Theosophy and Christianity

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
The idea that science has agreed on a particular model...

Most cosmologists agree that there was a Big Bang, it is the method of its occurence that they are striving to find. This is the reason for some of the competing theories: cyclic, variable light speed, etc.

Would you agree with that assessment, that each model has its pros and cons, there are still many major issues to be resolved and nothing unifying is set in stone at this stage?

The are indeed many issues but all of the theories can be worked out using the maths, it is whether the phenomenom predicted by them eventually turn out to be observable. In some cases we are only a short time from proving or disproving a theory, in others it may be much longer or further out in time, some we may never be able to prove unless we make huge leaps in technology.

I am somewhat familiar with the cyclic model, that is why I said in the heat death scenario that we would then be on a shrinking universe. My readings on the cyclic model suggest that each expansion get bigger and bigger implying that there is a beginning, that the system is not infinite or eternal.

The Oscillating Model is only one of many versions of the Cyclic Model. The one in M-Theory postulates that the universe does not contract but the two membranes, with our universe being on one of them, gravitationally attract in countless areas at once before touching and restarting the Big Bang (minus entropy), thus eliminating a need for a contracting universe.

From this exchange, it seems like the cyclic model and string theory have some very serious problems to deal with at least from that time of writing in 2004. Has there been significant changes in solving those problems outlined in that time?

Yes, there has, I would direct you to Brian Greene's work in this theory. His explanations are to the point and the analogies he uses quite simple for the non-physics layperson to understand.

What are your thoughts on the lack of population III stars and the impacts on the naturalistic model from this?

There are currently a few stellar phenomenom that are thought to be population III stars althought they are not able to confirm them at this time. I do not think we have the telescopic capabilities yet to discern such bodies atlthough there are currently some programs that are attempting to locate such stars with newer technology.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Have there been any development in quantum gravity theory to describe conditions before the Planck epoch. If such theories don't come up them describing the singularity and describing initial conditions are impossible.

Do you think that the presents of the cosmic background radiation somehow disproves the Genesis version of creation...that it was predicted by the BB model (although from my understanding, somewhat inaccurately, i.e a wide range of possible results) and not something else first?

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Have there been any development in quantum gravity theory to describe conditions before the Planck epoch. If such theories don't come up them describing the singularity and describing initial conditions are impossible.

There are none that I am aware of. There could be some theoretical work that is taking place but I have not seen anything published as of yet and I do look fairly frequently as this topic interests me greatly.

Do you think that the presents of the cosmic background radiation somehow disproves the Genesis version of creation...that it was predicted by the BB model (although from my understanding, somewhat inaccurately, i.e a wide range of possible results) and not something else first?

If you are adhering to a strict 24 hours equals a day viewpoint I would say yes. The Planck Epoch lasted the briefest of a microsecond but the microwave radiation did not develop for at least 100,000 years.

As for the predictions being varied, in the end the Cosmic Microwave Radiation ended up being more uniform than was originally thought which led to the necessary work into refining theories further to deal with the smoothness problem which this created.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Neither of those verses describe the earth as a sphere. In ancient near east cosmology, the earth was believed to be a flat disc, not a sphere (although some portions of the Bible were written by people who apparently believed the earth to be square, thus the repeated line about the "four corners of the earth").

Fellow Freemason(s), Non-Mason(s), and Anti-Mason(s):

Is it true that mystery of the "Biphomet" is actually described as "Freemason wants me to be his 'Billy Goat' and rise and rise and rise up the mountain"???

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

If you are adhering to a strict 24 hours equals a day viewpoint I would say yes.

I am not immediately aware how this would circumvent Genesis though. My view on Genesis and general creation would be that God initiated creation at a particular point (singularity) provided all the energy and matter as He saw fit. As the process of creation occurs the universe and what is being created is stretched out (inflation) much more than could be explained by conventional physics (this either address the reason for not seeing the monopoles or from the fact that it wasn't from a creation point occurring from great heat) and other issues like the horizon problem. The cosmic background radiation to me would of course he present in the Genesis model because space would have to have some heat value above absolute zero in order for the space to remain dispersed and not collapse in on itself. My perspective is that God uses a combination of phenomenon in the universe so that people can study it with some degree of surety (that there is some order, laws and not haphazard) so they can develop technology and understanding but He was created this universe and life in a way that for those studying it could see His supernatural touch involved. He provides reasons for people to have the opportunity to believe in Him but he doesn't force it upon someone.

