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.

 

The Original Conspiracy That Still Affects Us to This Day

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Special thanks to Rising Against and his thread called "Will We Continue to Live Once We Die?" My attempt to write something to post on his thread led me to confront some ideas that have troubled me since I was a child. So if it wasn't for his thread, I may have never laid to rest these demons inside me, and I owe him a debt of gratitude. So star and flag for his thread from me.

I will not say that what you are about to read is the Truth, for it is a retelling of a tale that we are all familiar with, and it is a tale that has always seemed to me to be a lie. If you grew up in the world of western civilization it is a story that no doubt has been indelibly imprinted on your psyche as it was on mine, and despite our mature adult perspective on life, affects us in all of our interactions with the world, and defines aspects of our relationship with ourselves and everyone else.

In the realm of Judea-Christian-Islamic tradition, it is accepted that God's greatest gift to man is free-will. God has given man the same gift he bestowed upon the angels, who we were his first creations: the will to choose one's own path; to either walk in the light of righteousness with the Lord, or to creep along under the cover of darkness with the usurper Lucifer, coveting God's glory and challenging God's eminence.

The story is, as alluded to in the Bible but explained in more detail in the Book of Mormon, Lucifer was jealous that man, a creature of low stature and coarse origins in the clay of the earth, should be exalted above even the angels as God's favorite creation. How dare God grant these stupid and clumsily ugly beasts so valuable a gift when it could be so easily proven that they could not even grasp the magnitude of its value? To Lucifer, man deserved no more than lack of choice, to be allowed only to follow the orders of his superiors and forced to worship and subjugate himself before them. "Follow my plan, Lord, and I will guarantee that you will lose not one soul from the path of righteousness." Man would obey and worship God through discipline and fear and none would dare face the consequences of disobedience.

And so the Old Testament, which is the story of the trials of man to survive under God's perfect law, starts in the Garden, and then continues in the external world of thorns and labor. Man struggles to understand himself and Creation, all the while carrying the burden of guilt and doubt. After a number of generations, God seeks to confirm that at least one man has obedience to God in his heart, lest all be destroyed. He chooses to test Abraham by promising that from him will spring great nations, bringing forth a son from Abraham's incestuous marriage with his sister, and then ordering him to sacrifice that only son as a burnt offering to God.

When God sees that Abraham loves Him so much that he would take his own son's life He provides the sacrificial lamb to take Isaac's place on the altar, and in return, as symbolic sacrifice and to mark his pact with God, Abraham sacrifices his foreskin. This sacrifice is no small thing; Abraham is removing the most sensitive part of that mechanism which God will use to bring forth great kingdoms from Abraham's loins,

(Continued)

[edit on 3/24/10 by without_prejudice]




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
effectively eschewing any earthly pleasure he might derive from the issuance of those kingdoms and proving that what he does he does only for the glory of God, and not for himself or his own gratification, and further pledges that this sacrifice will be repeated again and again and again, generation after generation, as evidence of the covenant between them.

But before God settles on his favoritism of Abraham, we have the books of Moses, which leads us from the earliest Dawn ("...and God said, 'Let there be Light!' And there was Light, and it was good.") and the birth of Lucifer the Star of Morning, God's first and most beautiful creation, resplendent with beauty and imbued with free will, the right to choose his own destiny. Then God drew back the waters to reveal the dry land, the canvas of His new Creation. We then arrive at the birth of man, made from that same Earth from beneath God's and Lucifer's feet. In the exchanges between God and his children, first Adam and then, to soothe his loneliness, Eve, we see the initial seeds of discipline and responsibility being sewn, perhaps to appease the resentment rising in Lucifer. God presents Adam and Eve with a test of their loyalty, a simple test to assure God and prove to Lucifer, who thinks himself God's equal and far more worthy of His favor, that these coarse and simple creatures deserve His most fundamental gift, the right to choose one's destiny.

And this is where we see the influence of Lucifer against man, not only in the telling of the story as he subverts Adam and Eve's obedience to God, but also his influence in how the story is told. If Lucifer believes himself God's equal, and Moses is receiving the story after man's fall from grace, who is telling him the tale of Genesis? Is it God, or is it Lucifer? And is the nature of the tale biographical or allegorical?

Here is where one must discern, using our innate intelligence, what is Truth and what is falsehood.

