Aphemix on 2012, the Consciousness Revolution, the wool over your eyes

So, is anyone else here in the process of waking up?



maybe you should watch this video and figure it out.

hello!


here is the alleged 2012 mythology and science plainly debunked,
here's an explanation of how 2012 enlightenment could even lead to the genocide of defectors,
here's a rant to the truth movement about false leads and spiritual dangers, all of which are relevant,
and here's a fellow soldier's website that is fairly accessible and contains a lot of solid information.

it is admirable to seek to wake up and escape the system, but New Age "spirituality," as an individual endeavor, absent of guidance from the one true God, is certainly not the way to do it, especially in these times, where misleading information is being proliferated so widely.

for backstory, the New Age movement has its origins in Theosophy, a doctrine which admittedly seeks to bring about this New World Order everyone here is so worried about in the first place, not wake people up from it. Theosophy was founded by a Madame Helena Blavatsky, an occultist, and was iterated to her, in its entirety, throughout the course of her channeling an Ascended Master, who was, in reality, like all other spiritual entities apart from God, simply a demon. It is no coincidence, then, that Theosophy openly declares allegiance to Lucifer.

in addition, the "spirituality" detailed here, as I have established is referenced by Theosophy and the New Age movement -- otherwise known as "soul science," or "individual soul development," or whatever you want to call it -- is actually an invention of the fabled mystery religion of old, which you may or may not be familiar with. I will outline briefly. This mystery religion is essentially the true form of occultism. It dates back to ancient Egypt and recognizes fraudulent deities. It exists currently in the guise of secret societies, who declare allegiance to Lucifer, and is closely related to the activities of the Illuminati, who also declare allegiance to Lucifer. In these ways, also, this construction of "spirituality" is directly affiliated with the New World Order. These assertions are proven by the following series of videos. I also have an electronic copy of the mystery school textbook being read in those videos available for download here.

good luck on your quest to wake up. It's a lot more complicated than it looks.

Christianity is as much a part of the problem as any other dictatorial method of thought control, or group system of unchangeable beliefs.

no, no, that's false. See, you cite unchangeable beliefs as if it is a universal issue; as if they are a problem in all instances in which they exist. I agree this is true in most instances. Assumptions certainly do inhibit the ability to acknowledge new information, and a receptivity to new information is necessary in order to make determinations which are appropriate. We can agree on that.

however, objective truth does exist. There eventually comes a point where new information is no longer necessary in regard to a particular line of inquiry. Maintaining a state of fluidity in which no information is deemed legitimate for certain actually serves as a disadvantage in comparison to this position. When you have real truth, it is beneficial to have conviction, rather than uncertainty, so you can then act accordingly in regard to this truth, rather than continue considering things which may serve to muddle your understanding of it.

what you are doing here, coincidentally enough, is maintaining an assumption about how information should be approached. What I am doing is speaking with conviction and certainty. My argument is its own example. I encourage you to look closely at it.

Christianity is not some rigid system of beliefs you just decide to adopt and stick to out of nowhere. It may seem that way because of how often it is handled incorrectly. Most mainstream Christianity is completely fraudulent and deviates profoundly from what the Bible instructs. Many people will tell you this is false. This is more than likely because, first of all, they are unfamiliar with the Bible, and second, they have also established deeply-ingrained routines of keeping from examining both their own errors and the errors of others, most likely to justify themselves and continue experiencing themselves as acceptable instead of making any semblance of sacrifice. But I assure you, it is true. Most mainstream Christianity is completely fraudulent. It is a grossly inaccurate representation of the Bible.

no, true Christianity is actually very, very simple. It doesn't require you accept any system of established definitions of any sort. It essentially, at first, requires nothing but faith. Or, if you don't like that word, trust. You trust that there's truth to it despite not understanding it. It's pretty much exactly the same as trusting something is true because you do. All it requires is a little assumption about the validity of where the information is coming from. The difference is that on one hand, you trust information because you verify it, and on the other, you trust it when something that isn't you verifies it. Doing the latter is essentially the most basic, fundamental action required in order to receive data that is not egocentric in nature, and does not originate from within your own head. If you consider it in this way, it can easily be understood logically. It adds up.