I think your suggesting the conflict in Genesis is one to do with time-frames. This is the part where I said from the beginning I don't have a good explanation for this (the light travel time problem). In Genesis 1:16-18 we read ...'He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night...'
To me that verse suggests that the stars were able to be seen from Earth since the end of the 4th day of creation. It suggests that something weird is going on in space from the light coming from the stars ect. that the light form them is basically reaching us instantaneously. It is not really a good coherent explanation, but if some kind of variation of it is true then the differences in needed time-frames would also be put aside as an issue.

I will have a look at Brian Greene's work

I would also like to progress the discussion on to my last couple of points concerning stellar and planetary evolution, those being: the presence of radioactive polonium halos in granite and naturalistic issues in the formation of planet Mercury.

Does your interest in this science extend into the aspects of organic, cellar and genetic evolution as well or mostly just cosmology?

If you have an interest in the cosmology you might be interested in some video debates William Lane Craig has done on his Resonable Faith Tour with videos at that youtube channel. I just watched one where he addresses arguments made in Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' which was well done. I see he was done a few others addressing Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design and a few other well known people's ideas.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Please explain why you rebutted every post, but this one?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I mean it's not like you could have missed it...I posted like 13 pictures you would have had to scroll past in order to even argue with others, so it's highly unlikely you scrolled past the pictures without going back and wondering what they were about.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I will tell you why I didn't answer it straight away....

You are giving me a running dogma of your beliefs that somehow a picture explains the contrasting science that seems to be against your position. You are providing no discussion to the scientific reality of the necessity of a universal balance.

Next, most of the guys here following the thread already know reasonably well what my thoughts are on masculine/ feminine pagan sun/moon dual natured self proclaimed deity.

You are saying that the cause for the spin in the universe which is first said to have occurred from the spin in the singularity derives from our sun and moon specifically...
This seems to be what your saying and it is devoid of any scientific logic.

Things I have previously said about the dual natured deity:

Angels are androgenic beings, so if Satan is worshiped as goddesses like Diana, Cihuacoatl or Amaterasu or gods like Titan, Mithras, or Horus it is all the same in his books, veneration of him above God and turning people from God to lead them to their destruction. posted here
...

Lucifer is the feminine light aspect, Satan is the masculine dark aspect...they are both the same being.
...
People don't call the sun Satan. Satan just chose as his main symbol to be the sun and based his main worship practices around this. To him he sees the worship of the sun as a veneration of himself. He is putting himself in place of Jesus, not only as Jesus is the acknowledged creator of the sun but also playing off on the concept of 'light of the world' where Jesus is the only true light of the world, that our hope and joy is in Him alone. So once again it is a kind of counterfeit like Christmas and Easter. posted here

Whole posts of mine showing the NWO links to the sun god Satan

The Masons already know my thoughts on the connections of Rome, Freemasonry and other secret societies, but just for you I will give some quotes (I do not wish to continue on this line of talk but rather get back to discussing origins of life and whether the science is compatible for various belief systems):

“P-2 Masonry” (John Daniel, author of the book, “The Grand Design Exposed”; 1999; Page 169): “There is a Masonic Propaganda group, number two…known as the ‘P-2 Club’, with its headquarters being in Rome. …The P-2 Club is a propaganda society of the world’s elite which includes high-ranking Roman Catholic prelates and, of course, Jesuits.”

(I.A. Sadler, author of the book “Mystery, Babylon the Great”; 2003; Pages 175-181): “Freemasonry is another branch of the Babylonian Mysteries, which has survived under different names from the time of the fall of open pagan worship in the 5th century. …Freemasonry is just as ripe for manipulation by the JESUITS and the CHURCH OF ROME, that it may be used for the purposes of ROME, as any Protestant denomination. [Ed.: Freemasonry has been manipulated by the Jesuits for many decades.] …In Britain and the USA, Freemasonry appears as a ‘Christian’ organization. However, this is a most dangerous pretense, for the true god of Freemasonry is Lucifer, who is Satan appearing as an angel of light. …Both Freemasonry and the CHURCH OF ROME [Ed.: at their highest levels] worship the same god… Masonic ceremonies implicitly deny the sufficiency of Scripture. …[Ed.: Freemasonry] is particularly strong in many Baptist churches in the USA… Those in the lower levels of Freemasonry know nothing about the higher and even more secretive degrees.”