The tale told is that God declares, falsely, to his children that they may eat of any of the trees in the Garden save two: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of eternal life, for if they eat of them they shall surely die. Behind the Lord's back, Lucifer, taking the form of a serpent, tells Adam and Eve truthfully that should they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they will not die. In fact, he says, they will be exalted to the status of God Himself, and be as one with Lucifer and God. Adam fails to fall for this ruse, but Eve is tempted. At the behest of the serpent she eats of the tree, and immediately knows that she has sinned. But she also knows that perfect God, Who is the absence of evil, has lied to His children, for she does not die. But now she is alone. She knows that she is not so beautiful as Lucifer, who is without gender and has no need of her, but that she is become more than Adam, who is no longer her equal. Rather than face the punishment of God alone, she shows Adam what she has done and that she has not died. The crisis of faith that Adam experiences must have been shattering to his simple psyche. God has lied to him, Eve has betrayed their innocence in consort with the serpent, and now he, Adam, who was made first and who petitioned God for this companion is the last in the pecking order, a mere step above the beasts. He is even more alone now than he was before Eve's creation. He has lost his companion, and sees her exalted above him. He has lost his faith, for perfect God has seen fit to lie to him. Was Adam's intellect equipped to weigh the choice before him? Could he reason that if God lied, that this must be an exalted aspect of existence? Are our intellects today equipped with the ability to understand what is truth and what is false in this earliest narrative of Man's history?

Let's attempt to think it through. We know that the story tells us that Adam ate of the tree and therefore would have received God's perfect knowledge of good and evil. We know from the story that he did not die, which implies that God lied to him. And yet, is there no question in your heart dear reader, as regards this strange combination of events? As a descendant of Adam, should you not share the benefit of Adam and Eve's sin and through your perfect understanding of good and evil, know without doubt the truth of this circumstance?

Why would perfect God lie to his children? Merely to appease the jealousy of Lucifer? Can God, in His perfection, even commit the sin that the story of Genesis lays upon Him? Would Eve, when tempted by the serpent, risk eating of the tree which the perfect God promised her would mean her death?

Isn't it more rational to consider that given the choice to disobey God, that Eve would choose to eat of the tree that would preclude her death, and eat of the tree of everlasting life? That would be the wiser choice. She would be exalted as God and Lucifer were with immortality, and be beyond God's threat of punishment for her disobedience.

(Continued)


[edit on 3/24/10 by without_prejudice]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
God would not lie to his children. If He told them that eating of the tree of good and evil would kill them, it seems rational to assume that indeed it would. But how could He say that of the tree of everlasting life?

So who told the tale of Genesis to Moses? If it was God, then there is no perfection in all creation, and Lucifer truly is God's equal and they are both liars. But if it was Lucifer who told the tale, then we know that it must contain lies, and from experience we know that the most convincing lies are not those constructed completely of falsehood, but rather those made attractive by surrounding the bitter deception with the sweetness of the truth. And Lucifer is the most accomplished liar in all creation, being the first one who erred by lying to himself.

So here we are, back in the Garden before the fall. We can see the sense of not eating of the tree of knowledge without first eating of the tree of life everlasting because the dissonance of that knowledge would surely tear us asunder. What then, would God have told His children?

Probably that we should not eat of the tree of life, because we were not yet mature enough to understand it. And by the same reasoning, if we ate of the tree of knowledge, we would surely die, unable to withstand the rigors of the contradictions that knowledge revealed.

And what would Lucifer have said to Adam and Eve? That God was underestimating us, that as perfect creations in His image surely we could understand the nature of immortality if we had the forbearance to choose it for ourselves. Adam, the older and wiser of the pair, would have his trust and confidence in God to stiffen his resolve against Lucifer's lies. Eve, on the other hand, is the late-comer, the youngest, indeed the afterthought who owed her existence not entirely to God, but to the longing in Adam's heart. Like Cain who would come later, she might harbor doubt that she was Adam's equal, and that God loved her as much as He loved Adam, the first-born. But armed with the truth of God's reason for forbidding that they eat of either tree, if she was going to take the independent step of disobedience, even with the best of intentions, she would undoubtedly choose to eat of the tree of life. Lucifer, knowing this as well, would have successfully played on Eve's insecurity and tempted her to taste of everlasting life, not to risk certain death.

