posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 05:01 AM
Re: adjensen and chillimac
thanks for your answers, and I appreciate your attitudes of not bringing completely black/white perspectives into the debate. Also I'll apologize for
my recent silence. I've been searching for evidence on an earlier line adjensen and I had: Constantine and his involvement in the Nicene creed. It's
been a merry dance, as practically everybody are using smokescreens, unjustified speculations, twists or outright lies/fabulations/total ignorance on
the subject (sad to say also those, whom I hoped could support my opinions). If time and interest allow it, I will present my observations in a later
Presently I find it more interesting to answer the posts of the last few days.
I have no intention of taking up my own anomalous experiences in detail. But there is one aspect of them, which may be relevant now. These entities I
on one of the occasions percieved (in this situation 50-80 individuals), gave a direct message of a christian character. One by one they came close to
me (1-1½ meter) to greet me, and all had stigmata-like blood running down their faces. The was no question about, that part of the passion was being
re-enacted. I was also involved in some ritualistic activity.
As so often is the case in such situations, correspondingly 'spiritual' energies manifested in me. A kind of rapture, if you like. And parallel to
Chillimac I could see and hear, and on a later occasion touch some of such entities. But it didn't take me long to realize, that I wouldn't or
couldn't 'buy' this christian roleplaying (or anything else demonstrated by the 'others'). An attitude I still have, supported by later anomalous
experiences. These guys are advanced masters of psi-technology, and even I, who's always on guard against premature conclusions, had to fight to
avoid being totally overwhelmed by the 'brainwashing' sent at me. For a 'believer' (of any kind), it would probably be next to hopeless to resist
finding confirmation of what you already wanted to have confirmed from the start, exposed to this mindinvasion and propaganda.
These were very, very bad guys (fundamentalists would have called them 'demons' , I guess), and they use the human mind's weaknesses, for purposes
of their own
As an alternative to a debate of the various virtues or atrocities of christianity, I will tentatively suggest, that the above can form a basis for an
analysis of 'reality'. While I can't very well accuse adjensen or Chillemac for being responsible for the vicious part of christianity, I can still
voice a very strong criticism on the epistemological methods of christianity. Trying to be civilized in the present context, I'll restrict myself for
the time being to say, that I find 'christian faith' both highly peculiar and unsatisfactory, except as an individual and totally subjective
And being such (subjective), it's no wonder, that those of us, who distance ourselves from this beliefsystem, find it an insult or even an invasion,
when the in christianity inbuild evangelization-efforts manifest.
It doesn't matter if the christian support of such missionary activity is active or passive, the thing is delievered as an ideological package (with
a very few exceptions the bible), and the noise and confusion intrinsic in it and in the delievery process is an answer to the original question here:
Why are christians being picked at?
Last year I had a kind of small confrontation with a person, who's a ph.d. in history of ideology, and I waited for almost a half year to get
anything except bible-citations and faith-confessions from him. No such response. So it would be a pleasant change to hear some constructive ideas on
how to evaluate 'reality' in a meaning broader than subjective faith. Considering my own example from above, where a direct experience isn't a
proof of anything (except that 'something' happened), christianity based on similar experiences (Paulus' e.g.) could just as well imply, that
christianity is build upon visions of 'demonic' origin (as expressed in christian mythology).
So please, a little more bearing on 'reality' (or IF 'reality' exists at all), less on subjective interpretations.