of the world continuously exists. Time and space exist in the world of the higher self, but they exist in ways that are very different than they exist in this world.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by poet1b]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


So, I've got to ask, if your religion is such a magical, wonderful religion:

Why are there out-castes and untouchables? Anti-Muslim and radical elements in Hinduism (might as well give it a name; after all, everybody else is *Abrahmic*, apparently) running amok killing each other and their enemies over *POLITICAL SEATS*? What about the pollution of the Ganges under the banner of "religious tradition"? Arranged child marriages? Women being burnt on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands (uncommon now, but once the norm)? Patriarchal society and domestic violence against women? Now who's ignoring the bad stuff?

Maybe I'm cynical; maybe the bad guys got to me (I'm a very lax pagan, btw, so don't lecture me about the "tribal deities" of Christianity), or maybe, just maybe, I find that religion, by and large, is religion, and no matter what one uses to justify and try to poke holes in the beliefs of others, Hinduism, and the myth of our Aryan forefathers, and any religion for that matter, is subjective. I find it to be a load of sh**, myself, but I don't harangue people about it, and I certainly don't proselytize. If you want to reach the masses, why not set up shop next to the Krishnas in the airport? I'm a little confused as to what this thread is beyond a proselytization attempt for somebody's own personal POV. Different strokes for different folks, unless you disagree, I guess.

Beyond that, "Aryan" is such a catch-all term, and "Abrahmic" is a thinly-veiled attack on somebody else's belief-system... seems that was brought up with somebody else's post in mind, but not your own reaction to it. I'm not a Christian, but their beliefs- provided they don't attack me with them- are their own, and are their business. I wonder when I see people trumpeting their own world-view while trying to drag others' down- is it because you feel it's a destructive viewpoint, or because you need to poke holes in somebody else's worldview to bolster your own?

Incidentally, "Abraham" doesn't mean "not Brahma." The negative prefix "a-" is from *Latin and Greek* and "Brahma" is from *Sanskrit*, two languages that didn't exactly coexist in history, or have any real lasting interaction. I understand the need to illustrate a point, just maybe do a little very easily available research before affirming something false.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Warbaby]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Let me put this another way.

There are 2 parts to words and such. There is the literal, and then there is the understanding the words are able to describe. The morale of the story and so forth. The literal is not important to me at all, I see them as merely variables of an equation. The equation itself is the truth and understanding, and the variables are just used to express it. For example in Math, to understand how to add is like "A+B=C"(still symbols themselves, but I'm assuming you understand the meaning of them). Now, you can put in any values into A or B and get a true statement of C. So, I can say A=1, B=4, and then so C=5. 1+4=5 is a true statement. Also 4+5=9 is a true statement. But while these things are true statements, the real truth is the understanding behind them, the equation itself.

Religions push the idols, symbolism, hero's and so forth as truth, all of them. And those who focus on those things in all religions are FOOLS. They are blind and they do not understand. And all I really seen in this thread is you pushing idols, symbolisms, hero's and so forth, rather than understanding.

Any fool can walk around saying 4+5=9 all day long. But if they can not add then they are ignorant and missed the point. And if you can add, then you can recognize true statements outside your own expression. But because you seem to lack understanding, you denounce 1+4=5 and other true statements. When if you had been able to add and understand, then you would be able to see the true expression in other religions.

And then you maybe might also realize that it is people who have tried to push "only" their religon, "only" their culture, that have kept people from understanding and has kept people from being able to "add". Because rather than getting the understanding, they are told and taught to focus on the idols and so forth.

Because they do not know how to add and because they focus on idols, all they see are differences in each other. 1 says Jesus, one says Krishna, 1 says allah and so forth, and they ignorantly and blindly fight among each other. Each playing the evil for the other side, each pointing out the bad the other side did, while pretending to be "justified" for their actions, which are generally exactly the same. A bunch of hypocrisy I want no part of.

If they instead looked at the understanding rather than trying to promote their religion idols and so forth, they would probably learn and see that understandings and such are universal, and each culture has their own way of expressing it, just as there are many expressions of A+B=C. But you will NEVER see such things if you are just going to focus on 1 single thing as true, because you are blind to the entire point.

Arguing over the literal, idols, religions and so forth is about like watching the matrix movie, and then starting a fight over if Neo and the Machines are real are not. Either way both sides are a bunch of blind people who missed the entire point of the movie and the real truth of it.