So now, let us revisit that moment of disclosure when Eve reveals her sin to Adam. She is there before him, alive, and exalted closer to God than he, the first-born, is. Adam would surely realize that he has been outplayed and is now the low man on the totem pole, and that this new world order is not what God had intended. But with one innocent bite, the natural order would be restored, his companion would belong to him again, but now that relationship would remain unchanged forever--certainly if he was not capable of coming to these conclusions himself then gentle Lucifer, who walked at God's side every day, would graciously explain them to him.

Thus there must surely be a true enemy of man and God that forever seeks to dissuade man from accepting God's forgiveness. He has a name and that name is Lucifer, the father of all lies, the first conspirator. And he has taken many other names since that day, and rules with dominion over the things that crawl on their bellies, and over the doubt that lives deep within us, next to the guilty fear that we are unworthy of our Creator, no matter what name or gender we give Him, no matter how many prophets He sends us to deliver His promise of Love and Forgiveness.

[edit on 3/24/10 by without_prejudice]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Our faith was put to the test that day, and we know that we failed Him, and that even though Lucifer lies below us our failure holds us closer to him than we are to God.

So, do you think God cast us out from the Garden the day he consigned Lucifer to dwell beneath the earth? Or did we guiltily banish ourselves, sneaking out of that perfect Garden and into the valley of labor and thorns under the cover of our darkest night to suffer what fate might befall one whose lack of self-knowledge led one to betray that which was perfect and ultimately, in our own eyes, so unlike ourselves?



[edit on 3/24/10 by without_prejudice]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs - I suggest only published authors should attempt posts as long as this.

Perhaps a summary at the top, with additional info might help people come to grips with this less than enthralling monologue.

EDIT: Gave the OP a bit of a skim read - the stance of supporting faith always annoys me.

If you have a look at what faith really is, then you understand why it is destructive.

Faith is believing something that does not have enough evidence to create a rational belief - in other words, it is a belief based on lack of evidence.

Beliefs formed in face of poor evidence can be described quite accurately as fantasies, or speculative theories - anyone can have one, and no two need be alike because they are based on little real evidence and can be adjusted as the 'user' desires.

My personal conviction is that all belief is unfounded - because physical reality cannot be proved, and non physical reality cannot be communicated, simply because all communication intersects physical reality - which automatically must corrupt it.

Therefore any truth is the sole possession of whoever it resides within, it is neither generic, communicable, transportable or demonstratively applicable to physical reality.

So I have no beliefs at all - I do however have values and convictions, but these are personal and need no evidence of truth - though tests of utility can be demonstrated by application to physical reality.

This probably all sounds like techno-babble to most - but these ideas are not the easiest things to communicate, and I try to be to the point and accurate as possible.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by Amagnon]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Fair enough. the topic kind of runs away with itself. I will edit it down to something more enthralling.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

In trying to provide some logic foundation for a conviction that there may indeed be an afterlife, the first thought I confronted was the question, "Is God provably true or false, and if so, can that proof even be communicated by words written in a book, or words spoken by one person to another?" All religions depend on the idea that the answer to this question is yes. But history fairly conclusively demonstrates that religion has a well-recorded and consistent failure rate at proving God's existence. Thus religion relies upon faith rather than logic in assuring its supplicants that it can fulfill its social contract of comfort and forgiveness and ultimately shepherd us toward a return to grace and acceptance by our Creator, despite our "sins."


I had to take a breather and stop.

Let's see, the existence of a God proves nothing about an afterlife, UNLESS, and that's a big one, that anything written about said God, in concomitant advocacy of an afterlife, is also correct.

Conversly, the existence of an afterlife does not prove the existence of a creator God; that could just be how the universe works. Nor does existence of consciousness independent of material form, or even as an inherent properly of the material say anything about preserving one's human identity in any sense in an afterlife.

So, for one to be used to prove the other, we must assume that one implies the other or that certain statements are correct, without proof.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon
Stopped reading after a couple of paragraphs - I suggest only published authors should attempt posts as long as this.

Perhaps a summary at the top, with additional info might help people come to grips with this less than enthralling monologue.

EDIT: Gave the OP a bit of a skim read - the stance of supporting faith always annoys me.

If you have a look at what faith really is, then you understand why it is destructive.

Faith is believing something that does not have enough evidence to create a rational belief - in other words, it is a belief based on lack of evidence.

