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.

 

Satan Is Not A Real Being

page: 15
22
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The "bright morning star" of Revelation, which is Venus, represents or symbolizes enlightenment (aka Christ consciousness), and may have originated with Buddha's enlightenment, while also serving as the star over Bethlehem as "seen" by the Three Kings of the Orient or the far east, who, as Magi, would have originated anywhere from Persia as Zoroastrains to the Indus Valley Civilization of Ancient India, as Brahmin.



The Enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha

Just before the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, realized enlightenment, it is said the demon Mara attacked him with armies of monsters to frighten Siddhartha from his seat under the bodhi tree. But the about-to-be Buddha did not move. Then Mara claimed the seat of enlightenment for himself, saying his spiritual accomplishments were greater than Siddhartha's. Mara's monstrous soldiers cried out together, "I am his witness!" Mara challenged Siddhartha--who will speak for you?

Then Siddhartha reached out his right hand to touch the earth, and the earth itself roared, "I bear you witness!" Mara disappeared. And as the morning star rose in the sky, Siddhartha Gautama realized enlightenment and became a Buddha.

The Earth Witness Mudra

The "earth witness" Buddha is one of the most common iconic images of Buddhism. It depicts the Buddha sitting in meditation with his left hand, palm upright, in his lap, and his right hand touching the earth. This represents the moment of the Buddha's enlightenment.

A mudra in Buddhist iconography is a body posture or gesture with special meaning. The earth witness mudra is also called the Bhumi-sparsha ("gesture of touching the earth") mudra. This mudra represents unshakability or steadfastness. The Dhyani Buddha Akshobhya also is associated with the earth witness mudra because he was immovable in keeping a vow never to feel anger or disgust at others.

The mudra also symbolizes the union of skillful means (upaya), symbolized by the right hand touching the earth, and wisdom (prajna), symbolized by the left hand on the lap in a meditation position.

Confirmed by the EarthI

think the earth witness story tells us something else very fundamental about Buddhism. The founding stories of most religions involve gods and angels from heavenly realms bearing scriptures and prophecies. But the enlightenment of the Buddha, realized through his own effort, was confirmed by the earth.

Of course, some stories about the Buddha mention gods and heavenly beings. Yet the Buddha did not ask for help from heavenly beings. He asked the earth. Religious historian Karen Armstrong wrote in her book, Buddha (Penguin Putnam, 2001, p. 92), about the earth witness mudra:

"It not only symbolizes Gotama's rejection of Mara's sterile machismo, but makes a profound point that a Buddha does indeed belong to the world. The Dhamma is exacting, but it is not against nature. . . . The man or woman who seeks enlightenment is in tune with the fundamental structure of the universe."

No Separation

Buddhism teaches that nothing exists independently. Instead, all phenomena and all beings are caused to exist by other phenomena and beings. The existence of all things is interdependent. Our existence as human beings depends on earth, air, water, and other forms of life. Just as our existence depends on and is conditioned by those things, they also are conditioned by our existence.

The way we think of ourselves as being separate from earth and air and nature is part of our essential ignorance, according to Buddhist teaching. The many different things -- rocks, flowers, babies, and also asphalt and car exhaust -- are expressions of us, and we are expressions of them. In a sense, when the earth confirmed the Buddha's enlightenment, the earth was confirming itself, and the Buddha was confirming himself.
buddhism.about.com...

Venus, The Bright Morning Star



from the thread The Jews and all modern religious traditions originated in ancient India

"Satan" OTOH represents the adversary (in whatever form), and so the "devil" ought not be confused with Jesus (how absurd, where Jesus is the personification of God's grace or the love of God in action/manifestation).

In fact the word "Satan" may originate from the ancient Egyptian dark son of Osiris, Seth, who's followers practiced occult magic (of the darker kind) and were Setians, the enemy or adversary being "Setan".. or so I've read somewhere, not sure if this is the true etymology of the word Satan.

On a perhaps related note - a notorious Satanist by the name of Michael Aquino, after falling out with Anton Sandor LeVey's wife of the Church of Satan, founded the Church of Set.


edit on 29-3-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Ah, so Satan never even originated with the Church...that is telling.


And the fact that you're not sure where it comes from says that perhaps none of you really has a clue about the true identity of the concept we call "Satan".
edit on CThursdaypm464624f24America/Chicago29 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 

What's with the accusatory tone? just trying to share some information. If you go back to page one and read my replies to your OP, you'll get a sense for my take on it, which, in the final analysis is quite amuzing. But personally, I think that Babylon, as a system of Occult Magic, and of the gathering up within a hiearchy, of raw temporal power, is the Satan of the Bible, although at the same time, it could be considered a principal of rebellion unto a type of cosmic conspiracy/controversy surrounding a struggle over the idea of spiritual authority, whereby the key to Jesus' power resided precisely in his submission and obediance to, and faith in, a higher perfect will, as the will to love (and the height of reason). But you're right that it's confused, I don't disagree with that.