It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fessler's Rite, the "Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and West—"Sovereign Prince Masons," etc., etc., are nearly all the offspring of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron Hundt, Chevalier Ramsay, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous others who founded the grades in these rites, worked under instructions from the General of the Jesuits. The nest where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite is free from their baleful influence more or less, was the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris.
Helena Blavatsky 32 degree co-mason, Isis Unveiled (Los Angeles, CA: The Theosophy Company, 1968): 390.

The truth is, the Jesuits of Rome have perfected Freemasonry to be their most magnificent and effective tool, accomplishing their purposes among Protestants.
John Daniel, The Grand Design Exposed (Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, 1999): 302.

If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top, head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus are one and the same person!
James Parton (1855), as quoted in M. F. Cusack, The Black Pope (London: Marshall, Russell & Co., 1896): 76.

Moreover, the Pope has thousands of secret agents worldwide. They include Jesuits, the Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, Opus Dei, and others. The Vatican’s Intelligence Service and its field resources are second to none. source: Dave Hunt A Woman Rides the Beast (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1994): 87.

There is considerable analogy between Masonic and Jesuitic degrees; and the Jesuits also tread down the shoe and bare the knee, because Ignatius Loyola thus presented himself at Rome and asked for the confirmation of the order. source: Charles Heckethorn, (1900), as quoted in Lady Queensborough, Occult Theocrasy (South Pasadena, California: Emissary Publications, 1980): 313.

some more talk of mine on the sun god linking to Maitreya, Rome and masonry

Yes angels are androgenic, God is not. You are raising arguments about God that don't apply to Him. Why do you think I refer to Him in the male aspect only. That is His nature...male. Angels are androgenic because they don't reproduce (they also don't die). The whole necessity of both male and female to sustain life isn't a concept needed in Heaven.

This is what I think of your non-male/non-female androgenic angel sun/moon 'god' principle...and this is also why I like Aliester Crowley, because he doesn't piss around :

Firstly, Crowley's god -

"Satan! Cry Aloud! Though Exalted Most High! Oh Me Father Satan! The Eye!" (Aleister Crowley, Magnum Opus, Book Four)

Then a description of his god Satan-

It is through this weakness that the perfected man, the Sun, is of dual nature, and his evil twin slays him in his glory. So the triumphant Lord of Heaven, the beloved of Apollo and the Muses is brought down into the dust, and who shall mourn him but his Mother Nature, Venus, the lady of love and sorrow? Well is it if she bears within her the Secret of Resurrection!...She is Isis and Mary, Istar and Bhavani, Artemis and Diana. source: p. 635, chapter 67 Confessions by Aleister Crowley

There you have your dual-headed (yin-yang) god/created angel Satan. Described as the Sun, the Lord of Heaven (masculine) and the feminine aspect (Mother Nature, various moon goddess). Oh, and what does he also say...Thrown out of Heaven on to the earth by Jesus because He is stronger and His creator (his evil twin slays him in his glory...brought down into the dust).

Yes, so why exactly would I be interested in following any kind of ying-yang universal balance principle of religion venerating the sun or moon when not only is it unscientific of origins it is just disguised and pretentious Satanism???

You were asking me if I get it now....I have been speaking on this topic since some of my very first few posts on the forum...I know what you are trying to say and I also know you have little to no idea what is at the base of your religion.

Are you not able to discuss the science issues raised as that is what I would like to focus the discussion on at the moment

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


You are misinterpreting what I said; I never said that. I explained in a previous post to that one about what created spin. But if you so like I will post it here for you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The origin of Spin, which is "The First Event", where two equal and opposite forces of pressure in motion, reacted at 90-degrees and began to spin, turning the random void, into a chain-reaction of interconnected energy fields, named the Flower of Life. The Flower of Life depicts both the Tree of Life; and Sol-Aum-On's seal/hexagram, seed of life, etc.

Every time these pressure fronts impacted head-on, they reacted at 90-degrees to create spin, and spread into new dimensions. When these reached four dimensions, they started to become aware of their own structure, and upon reaching five dimensions, this system gained the ability to both be aware of itself, and to alter its path or progression, and this was the start of Free will, and the first consciousness, in whose image our minds are created, whom we call the one True God, creator of our Universe, which is His Physical Body (see large scale structure of universe and neurons).

Using the cosmic law of analogy, this can be proven by examining the sexual relations of the male and female energies. When two equal but opposites forces, male and female, come together and unite, they create life, a child. A physical representation of the macrocosm playing itself out in the microcosm.


