The Dark Secret of Christianity: Pharmakia

reply to post by dalan.


Yeah I agree. And the deceit and manipulation is currently being carried out via subliminal messaging and psychological techniques of which there are many. I guess back then they would call it "sorcery" as that would probably be the true meaning of it in those times.

Great thread by the way. Very interesting.

Originally posted by Flighty
And the deceit and manipulation is currently being carried out via subliminal messaging and psychological techniques of which there are many. I guess back then they would call it "sorcery" as that would probably be the true meaning of it in those times.

Interesting contribution, Flighty. Perhaps the art of "wizardry" is rooted in psychological observations.

Fans of the Harry Potter books will be familiar with the art of Legilimency. Legilimency is an advanced form of wizardry, the supernatural ability to coax thoughts and feelings and memories from another's mind. It's a magical skill encompassing mind reading and lie detection--and it's black magic in the wrong hands.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Legilimency is the act of magically navigating through the many layers of a person's mind and correctly interpreting one's findings."


Psych-ops by any other name is still psychological manipulation. It makes sense that "sorcery" would mean the same thing and perceived as "being under a spell." Hence the term "go'spell" "god's spell" translated to gospel.

I think you may be confusing salvation with sanctification. Salvation is an event; sanctification is a process. Accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior doesn't make Him a scapegoat, though I can see how you have arrived at your interpretation. Granted, many Christian sects and religious leaders take great advantage of new converts, and there is a lot of sorcery practiced from the pulpit.

However, the central tenets of the Gospel, Christ as Redeemer, are sound.

Romans 5:18-19

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

This in no way absolves us from responsibility for our sin, only the eternal punishment it carries. There is a big difference.

1 John 1:8-10

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

Sanctification is the process of being purified from all unrighteousness. It is long and painful and ends when we take our final breath.

ensorcell, ensorcel
To enchant; to bewitch.
lot
1. An object used in making a determination or choice at random: "casting lots."
2. The use of objects in making a determination or choice at random: "chosen by lot."
3. Something that befalls one because of or as if because of determination by lot.
4. One's fortune in life; fate.

From Old English hlot, "object (anything from dice to straw, but often a chip of wood with a name inscribed on it) used to determine someone's share"; also, "what falls to a person by lot".

An object was placed with others in a receptacle, which was shaken, the winner being the one that fell out first; hence, to cast lots. In some cases the lots were drawn by hand.

wordinfo.info...

I find it interesting that "casting lots" is a form of sorcery as it is used to determine one's fate. If the old testament warned against practicing these things, and if Jesus tried to teach people not to follow the superstitions of religious rituals, then do you all not find it odd that after Jesus was crucified, the "disciples" drew lots to determine who would replace Judas in the group? Why was it necessary that Judas even be replaced? Why would a position of discipleship hinge on a getting the short straw rather than ones qualifications of heart, knowledge, or actions?

Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. (Acts 1: 24-26)

This is a bit like praying and then asking the 8 ball your question. Because you prayed first, you can be sure that the 8 ball answer is from God.

Sorcery by any other name is still superstition, too.

Originally posted by pplrnuts
And this women who "ate the apple" was made from a rib from a man made of dirt who was fooled by a talking snake, right?

Did I get this stuff correct so far?

Now, what are we talking about? And when do the unicorns and leprechauns come into the story?

i just snarfed milk out of my nose that was spot on!

2nd line. the age of reason makes my spiritual side tickle. i'm still a "christian-ish" by choice

reply to post by Alethea


It's amazing how we can see this wizardry and sorcery still being used today.
I also forgot to include hypnosis in my post too.

Originally posted by matthewgraybeal
i'm still a "christian-ish" by choice

You're not alone but I think it's just that our values still line up with some of the brainwashing. And for lack of a better word. At least for me. And so I describe myself at times as having roughly "Christian" values. As we know, non-Christian peoples have come 'round to not killing and taking the other guy's stuff without the same mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it would be more to the point for me to say "I have widely accepted personal ethics that should put you at ease" but that would scare the crap out of anyone. I do at times wonder why being "Christian" or "christian-ish" doesn't scare the crap out of everyone.

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by Alethea

 

It's amazing how we can see this wizardry and sorcery still being used today.
I also forgot to include hypnosis in my post too.

It's even flaunted.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

"These aren't the droids you're looking for."

Not to mention the old "Vulcan mind meld".

reply to post by Alethea


Why is this a dark secret? The real darkness is in it's supression, IMO. OP check out this old thread of mine...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by NorEaster

Click here for more information.