The most satanic thing however, imho, resides in any attempt to demonize God, or to invert God's kingdom of light and love, with the second most being the notion among modern Satanists that the self is God with none higher, and by self, I don't mean the higher self, but the selfish self who lusts for power, or who is unwilling to submit to a higher power, or higher power principal as illuminated by Jesus Christ.

There is a certain hatred towards that which contends directly with the self-will and pride of man, which is also very amuzing, given what it's rebelling against which is the love of God.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
That said, any Church who's message is focused on Satan, hell and damnation, by instilling fear, is blocking and interfering with the gospel message of the love of God and is thus engaging in a type of wickedness of the very worst kind, imo. They are like those who Jesus said would traverse the seas to win converts only to make them twice as fit for hell as they are (paradoxically). It's an absolute disgrace, almost as bad as making of God, Satan, or what I call demonizing God who has demonstrated, through Jesus Christ, that he is all-good, all-loving, and makes no compromise with sin and evil.

And neither is Christianity a morality play of should and shouldn't, which only serves to regraft people onto or bind them to the "tree" of the knowledge of good and evil.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I didn't see anybody comment my previous post so I'll restate it to get the question answered.

I heard Satan was a rank in Lucifers system, did anyone else here this?

Also while it's logical to argue that Lucifer is part of the world and was one of God's angels the problem seems to be that Lucifer has been very angry and has taken it out on the world for what could be millions of years in our time, also Lucifer in the fallen state doesn't represent light and awareness/beauty; Lucifer represents the physical world and the battle of dna we call evolution.

I don't know what Lucifer looks like, I can only imagine that it is a dna based control grid that has a hive mind of all those that it has infected, not pretty or glamorous at all, the ultimate goal is to infect the entire world and deprive humanity of it's chance for eternal life/heavenly bodies.

Christ consciousness is not real, Christ is always present it is the dna control web that blocks our minds from accessing it.

You have to brush aside the cobwebs/dna/ to reveal the true nature of Christ.

Hope that helps,

Mr medinet



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
They are rebelling against the punishment of Jesus Christ not his love.

Hiding the truth and avoiding punishment are how they think.

Accepting the truth means accepting your punishment.

Hope this helps,

Mr medinet


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Starchild23
 

What's with the accusatory tone? just trying to share some information. If you go back to page one and read my replies to your OP, you'll get a sense for my take on it, which, in the final analysis is quite amuzing. But personally, I think that Babylon, as a system of Occult Magic, and of the gathering up within a hiearchy, of raw temporal power, is the Satan of the Bible, although at the same time, it could be considered a principal of rebellion unto a type of cosmic conspiracy/controversy surrounding a struggle over the idea of spiritual authority, whereby the key to Jesus' power resided precisely in his submission and obediance to, and faith in, a higher perfect will, as the will to love (and the height of reason). But you're right that it's confused, I don't disagree with that.

The most satanic thing however, imho, resides in any attempt to demonize God, or to invert God's kingdom of light and love, with the second most being the notion among modern Satanists that the self is God with none higher, and by self, I don't mean the higher self, but the selfish self who lusts for power, or who is unwilling to submit to a higher power, or higher power principal as illuminated by Jesus Christ.

There is a certain hatred towards that which contends directly with the self-will and pride of man, which is also very amuzing, given what it's rebelling against which is the love of God.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmedinet
 

Punishment? It's not an issue of punishment, but one of perfection, wholeness and integrity (holiness), of separation, and reunification/reconciliation. It's about a love that is unwavering in it's principal, and willing to go to any lengths in the face of human ignorance, without compromise, not punishment - forgiveness!

American conservative fundamentalist Christendom, is like a stupid bully.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I hate to break it to you, but if your only vote to get into heaven is your own vote...

You can't rig the machines to get into heaven...

You just can't.

Hope that helps,

Mr medinet



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mrmedinet
 

I hate to break it to you, but if you don't start entering into heaven now, you'll never get there because it's not the kind of thing you have to wait to DIE to get into. Heaven is a now thing and that appears to be the way that Jesus was actually describing it. "You must become as one of these little children, to enter the kingdom of heaven", not, you must get old and die to enter the kingdom of heaven..



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Regardless of that, the Devil is still described as an actual being that exist; not something that exist outside of this universe. The post is titled, Satan(Devil) is not a real being. My initial response was this contradicts the bible.

For instance John 8: 42-44, Romans 3: 9-20 and even Isaiah 14:12-20 suggest that the Devil is real.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Well I agree it's a "now" thing, but I don't think he meant that we need to turn ourselves into zombies that never die and therefore live in physical form.