So keep on arguing over these things if you want, you are free to do what you want. But don't try to tell me you are enlightened about things and how "pure" and "noble" your "religion" is. I know the father, and this is the kind of understanding he gives. Not some foolish bit about idols and religions.



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Badmedia, you claim that you did not learn your knowledge from religion, but you learned it directly from the father. I think that is patent nonsense, and what you really are doing is denying that you learned whatever you have learned from the father from religion. The term, the "father" is an Abrahmic terminology for god, so I know you got your teachings about the "father" from the Abrahmic religion. I also know, that your ideas that the the "father is pure consciousness" is something you got from Gnostic and new-age religion. As I can trace the source of your knowledge it is clear that none of your knowledge has come to you from the "father".

It is scientific nonsense to say that one is born into the world with knowledge. Nobody is born with any kind of knowledge, everybody has to learn knowledge and also learn how to be human. If there is no kind of social agency to transmit knowledge to an individual, the individual never becomes human, but remains an animal. This has been been shown with feral children, that have been brought up by wolves, and begin to behave like wolves.

You, like everybody else, were socialised into the world and educated like everybody else. Everybody has to go through this process in the formative stages of our personality. If there is no institution to install within you good values, teach you how to think, speak and behave properly, you will never become human. So education is completely mandatory in our development. You behave as if you are exempt from this, but this is perhaps your biggest delusion. No, you did not gain any knowledge from some "father" you gained your knowledge just like everyone of us - through society.

There is a very famous Aryan saying, "There is no knowledge without a teacher" for us to gain any kind of knowledge we first must be taught how to think, speak and act properly by a preceptor. In Aryan education system the first 25 years of a student's life was based on this process exactly. In those 25 years the student would develop intellectual, moral and spiritual character.

The process of education is absolutely mandatory in our development. Not all education is the same. Your dismissal of all religions as "evil" is just a naive and unintelligent outlook. It is like dismissing all medicine, because most medicines you've tried are bad for you. There is such thing as right religion/education. Your attitude is post-modern, which rejects that any absolute truth exist, but as I have reiterated to you, I am not a relativist. I eschew post-modern philosophy as being nothing more destructive sophistry. Post-modern philosophy is a philosophy of lazy, nihilistic, egocentric philosophers who spit out their dummy and throw their toys out of their sandbox, because they are incapable of knowing the truth. Just because they cannot deduce the truth, they conclude that the truth does not exist. Sour grapes.

The truth is that there is such thing as truth. There is true education, true society, true relationships, true education, true morals, true speaking, true actions, true art, true music, true history, true science, true religion/spirituality. This truth is outside of human influence, this truth is the truth of creation and being. The human either has a choice to accept this truth and live in concord with creation, or in their infinite arrogance reject this truth and live in discord with creation. Those who live in concord with creational laws are Aryans, and those who do not, are Anaryan.

I have done enough reading of spiritual literature to realise that the great minds thought alike, taught similar teachings and values. Whether that is Lao Tzu, Confucious, the Vedic Risis, Ekhart or Ramakrishna, they chanelled the same truth. That is because the truth is an exact science, and just as a scientist anywhere in the universe, will discover the same laws of creation, likewise the souls anywhere in the universe, will discover the same laws of creation.

There are laws of creation and the soul is to abide by those laws if they want to prosper, else they will perish. This has been shown time and time again with all those who opposed creation, that they will definitely fail, suffer and perish. Do you recall a philosopher called Neitzche, the founder of the modern cult of ego, who famously declared, "God is dead"? He completely self-destructed and died a painful and tragic death We are opposing creational laws today and as a result we are suffering, and like Neitzche, our civilisation is on the brink of self-destruction.

So discard from your mind that you are the one that arbiters the truth. The truth is cosmic, owned by neither you or myself, or an individual, it is beingness itself. Moreover, this cosmic truth is so agreeable, so simple and and liberating, that nobody who is truly human would oppose it, because it is both logically and intuitively correct. I shared a post earlier citing verses from the Aryan scriptures on what Aryanhood is all about, and those of clean heart and soul, resonated with it. If one does not resonate with something like this, then one can be sure that they are not of noble character and they are not truly human:

May thy heart be full of generosrity
Kindness and love;
May it flow to the down-trodden and make them happy
(Sama 55)

If you oppose this it means you do not believe in generosrity, kindness and love and do not want to help the down-trodden in society. Only he who is unkind, unloving and uncaring would oppose this.