'God' was never an anthromorphic entity; he was always a pure energy/vibration/frequency. That's why Christianity is so completely wrong.. They take that entire book way too literal when a great deal is allegory, metaphor, and etc.

You were saying? Most of those pictures of the sun and moon were CHRISTIAN artwork. I'm not using pagan paintings from Theosophical society you twit. One was from Michaelangelo which resides in the Sistine Chapel, and the other was Raphael I believe. How dare you try and degrade me when I already posted something that went completely un-rebutted by you. In a court of law, that is admission of agreement.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I would like to add that you are completely wrong about why angels were androgynous. It is because their souls essence was neither overtly male or overtly female, but perfectly balanced...As I will continue to point out until you can prove yourself to do otherwise; you continually attempt to view the esoteric through an exoteric understanding which will always result in misinformation. What say you about my Manly P Hall quote concerning all of the Christian traditions and symbols attributed to the older 'Pagan' cultures?

What say you about my Bible quotes actually concerning the third eye, which is what the sun and moon artwork is really all about?

It's about balancing your light and darkness so that you become the grey in between. You can not quote any other pieces of work concerning occult authors except for about your obscene obsession with the boogeyman. You are running from evidence that completely negates and invalidates your entire argument boasting Christianity and Jesus Christ as salvation.

The part about the Evil twin is wrong....It isn't talking about Jesus and Satan. It's talking about the sun and the moon. How at twilight the moon/darkness slays the sun, only for the sun to be reborn the next day and the cycle renewed.

Let me ask this question; Do you really think Christians are the only people who's prayers go answered? Does it really matter who you pray to? You have a 50/50 chance, either way. Might as well flip a coin. If you can seriously even say something along the lines of Hindus, Buddhists, etc have moot point prayers, you people really are as arrogant as everyone makes you out to be.

There slumber in every human being faculties by means of which he can acquire for himself a knowledge of higher worlds. Mystics, Gnostics, Theosophists — all speak of a world of soul and spirit which for them is just as real as the world we see with our physical eyes and touch with our physical hands. At every moment the listener may say to himself: that, of which they speak, I too can learn, if I develop within myself certain powers which today still slumber within me. There remains only one question — how to set to work to develop such faculties. For this purpose, they only can give advice who already possess such powers. As long as the human race has existed there has always been a method of training, in the course of which individuals possessing these higher faculties gave instruction to others who were in search of them. Such a training is called occult (esoteric) training, and the instruction received therefrom is called occult (esoteric) teaching, or spiritual science. This designation naturally awakens misunderstanding.

The one who hears it may very easily be misled into the belief that this training is the concern of a special, privileged class, withholding its knowledge arbitrarily from its fellow-creatures. He may even think that nothing of real importance lies behind such knowledge, for if it were a true knowledge — he is tempted to think — there would be no need of making a secret of it; it might be publicly imparted and its advantages made accessible to all. Those who have been initiated into the nature of this higher knowledge are not in the least surprised that the uninitiated should so think, for the secret of initiation can only be understood by those who have to a certain degree experienced this initiation into the higher knowledge of existence. The question may be raised: how, then, under these circumstances, are the uninitiated to develop any human interest in this so-called esoteric knowledge? How and why are they to seek for something of whose nature they can form no idea? Such a question is based upon an entirely erroneous conception of the real nature of esoteric knowledge. There is, in truth, no difference between esoteric knowledge and all the rest of man's knowledge and proficiency. This esoteric knowledge is no more of a secret for the average human being than writing is a secret for those who have never learned it. And just as all can learn to write who choose the correct method, so, too, can all who seek the right way become esoteric students and even teachers. In one respect only do the conditions here differ from those that apply to external knowledge and proficiency. The possibility of acquiring the art of writing may be withheld from someone through poverty, or through the conditions of civilization into which he is born; but for the 10 attainment of knowledge and proficiency in the higher worlds, there is no obstacle for those who earnestly seek them.

Many believe that they must seek, at one place or another, the masters of higher knowledge in order to receive enlightenment. Now in the first place, whoever strives earnestly after higher knowledge will shun no exertion and fear no obstacle in his search for an initiate who can lead him to the higher knowledge of the world. On the other hand, everyone may be certain that initiation will find him under all circumstances if he gives proof of an earnest and worthy endeavor to attain this knowledge. It is a natural law among all initiates to withhold from no man the knowledge that is due him but there is an equally natural law which lays down that no word of esoteric knowledge shall be imparted to anyone not qualified to receive it. And the more strictly he observes these laws, the more perfect is an initiate. The bond of union embracing all initiates is spiritual and not external, but the two laws here mentioned form, as it were, strong clasps by which the component parts of this bond are held together. You may live in intimate friendship with an initiate, and yet a gap severs you from his essential self, so long as you have not become an initiate yourself.