I think there is a voting system involved based on how you live your life, imagine if your whole life was transparent, even your thoughts, would you get enough votes?

Hope that helps

Mr medinet


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by mrmedinet
 

I hate to break it to you, but if you don't start entering into heaven now, you'll never get there because it's not the kind of thing you have to wait to DIE to get into. Heaven is a now thing and that appears to be the way that Jesus was actually describing it. "You must become as one of these little children, to enter the kingdom of heaven", not, you must get old and die to enter the kingdom of heaven..



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Explain how God can just be energy alone when energy must be put into motion it's the law of physics. The meaning of God without getting complex is Supreme Being. Supreme being the highest form and being meaning something that actually exist. So therefore God is the highest form of existence. God was always seen throughout history since the first concept of God as a man. Even many of todays cultures, traditions and lesser known sects of major religions(christianity, judaism, islam) teach the same.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlackManIsGod7
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Explain how God can just be energy alone when energy must be put into motion it's the law of physics. The meaning of God without getting complex is Supreme Being. Supreme being the highest form and being meaning something that actually exist. So therefore God is the highest form of existence. God was always seen throughout history since the first concept of God as a man. Even many of todays cultures, traditions and lesser known sects of major religions(christianity, judaism, islam) teach the same.


You don't understand physics, do you? Energy in motion requires energy to commence.

Yes...because we imagine ourselves to be the most powerful species in existence. The problem I find with this is that we're arrogant, selfish, stupid, and utterly repugnant. You could compare Source to the earthworm...because the eearthworm always creates and never destroys.

Our concept of Source is severely flawed...especially when we divide Source into two personalities because we can't reconcile negativity with positivity.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
Lucifer isn't really separate from us, nor is Satan.

Before all of you jump down my throat, let me explain. I'm going to take four examples from modern Christianity, and explain the metaphors. Satan and Lucifer are, to me, interchangeable ,so the names will change...but I'll be talking about the same entity regardless.

First, we have Lucifer threatening to rise above God, so he gets cast down. Then we see him tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden. Also, we have Jesus battling him for 40 days out in the middle of nowhere. And we are told that Lucifer has power over this realm.

Alright. I'll start by saying Lucifer is nothing more than "desires of the flesh." Desires of the flesh threatened to take over the higher consciousness (God) so it was cast down. Desires of the flesh tempted Eve, and so she was corrupt. Thus, Adam and Eve were directed away from the garden.

Jesus (as difficult as it may be to accept this) struggled with the desires of his flesh for 40 days before he finally mastered them. Perhaps he was conquering personal demons, perhaps it was something else. But his flesh battled him those 40 days...hence, the appearance of "Satan".

Lucifer has power over this world? Desires of the flesh. Every single person alive lives, works and dies for the desires of the flesh. It is all we know now.

Lucifer was never a physical being, but a concept. A trait. Our trait.

Every one of our flaws comes from the desires of our flesh...otherwise known as Satan. Not a demon. Just us.


Namaste




edit on CSaturdayam515102f02America/Chicago17 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)


I 100% disagree with your contention that our flaws from the desires of our flesh is Satan.

If you have no belief in demons I challenge you to read a few books written by an exorcist and still try to be so convinced. I recommend the two books written by Fr. Gabrielle Amorth, an exorcist.

One thing that happens in an exorcism is that the exorcist demands the name of the demon and the demon must give his name. In one of his accounts when he asked the demon its name, it said "Satan".

I friend of mine experienced autowriting. This is where you hold the pen, but it is some other force doing the writing. She asked: "Who is doing this?" and the pen wrote out Satan. She just about jumped of her skin and needless to say was told by her Pastor not to never to this again.

Here is another thread on this subject: "Demons in Possessed People Bend Their Knee at the Name of Jesus"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, the Art Bell - Malachi Martin interview on exorcism provides some interesting information on the subject.

edit on 3/30/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Did I say demons weren't real? I don't believe so, but if I did, I apologize. I believe in "metaphorical" demons...basically, the effects that extreme negativity (with a possible consciousness) will do to the body. Self-controlled negativity will drain energy for the express purpose of causing pain. It will even utilize the motor centers in order to communicate the very rough desires or messages that we translate.

Demon are not stalkers, nor are they physical entities. In fact, they have no body other than the one we may perceive as a result of coming into contact with their energies. Demons are simply a result of a world going to hell.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I'm wondering if being a Satanist doesn't make you a little bias?

I'm not hating on you, I'm just saying if I were part of the Satanic Pyramid I would be a little bias when
someone said something about the leader of that pyramid.

Wouldn't someone outside of the Satanic Pyramid be a more partial judge of what demons are or are not?

Just saying...not really sure if anyone is open to my ideas here anyway so I'll keep my mouth shut.

Hope that helps,

Mr medinet

Are you bias?