Damn, I honestly can't remember what I posted here.

Must've been pretty bad, cause this is the first one of these babies I've gotten since coming on here. I should keep copies of some of these posts. I might've enjoyed this one.

No serious offense intended to whomever I flamed. It couldn't have meant that much to me or I'd remember it.

Just as an aside, I engaged in Christian communion for many years, and even continued with my own home ceremony for years after ending my association with organized congregations. I never viewed the communion ritual as a blood sacrifice. To me (regardless of what anyone else might've thought) the Christian communion was akin to the ancient tribal custom of eating a small piece of a tribal leader flesh (or that of a celebrated warrior) who's just passed away and sipping a taste of his blood, with the intent of taking that person's vital essence into oneself in order to ensure that their valuable qualities are not lost to the tribe as a result of their having died.

Some cultures did this with the flesh and blood of honored enemies as well. It was their way of ingesting the brilliance or heroism of a particularly impressive person, and honoring them by preserving that quality within themselves for their own community's benefit. I've always seen this as being what Jesus was referring to when this ritual was introduced. After all, he was leaving them, and he wanted them to be as he was - to the extent that each man could be. Taking his body and blood into their own bodies would co-mingle his essence with their own, and add to their strength and capacity in his absence.

I never saw the ritual feast as a repeat of the blood sacrifice. I've probably always been wrong, but the other notion just seemed (and still seems) more logical, when viewed through the lens that seems to translate most of the rest of the New Testament.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Just as an aside, I engaged in Christian communion for many years, and even continued with my own home ceremony for years after ending my association with organized congregations. I never viewed the communion ritual as a blood sacrifice. To me (regardless of what anyone else might've thought) the Christian communion was akin to the ancient tribal custom of eating a small piece of a tribal leader flesh (or that of a celebrated warrior) who's just passed away and sipping a taste of his blood, with the intent of taking that person's vital essence into oneself in order to ensure that their valuable qualities are not lost to the tribe as a result of their having died.

Some cultures did this with the flesh and blood of honored enemies as well. It was their way of ingesting the brilliance or heroism of a particularly impressive person, and honoring them by preserving that quality within themselves for their own community's benefit. I've always seen this as being what Jesus was referring to when this ritual was introduced. After all, he was leaving them, and he wanted them to be as he was - to the extent that each man could be. Taking his body and blood into their own bodies would co-mingle his essence with their own, and add to their strength and capacity in his absence.

I never saw the ritual feast as a repeat of the blood sacrifice. I've probably always been wrong, but the other notion just seemed (and still seems) more logical, when viewed through the lens that seems to translate most of the rest of the New Testament.

Good post there NE. The native peoples of New Guinea did this. Eating the brains of their vanquished enemies. They wound up with kuru, an incurable brain disease something similar to "mad cow". Vanquished enemy warrior anyone?

reply to post by Alethea

I find it interesting that "casting lots" is a form of sorcery as it is used to determine one's fate. If the old testament warned against practicing these things, and if Jesus tried to teach people not to follow the superstitions of religious rituals, then do you all not find it odd that after Jesus was crucified, the "disciples" drew lots to determine who would replace Judas in the group? Why was it necessary that Judas even be replaced? Why would a position of discipleship hinge on a getting the short straw rather than ones qualifications of heart, knowledge, or actions?

Speaking of casting lots and scapegoating in the same thread:
Quite literally, lots cast to determine scapegoat.

LEV 16:8 He is to cast lots for the two goats--one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.

The story of Achan in Joshua chapter 7. abridged: "Oh no, we got our butts handed to us in that battle, who's to blame!" Not specifically said by lot, but narrowed down by tribe, clan, then family.

JOS 7:24 Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold wedge, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. 25... Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them. 26 ... Then the LORD turned from his fierce anger.

About Witchcraft:
As far as I know, there is no definition for witchcraft in the bible, leaving anyone vulnerable to accusation, quite impossible to prove yourself innocent of course.
"The storm wrecked our crops. Witchcraft! Find the witch!"
"See that mole? Witch! Kill the witch!"
"Look, three figs on the tree. Witch! Kill the witch!"
"There is a stone on the path! Witch! Kill the witch!"

No definition, the unpopular can always be scapegoated.

Originally posted by Hemisphere
The native peoples of New Guinea did this. Eating the brains of their vanquished enemies. They wound up with kuru, an incurable brain disease something similar to "mad cow". Vanquished enemy warrior anyone?