Pefect am I
Pefect is my mind
Perfect are mine eyes
Perfect are my ears
Perfect is my breath
Perfect my entire being
At peace with myself am I.
(Atharva 19.51.1)

If you oppose this it means do not believe yourself to be divine, but condemned. Then you have no self-worth and are insecure, in need of something else to fulfill you, but with an appetite that can never be satiated.

May our prayers be one and the same
May we belong to on fraternity
May our minds move in accord
May our hearts work in unison
For one supreme goal;
Let us be inspired by a common ideal
Let us sing thy praises in congregation

May all the members of society have a common objective, may their hearts beat as one and their minds think alike, so that with out combined energies and diverse skills, they may be able to accomplish their goals properly
(RV 10.191-3-4)

If you oppose this you do not believe in world peace and coooperation. You do not think people should work together and solve their problems together. Then what you believe in is competition, conflict and selfishness.

In the eyes of the supreme, no one is big,
no one is small, all are alike, all are recipients of
godly love and blessing for prosperity
(RV 5.60.5)

If you oppose this you do not believe that people are equal, you believe some are inferior and some are superior, and deserve less love and prosperity. Then you views are no different to to people like the Nazis.

How can you call such teachings "evil" is beyond me. These teachings are clearly pure, pristine, beautiful and lofty which deserve to be heard by everybody and if followed will only bring prosperity, harmony and love to everybody. Anybody that opposes this clearly is not noble.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Again, I am not saiyng the world does not exist, only that it is not real. It is not continuous, but discontinuous, flashing in and out of existence. The higher self, because it is highest state of observation, observes all of existence as a whole, as opposed to the empirical self, which observes the universe as discontinuous parts. The higher self is called higher self because it has a wider perspective of reality. It is aware of all the dimensions, all levels, and all possible worlds.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Badmedia, you claim that you did not learn your knowledge from religion, but you learned it directly from the father. I think that is patent nonsense, and what you really are doing is denying that you learned whatever you have learned from the father from religion. The term, the "father" is an Abrahmic terminology for god, so I know you got your teachings about the "father" from the Abrahmic religion. I also know, that your ideas that the the "father is pure consciousness" is something you got from Gnostic and new-age religion. As I can trace the source of your knowledge it is clear that none of your knowledge has come to you from the "father".


Of course you think it is nonsense, we deny in others what we ourselves lack.

And of course, you will attribute anything I say to being from something else, as you deny that such can come from any other source. Which is ignorant in itself because then one must come to ask - where did those sources get their information? And so what you actually suggest is that those people were able to obtain something that is no longer obtainable.

The term father is because of the father/son relationship all consciousness has with the father. The father(god) is all knowing, and so time and reality do not exist in the same manner as ours. The universe is static, and is just all the "known information" of the father, all that is and could be. The son IS the father, only where as the father knows all information, we ourselves are limited in our knowledge. This limited knowledge is a requirement, and you subconsciously agreed to give away a portion of your free will for this experience.

I have been to the bottom of the rabbit hole, and in the end there was only me and the father, who is really just me. And I could not go any further/deeper than that and maintain the requirements needed to experience this reality. And so, the father is just a "deeper" part of all of us, of which is much greater than any of us.

True enough, Jesus did understand these things, and spoke the truth of them. But that has nothing to do with the religion itself. But he isn't the only one, and he is just 1 expression of truth among many. Only so rare because of the society we live in(with evil).

As I tell Christians, I do not agree with Jesus because he is Jesus and some religion says to. I agree with Jesus because he speaks the truth. But Christianity as a religion focuses and praises the idol itself rather than his understanding, and thus it is the anti-Christ religion he even warns of. Paul manipulates it all,thus why I reject 50% of the NT.

Where there is understanding and wisdom, I'll stick up for it. Jesus had that, and I stick up for it.



You, like everybody else, were socialised into the world and educated like everybody else. Everybody has to go through this process in the formative stages of our personality. If there is no institution to install within you good values, teach you how to think, speak and behave properly, you will never become human. So education is completely mandatory in our development. You behave as if you are exempt from this, but this is perhaps your biggest delusion. No, you did not gain any knowledge from some "father" you gained your knowledge just like everyone of us - through society.


Again, you deny in others what you lack. I don't really care where you think I got my knowledge and understanding. But if you want to keep attributing it to those things, then you will only be hurting your own cause as you keep trying to attribute those things as evil and ignorant. Or, are you just doing it as a way of trying to attack my character?

And this is pretty much where I stop. Nothing you said beyond this point is really worth responding too. Just more of the "Aryans are right", "everyone else is wrong". Sorry, I have little patience or use for religious dogma.



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join