You may enjoy in the fullest sense the heart, the love of an initiate, yet he will only confide his knowledge to you when you are ripe for it. You may flatter him; you may torture him; nothing can induce him to betray anything to you as long as you, at the present stage of your evolution, are not competent to receive it into your soul in the right way. The methods by which a student is prepared for the reception of higher knowledge are minutely prescribed. The direction he is to take is traced with unfading, everlasting letters in the worlds of the spirit where the initiates guard the higher secrets. In ancient times, anterior to our history, the temples of the spirit were also outwardly visible; today, because our life has become so unspiritual, they are not to be found in the world visible to external sight; yet they are present spiritually everywhere.

The methods by which a student is prepared for the reception of higher knowledge are minutely prescribed. The direction he is to take is traced with unfading, everlasting letters in the worlds of the spirit where the initiates guard the higher secrets. In ancient times, anterior to our history, the temples of the spirit were also outwardly visible; today, because our life has become so unspiritual, they are not to be found in the world visible to external sight; yet they are present spiritually everywhere, and all who seek may find them. Only within his own soul can a man find the means to unseal the lips of an initiate.

He must develop within himself certain faculties to a definite degree, and then the highest treasures of the spirit can become his own. He must begin with a certain fundamental attitude of soul. In spiritual science this fundamental attitude is called the path of veneration, of devotion to truth and knowledge. Without this attitude no one can become a student. The disposition shown in their childhood by subsequent students of higher knowledge is well known to the experienced in these matters. There are children who look up with religious awe to those whom they venerate. For such people they have a respect which forbids them, even in the deepest recess of their heart, to harbor any thought of criticism or opposition.

Such children grow up into young men and women who feel happy when they are able to look up to anything that fills them with veneration. From the ranks of such children are recruited many students of higher knowledge. Have you ever paused outside the door of some venerated person, and have you, on this your first visit, felt a religious awe as you pressed on the handle to enter the room which for you is a holy place? If so, a feeling has been manifested within you which may be the germ of your future adherence to the path of knowledge. It is a blessing for every human being in process of development to have such feelings upon which to build. Only it must not be thought that this disposition leads to submissiveness and slavery. What was once a childlike veneration for persons becomes, later, a veneration for truth and knowledge. Experience teaches that they can best hold their heads erect who have learnt to venerate where veneration is due; and veneration is always fitting when it flows from the depths of the heart.

These were quotes from Rudolph Steiner's - Knowledge of Higher Worlds... Yeah learning how to be understanding of others and compassionate is devil worship isn't it?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


So where did the forces imparting the spin come from, where did what they where spinning come from???

Where is this cosmic law of analogy. Life can be created without a male where cells are planted into an ovum. What makes what you have to say authoritative, where are your sources?

The teachings of the Bible suggest to me that male and female are made on this planet so that we can become parents and understand how having rules of protection around us as needed when caring for young. In this way we can understand why God has rules for us just like parents have rules for their kids. I don't go making out that this is some kind of universal cosmic truth though....this is just inferenced opinion and I don't see how what you are saying has any more validity in this case that opinion.

Your opinion on something being allegory is probably based on the fact you have spent little to no time seeing whether their is any historicity in the books of the Bible. People usually don't make such sweeping statements unless they have done no research into it and are just relying on the opinion of others spreading bs. I find it very hard to take your opinion with any seriousness because you make such statements which shows such lack of reading into this stuff.

So artwork in the Vatican (designated to be from Satan) is somehow endorsed as truth form the Bible then. If you are going to try and pin something to what the Bible (Christianity is) teaches then you best know what it is they teach.

Your post was not related to the present line of discussion, showed little insight or research, covering topics most everyone else here knows what I think about on.
-----------
Manly P. Hall stuff:
- Christian Cross: already talked about
- Triple Miter: already talked about
- Shepherd's crook: never seen this in an Adventist church in my life...I don't know how you can say it is Biblical.
- Church steeple: where in the bible do they say erect a steeple? Did the first Christians use it?
- Virgin Mary: Semiramis was a brothel keeper, not a virgin....it wasn't borrowed from their fairytale.
- 20 crucified saviours: I directed you to the 'Jordan Maxwell debunked video)
- Transfiguration: said to have gone with Peter, James and John at the time of happening. Perhaps you would like to research how their interaction with Jesus influenced them from the rest of their lives to see if the gospel writers and the record just are making stuff up.