Eeewwwww.
Then again, there are rumors that the Skull of the 'skull and bones' group is actually the Head of John the Baptist and that there is some high ritual of blood drinking from that skull as they pass it around. There are some intriguing paintings of St. John at the Cathedral in Malta.

Originally posted by Alethea

Originally posted by Hemisphere
The native peoples of New Guinea did this. Eating the brains of their vanquished enemies. They wound up with kuru, an incurable brain disease something similar to "mad cow". Vanquished enemy warrior anyone?

Eeewwwww.
Then again, there are rumors that the Skull of the 'skull and bones' group is actually the Head of John the Baptist and that there is some high ritual of blood drinking from that skull as they pass it around. There are some intriguing paintings of St. John at the Cathedral in Malta.

Yeah, I'll take an El Paso on the vanquished enemy warrior too. We were watching "Dancer With Wolves" tonight and there's a scene where the hunting party eats the heart of the slain buffalo. Again, with the thinking of incorporating through ingestion, the spirit of the vanquished warrior, in this case the mighty buffalo.

That's interesting on the skull of John the Baptist. I had read many times that it was the skull of Geronimo and that it was about conquering and insulting the pure spirits of native peoples by the Illuminists or whatever term is correct for the controlling elite. John the Baptist also makes sense in a similar vein and would give it a connection back to Rome.

Alright now, any of you "Bonesmen" reading this, which is it? Come clean!

Originally posted by TKDRL

Originally posted by Alethea

If you are a citizen, a voter, a patriot, then it is your duty to uphold and respect your elected leaders whether you voted for them or not. That's your part of the deal for the benefits you receive for being in this country. To blame all the ills of the world on one man is scapegoating. Obviously you still do not understand what it is to take personal responsibility for your own actions.

Who taught you that crap? First of all they are representatives, not leaders. Second of all, no it is not our duty to uphold and respect people that lied and cheated their way into office, then crap on our constitution the whole time they are there. Seriously, who taught you that crap?

The TV taught them that. The radio, the newspaper, and soon it will be the internet lying for the zionist media. They simply cannot get enough of this...power. Lies 24/7, and after a while so very few can resist the lies. Then, those who do resist, are pointed out as 'terrorists', criminals, radicals etc.... You've seen how it works.

It is the true root of evil, the love of power. They do it for sport.

Originally posted by starless and bible black

Originally posted by TKDRL

Originally posted by Alethea

If you are a citizen, a voter, a patriot, then it is your duty to uphold and respect your elected leaders whether you voted for them or not. That's your part of the deal for the benefits you receive for being in this country. To blame all the ills of the world on one man is scapegoating. Obviously you still do not understand what it is to take personal responsibility for your own actions.

Who taught you that crap? First of all they are representatives, not leaders. Second of all, no it is not our duty to uphold and respect people that lied and cheated their way into office, then crap on our constitution the whole time they are there. Seriously, who taught you that crap?

The TV taught them that. The radio, the newspaper, and soon it will be the internet lying for the zionist media. They simply cannot get enough of this...power. Lies 24/7, and after a while so very few can resist the lies. Then, those who do resist, are pointed out as 'terrorists', criminals, radicals etc.... You've seen how it works.

Actually you can find this upheld in statutes and protocols. It's no secret. When you sign on you have a "duty and obligation" and this is in writing. Educate yourself and quit blaming the media.

reply to post by Alethea

I don't blame the media. I blame the zionists, who control the media.

What on earth are you talking about 'when you sign on that'?

I am educated just fine, thank you.

Alethia,

How deep do you want to go in exploring the concept of Pharmakia, Scapegoat, and Ostricism? It seems you're getting pulled into a political debate here.

reply to post by mr10k


You are good example of someone who has been completely deceived.

You don't have to go back to Andrew Jackson for a period when the banks were not in charge, only back to Reagan, the swindler who sold the U.S. public on the free market con job. The other person you should blame is Newt Gingrich and the republican congress who wrote the contract on America, which destroyed the economy of the nineties, which is the last time we had any prosperity, and that was under Clinton, someone you should not despise.

I am not a big fan of Obama, don't really care for his policies, and I think he is in way over his head. If he is going to grow into the person he needs to be to lead our nation in this time of crisis, he has a lot of growing to do.

However, Obama is trying, he graduated with honors from a prestigious university, became a lawyer and a community leader, and ran a very good campaign to put him in the white house.

While you live at home with mommy. I dare you to do better. Unplug from the right wing radio talk show hosts and get yourself deprogrammed. You still have a chance.

The op writes an excellent thread on the dark side of humanity in how it seeks out scapegoats, and first thing you do is try to make Obama the scapegoat.