but yeah. So you have that faith, now, or trust, or whatever. You decide maybe there's something to it. What this does is it inspires genuine interest and genuine concession. You decide it's acceptable if you investigate, and that it's acceptable to submit to Jesus. After all, you've got nothing to lose. You already let go of your need to verify the information yourself. It's easy. So you investigate and you submit. Then, afterward, the Bible makes use of emergent functionality, only arising after you have read and learned, which renders further development as a Christian progressively more feasible and more sensible, any time any further development may occur. That means that, because of what changes occur in you as you progress, any further steps you undertake, afterward, become easier to perform, because you're different. This can be understood pretty easily with logic, also.

you are welcome to discuss objective truth with me, and perhaps debate whether or not it exists, but I think it would make far more sense if you were to undergo these steps, then formulate a position, considering information is far more visible after doing so than it is prior. Don't believe me? Bummer, dude. So how do you explain me understanding all of this while you don't, and making sense while I do it?

cheers!

;)

Well, on the primary question to this debate, objective truth I find myself at somewhat of a curious duality in beliefs, On the one had I have experienced what I assume I believed then, and still do although fading with time, was objective truth, the skeptical side of me begs to differ.

The issue of perspective assumptions about the origin of knowledge (and truth) is something I have considered, but all of my experiences as a human have led me to believe that if there is a source beyond rational inquiry, godly or not, it is not endowed in the text you are advocating.

I think one of the fundamental problems when discussing theology is the transmutation of this sacred work you refer to - The Bible.

I believe it is no longer valid due to the immense changes it has undergone - For example the books that were left out, But more importantly that the original books that did survive have been changed in order to exercise with greater ease this method of thought control.

From most accounts we can assume at least some of the disciples really did exist - John (from memory only) is probably the best. However he was anything but a representation of the bible you find on the shelves and in churches. He was more of a gnostic than a theist, they are the same in the belief in a divinity, but differ greatly. Jesus from his accounts that are not in the bible is more of a symbol than a man, and that accords with the rest of the historical accounts that have no evidence for him existing as a person - rather an idea or 'spirit guide' for lack of a better word. More akin to Crowleys Lam than to a prophet you would follow physically.

I have in the past read the bible, besides it's rather poor historical accounting, I take issue with the primary idea that submission to jesus or god specifically leads to greater insight - And of course the idea of an intrinsically evil man in need of salvation.

There is a lot of good debate about the flaws and hypocrisies within the book, most of which I looked into a long time ago. Of course I have to add, why the Bible, and not say, the Gita? Which I found to contain much deeper wisdom.

Moreover, my own spiritual endeavors have always led to the revered 'mystical insights' or states of consciousness without such a belief, as is usually the case. It would not appear that if god does exist, he panders only to this one book or this one set of beliefs, rather something altogether more mysterious.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

your response is appreciated. I will attempt to address your concerns.

first of all, you bring up how the Bible has changed. I assure you, it has been changed in no significant way. All ancient renditions of the Bible, themselves acknowledged for their historicity, compare almost exactly against modern translations when examined. The Dead Sea Scrolls are likely the most pronounced example of this. This video, speaking on the development of the Bible into its current form, helps explain the circumstances more precisely. I am sure further investigation is possible, but I am summarizing.

now, you didn't bring this up yourself, but I imagine a bit of backstory on the literature itself isn't quite an adequate argument for you. You say, well, the Bible has been around for a very long time; it's a very significant historical document; it has a great propensity to be used as propaganda and control populations of human beings. Surely somebody fucked with it, somewhere, even if there are no records to prove it. And I understand that. It's a fairly reasonable assumption to make.

however, there's something I understand now, only as a Christian, that I had absolutely no framework within which to even conceptualize before. I am talking about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, if we are to believe the Bible's claims, is a divine agent which dwells in the individual, at the behest of God, and is offered only under the condition that he yield to Jesus and believe. While this may sound like utter nonsense, I now plainly attest to the truth of this claim.