- Haven't heard of the Brahmans trinity before...perhaps you would like to outline it and how it disproves the actual triune God-head.
- immaculate conception: speculative evidence suggests that Jesus' blood has been found and will be released to the public in the not too distant future showing he had 24 chromosomes, 23 from his mother and 1 Y chromosome from a non-terrestrial source to designate his gender.

you continually attempt to view the esoteric through an exoteric understanding which will always result in misinformation.

Who said your source of information was insider knowledge and mine was outsider. I have insider Jesuit sources that say all the information from Ellen White is true, that they don't want anyone to read her as they will know all their plans. How the heck do you know that my sources are outsider with 25 million words of insider writing from God compared to your illustrious 'esoteric' sources which say they use propaganda and a widespread practice of mystery religions is that they keep those not worthy to be feed goyim drivel and made to think they understand the meaning of the things they are told.

What say you about my Bible quotes actually concerning the third eye

show me these quotes

You can not quote any other pieces of work concerning occult authors except for about your obscene obsession with the boogeyman.

If there was no boogeyman then why do the occult use his name all the time...When of the greatest deceptions the Luci has ever pulled is convincing the world he doesn't exist. It is amazing how brainwashed occultist are when you quote form their own material that they follow Satan and they are just like ....na-ah, na-ah

You are running from evidence that completely negates and invalidates your entire argument boasting Christianity and Jesus Christ as salvation.

You would not believe my own sources or would slink back into what you still follow if I presented it to you straight away. That is why I am slowly going through the doctrine of evolution of the Theosophists so by the time we get through macro-evolutionary theory you should know that Theosophy is promoting BS...then you might be open to actually learning about another way.

Do you really think Christians are the only people who's prayers go answered? Does it really matter who you pray to? You have a 50/50 chance, either way. Might as well flip a coin.

God can understand the intent of ones heart on who they are trying to speak to. If they know about Jesus and seek to avoid Him then perhaps Jesus will just decide to avoid them too....it is not a coin flip. God is all seeing and all knowing. He can read our every thought and the intent and honesty of ones heart towards Him and towards Truth. It is up to God to decide who's prayers to answer but you will find that the way God answers them to most Christians is not how they may have wanted it to be answered because what they were asking was not in-line with God's will for their life. When I pray I just direct my silent thoughts to Jesus and don't speak audibly. I share with Him all kinds of things and communicate like a close friendship but also with many other facets as well.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

It's about balancing your light and darkness so that you become the grey in between.

The super-intelligent, all powerful creator agent who made the universe and owns you says that this life philosophy is false Truth because He made the Universe with pure matter and not with its counteracting anti-matter. The words coming from the created is at odds with the Creator...who to believe?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

It sure sounds like God is about to get all Samuel L. Jackson on someone's a**.

I love that you are searching so intently...haha

Ah some good old tough love there....the Philistines didn't seem to get the message though based on their history after this time. Hmmm...not enough cold water used

I could see the set up happening a mile away...thought you might have been able to muster something a tad more devastating though

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

The part about the Evil twin is wrong....It isn't talking about Jesus and Satan. It's talking about the sun and the moon. How at twilight the moon/darkness slays the sun, only for the sun to be reborn the next day and the cycle renewed.

I am giving you the inner teaching of the passage not the surface level one for the goyim

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


It's called hermeticism read up on it. I have to go to work, so I will rebut your bible gobbledygook later.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Obviously you are backwards. It was I who gave you the inner teaching and you who just assumed it meant Jesus and Satan because you are so obsessed with them both.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


Mind definitively proving he said that without using the Bible? You can't because that's the only book that claims God's existence as you guys see it. How do YOU know he said that other than by reading through a third person? There is absolutely know way of knowing he said that.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


You are so full of # dude..

That's all I can really say at this point.

I mean let's just forget the lady who founded Theosophy was the one who told you an atom could be split and you called her a liar; until it was proven.

Love how you complete ignored my pages from Rudolph Steiner's book who was a Theosophist and clearly shows you that besides your ridiculous quotes of Satan; that you have no idea what Theosophy even is.