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 


Did I say demons weren't real? I don't believe so, but if I did, I apologize. I believe in "metaphorical" demons...basically, the effects that extreme negativity (with a possible consciousness) will do to the body. Self-controlled negativity will drain energy for the express purpose of causing pain. It will even utilize the motor centers in order to communicate the very rough desires or messages that we translate.

Demon are not stalkers, nor are they physical entities. In fact, they have no body other than the one we may perceive as a result of coming into contact with their energies. Demons are simply a result of a world going to hell.





posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I posted on this thread twice a week ago and read almost every page. It sounds like a cyborg or an android fighting off the religious and aetheists with facts and documentation. That does not compute where is the evidence. In my scenario The OP is the android ( thanks for the avatar it helped ) And everybody else keep coming up to her and saying Data why doesn't this compute. It is very intelligent writing and I commend you on that, it's better than the little kid aetheists who fight with the religious. Data has substance, can't we agree to disagree or why can't we all get along.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I haven't read through all of the posts in this thread yet, but I wanted to post my opinion anyway:

In the Bible, God and Lucifer chat as if they are old friends. They challenge one another, even in one instance basically wagering over how Job would react to various tragedies in his life.

I think that "God" and "Satan", if entities as they are commonly thought to be, are actually groups of beings... gods, spirits, aliens, whatever they are... and each group is collectively known by one name.

God and Lucifer of the Bible were originally from the same place. They had an argument, and they parted ways.

God could not be "good" if Lucifer were not cast as "bad".

Thus, the two have a symbiotic relationship.

I am of the opinion that they are adversaries only because certain religious texts written from the point of view of human writers trying to explain various concepts to laymen in the form of fictional stories and parables give "proof" that they are adversaries.

I agree with the OP, it is entirely possible that God and Satan are just sets of traits which are seen as "good"
and "bad" and ascribed to external entities as a way of explanation.

Interesting thread!
edit on 4/1/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BladeRunner5050
I posted on this thread twice a week ago and read almost every page. It sounds like a cyborg or an android fighting off the religious and aetheists with facts and documentation. That does not compute where is the evidence. In my scenario The OP is the android ( thanks for the avatar it helped ) And everybody else keep coming up to her and saying Data why doesn't this compute. It is very intelligent writing and I commend you on that, it's better than the little kid aetheists who fight with the religious. Data has substance, can't we agree to disagree or why can't we all get along.


True "data" is the only fact. Numbers and repeatable results are the only facts. This is how I view these matters, and this is how I conclude them. Your android analogy amuses me greatly.
I have often referred to my mind as a computer...

If we agree to disagree, then we will never know the truth. Unfortunately, we also lack the entirety of facts...with only a few tidbits to work from, as well as logical extrapolation, you can only create a blurry picture. And with the human desire to reach complete understanding, logical extrapolation turns into irrational assumption. Our emotional basis has a heavy influence on this, and since we do not have control over our intuitive senses, we are largely inaccurate in this regard.

Neither atheists nor religious zealots have it completely right. As a polycredic (taking bits from every faith and science) I can grasp this concept. It's rather unfortunate that we pay so little attention to the Egyptians and Sumerians...we might learn more from them, if we were willing to listen.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Well a Satan definetly talks to people

Originally posted by Starchild23
I enjoy your honesty so I'm going to take a little more time to ask questions to the previous poster pp

Are you saying the Sumarian's and Egyptians share the same credentials?

Explain.

Hope this helps,

Mr medinet



Originally posted by BladeRunner5050
I posted on this thread twice a week ago and read almost every page. It sounds like a cyborg or an android fighting off the religious and aetheists with facts and documentation. That does not compute where is the evidence. In my scenario The OP is the android ( thanks for the avatar it helped ) And everybody else keep coming up to her and saying Data why doesn't this compute. It is very intelligent writing and I commend you on that, it's better than the little kid aetheists who fight with the religious. Data has substance, can't we agree to disagree or why can't we all get along.


True "data" is the only fact. Numbers and repeatable results are the only facts. This is how I view these matters, and this is how I conclude them. Your android analogy amuses me greatly.
I have often referred to my mind as a computer...

If we agree to disagree, then we will never know the truth. Unfortunately, we also lack the entirety of facts...with only a few tidbits to work from, as well as logical extrapolation, you can only create a blurry picture. And with the human desire to reach complete understanding, logical extrapolation turns into irrational assumption. Our emotional basis has a heavy influence on this, and since we do not have control over our intuitive senses, we are largely inaccurate in this regard.

Neither atheists nor religious zealots have it completely right. As a polycredic (taking bits from every faith and science) I can grasp this concept. It's rather unfortunate that we pay so little attention to the Egyptians and Sumerians...we might learn more from them, if we were willing to listen.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join