Beliefs formed in face of poor evidence can be described quite accurately as fantasies, or speculative theories - anyone can have one, and no two need be alike because they are based on little real evidence and can be adjusted as the 'user' desires.

My personal conviction is that all belief is unfounded - because physical reality cannot be proved, and non physical reality cannot be communicated, simply because all communication intersects physical reality - which automatically must corrupt it.

Therefore any truth is the sole possession of whoever it resides within, it is neither generic, communicable, transportable or demonstratively applicable to physical reality.

So I have no beliefs at all - I do however have values and convictions, but these are personal and need no evidence of truth - though tests of utility can be demonstrated by application to physical reality.

This probably all sounds like techno-babble to most - but these ideas are not the easiest things to communicate, and I try to be to the point and accurate as possible.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by Amagnon]


Well, yes, your point about faith is pretty much what i was saying in the first part of the post....but I believe I cut it at your suggestion to keep the focus on this first conspiracy.


I agree with what you say about belief, faith, value, and conviction--that these are personal things that we use to form and limit our behaviors and expectations. They may be constructions of logic, or derived from experience, or entrained through militant discipline, but when they are institutionalized into dogma and forced upon children whose language skills are just forming they seem to be more effective as mechanisms of amoral control than as a way to inspire the spirit with a belief in God.

Timothy Leary said that Truth is personal, and Facts are public, but they essentially perform the same function in the individual and in society. They constrain the perception of reality to that which is acceptable. To that I would add this: fulfilling that function does not assure that either of them are in fact correct, or accurate representations of reality.

As I said, I have always thought that the story of Genesis was a poor creation myth--a lie, in fact. Internally in contradiction. But in explaining this within the context of the scripture itself, I found that logic leads me to understand why: it wasn't written as told by God, it was written as told by the world's most accomplished liar.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
...
I had to take a breather and stop.

Let's see, the existence of a God proves nothing about an afterlife, UNLESS, and that's a big one, that anything written about said God, in concomitant advocacy of an afterlife, is also correct.

Conversly, the existence of an afterlife does not prove the existence of a creator God; that could just be how the universe works. Nor does existence of consciousness independent of material form, or even as an inherent properly of the material say anything about preserving one's human identity in any sense in an afterlife.

So, for one to be used to prove the other, we must assume that one implies the other or that certain statements are correct, without proof.



Well, the rub really is that there is no objective proof of either. So, i agree with you that one of the many extant possibilities is that one would not prove or preclude the other. And the probability of that, since no proof for either exists, is just as likely or as unlikely as the probability that one does prove the other.

The reason original post is so damned long and convoluted is that it is near impossible to correctly apply logic to an argument that has no basis in logic, and resides solely as a matter of faith. In the end, you have your authoritative source material, and the best you can do is test it within its own format for logical consistency. When I applied that to the book of Genesis, the inconsistency led me to only one interpretation that is consistent with its own format: Lucifer dictated the story, not God.

I'm kind of disappointed that the only comments so far are that the full post can't be read. Disappointed in the readers a little, but in myself and my dubious writing abilities more. Oh well!



[edit on 3/24/10 by without_prejudice]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
C'mon, less than 5,000 words composed the entire hardcopy epic 2,000 years ago- and now here we are with near instant electronic handlement and search capability worldwide (of almost anything) while having a million strong vocabulary- and yet you're still spinning those medieval exegeticals?

Today we have re-established the definition of terms Biblical with inscriptions revealing -the deriving of the Alphabet from the fixed stars Abraham was accounting -their meaning and combinations in ligature-pictures as Word etymons -their Icon-symbols for all the foundational concepts -and have reassembled 'lost' volumes to the degree of the now resynchronized Calendar!

We know 'God' EL (the Earth on a tilted axis), "Almighty" ShaDdaI (Shang-Ti) from Chinese tortoise shell oracle-bone writing and Indus rock writings, AUM to be GOD (Genera Opera Demoli), THEOS, and then DEO (from Greek 'deomai'), the Name E'HaYaH ('I-Exist') and Ye'HaUaH ('He-To Be) and Ye'ShUaA 77 times named in the "Old Testament" whose '4-letter word' name was placed over Him 'Yeshuaa Ha'netzeri U'melech Ha'yehudim' (INRI)...

We have realized the Shroud evidences Him resurrected from crossed-up with a photographic negative holograph -and dated it (minus the Bioplastic) while placing it with the pollens extant, and have put the dates-places in the margins beside every event historic and prophetic, found Eden, Noah's Ark, the Mountain of God, replotted the "10 Commandments" of Exo & Deut on the two-tables, proved the Exodus route and Pharaoh, seen the YaH events in the Sun-Moon-Planets and even restored their vowel aspiration 7-tones.

And here we are with the Harps of God (7-strings with 7-positions) knowing the Powers of the Heavens (Nuclear) intoning Ha'azinu, crowned with the Hoshen "Birthstones" grid in their surround order (for Surnames being 'written-in') -understanding the Elements to Boron vs Mycology, and reading the Prophets and the Psalms as though contemporary and breaking news!


[edit on 2010/3/24 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU
 


Fascinating. I think I wish I knew what you are talking about in half of all that; obviously "we" don't have all that, but apparently "you" do. Honestly, can you go a little slower and explain a bit more deeply than you did above? If you can, then your next post is most likely much more important than my o.p.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
That's so you can have fun 'getting it for yourself' Google-ing and such, why should the wordpower be exclusive to us who are scholarly and academic?

I expected you to ask me "So um. what is the forbidden fruit? Or the Tree of Life?"!
Or even; "Can you tell me GODs Plan?"! Haha... (I joke)

But seriously, most of what you were opining is such a simple set of definite terms to KNOW!



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
yehuah- hi glen how's "desdemona"?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU
That's so you can have fun 'getting it for yourself' Google-ing and such, why should the wordpower be exclusive to us who are scholarly and academic?

I expected you to ask me "So um. what is the forbidden fruit? Or the Tree of Life?"!
Or even; "Can you tell me GODs Plan?"! Haha... (I joke)

But seriously, most of what you were opining is such a simple set of definite terms to KNOW!


Well, sorry to disappoint your expectations.


I guess my intended audience is more those that are caught in the meme that the Bible is the literal Word of God rather than the academic who has liberated the vocabulary in its original language and translated it on a more esoteric level. So i guess I will have to spend some time a-googling to find out whether you have a point or are just blowing smoke up our collective skirts.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by without_prejudice
I'm kind of disappointed that the only comments so far are that the full post can't be read. Disappointed in the readers a little, but in myself and my dubious writing abilities more. Oh well!



I had some household chores to attend to and it was already late.

Since I don't keep this in my head in great detail, inline citations pointing the reader to the particular verse(s) in question would have helped me a great deal, given that I'm not really a Christian per se. I'm good with meaning and concepts and horrible with positive recall of material. I might be able to give some alternate allegorical interpretations that could tie apparent paradoxes together.

For example, heck if I remember that the Tree of Life kills. Where is that? I think that might refer to the killing of the ego but without the text and context, I'm not positive.

One thing I have noticed overall is that at a literal or profane level, the material is quite "Satanic" in nature but as higher levels of meaning are unveiled, the less that is true. I've said it around these boards a few times; I'm not sure if anyone believes me or not. They probably just say, if they even bother to read the madness, "WTF is the EU guy talking about? It makes no sense whatsoever."


Oh, but it does. It does indeed.

BTW, your keys are there in all the above text. It seems Genesis is instructions on how to read the rest, even if it's not complete.

[edit on 3/24/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
God didn't say: Eat this apple and you will die NOW. Rather, he simply said that they would die if they ate from the forbidden tree.

Wouldn't the alternative to dying be everlasting life? Don't we get the promise of everlasting life if we follow God's word? In the kingdom of heaven?

If Adam and Eve disobeyed God's word, perhaps he simply meant they would not be permitted to enter the kingdom of God and experience everlasting life. Thereby, dying.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Yes "dying you shall die" it would read, that's what the 'forbidden fruit' does!

"EVERlasting"? The correct receptor word would be 'endurring' (as 'Lasting') maybe, but the transmitted word 'AULaM is simply 'beyond line-of-sight' (further than here-now) 'over the horizon'. Look to the source(s) and get real insight -or yeah (for a little while longer) you can keep getting 'smoke blown up your collective skirts' and remain doubtful/"unbelieving".

Take it Literally by all means, but don't think that the Word came in English OR Latin
or EVEN Greek... it is a HEBREW God (not even our AUM "GOD" is valid)!

By the way, Literal is the WORD, it is the Authority of Lit!


[edit on 2010/3/25 by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU]




top topics



 
3

log in

join