I, personally, know the Holy Spirit to be accessible to me as a spiritual faculty, providing an entirely new functionality unto my experience in a way that can best be described as extrasensorially. So yeah. That's what we're working with here. Even when I understood this dynamic by its characteristics; by the mechanisms it employs, rather than experientially, it was still pretty much completely incomprehensible to me, as compared against my current understanding. What I'm getting at is that you would be silly to assume you can imagine the nature of this Spirit in much detail. It is beyond you. That's just fact.

anyway, this Spirit is the missing piece between man and the Bible. You don't really hear about it, because, like I said, mainstream Christianity is almost entirely disingenuous. So I'm here talking about it instead. What does it do? How is it the missing piece? Well, it, and it alone, allows the Bible to be read and understood. Similarly, it allows prayers to be directed accurately and assume a form that reflects God's will, which happens to be the only conditions under which they are even answered. It also instills a natural inclination in those it indwells to observe God's ordinances and walk in his statutes, which eclipses their nature as humans, which would otherwise necessitate their failures. See, you don't hear this kind of shit. It's all pretty plain in the Bible though. Basically, the Spirit is required in order to approach any other task you may undertake as a Christian. It's that emergent functionality I brought up earlier. Without it, further progression is impossible.

so, I've explained this Holy Spirit in some detail, now. Why, you ask? Well, there's two main reasons. One is because, if we are to consider factual the claims of the Bible and my own experience which corroborates them, the Spirit is the prime utility through which God acts upon this Earth. I see it in my own actions, first of all. For example, I will gladly accredit it for this series of posts rather than claim my own competence is responsible. However, I also see it in the formation of Biblical canon and the translation of that canon. I implore you to hear me out.

many other books did spring up around the times of the New Testament; this is true. However, these books contrast hugely with the underlying message of the Bible, while the official Biblical canon, regardless of what you may have heard, does not, even slightly. In fact, the canon is so consistent, even despite its tumultuous history, that I believe only the direct action of the Spirit of God, which is perfect, could be to blame. That is to say, the Bible itself was written by the Spirit, acting through men. That the translations, also, were ensured accurate by the Spirit. That history, itself, for that matter, was ultimately guided by this Spirit. And that, furthermore, were this false, it would be plainly revealed by glaring inconsistency which, instead, simply does not exist. Anywhere.

now, surely, to one working without the assumptions I entertain, this seems rather farfetched. Seems like there is a much simpler explanation that could much more easily make sense. However, if you accept my assumptions, it is clear. God has made certain that things have unfolded this way, without discrepancy, in order to ensure that his intent for you is obvious. He does this because, quite simply, he loves you, and because it's reasonable. It gives you a fighting chance. It's fair. What he certainly would not do, what is certainly not fair, is to leave you to your own bullshit devices, expecting you to figure it all out by yourself. God knows these devices are evil. He specifically wants you to disregard them. So this would make absolutely no sense from his position.

you bring up some other things, but I have already covered them. You make accusations of the Bible and of its characters. John, for instance. Jesus as a literary device, for instance. I can assure you all of this is unwarranted. First of all, you have looked into extraneous sources in order to build these impressions, and these sources, like I've said, are inconsistent. Second, you have sought to interpret the truth of the Bible without the aid of the Holy Spirit, which the Bible, itself, already claims is counterproductive, as I've explained. So you're really not even working within the established rules of the system. The things you conclude don't even pertain to the system; they just pertain to an alternative to that system which you have designated. Makes no sense dude. You can, however, find some information on the historical validity of the Bible here, if you're interested, and perhaps revise your position on that particular issue.

you also talk about the philosophy of the Bible; the legitimacy of what it actually says. You compare it to the Bhagavad Gita, which you seem to believe is superior. I agree, in a sense. I've looked over the Gita. I've also been incarnated by Krishna personally, not exaggerating in the slightest, but we can ignore that part for now. I agree the Gita includes much sound philosophy. However, I have two counterpoints. First, as I've said before, the Bible is only understood via the Spirit. That means, according to my argument, anyway, that comparisons cannot be made between the two bodies of work without the Spirit. Second, the Bible, which is written by the Spirit, has concluded that no other course of action leads to God but an adherence to the Bible. What this means is that, even if you assume this Spirit is something vague, something that is affiliated with God, but is not exclusive to Christianity, it can only be assumed that other works, which also claim divine affiliation, but describe this divinity in broader terms, are lying to you. God doesn't say one thing in one instance and another thing in the next. That makes no sense either. Keep up if you can!

you talk about your own spiritual endeavors, and how they seem to indicate a reconciliation with God, in some form or another, is possible, even without the Bible. However, this is essentially the same argument as your argument about the Bhagavad Gita. Sure, the Gita does contain valid philosophy. Similarly, the world does make some spiritual exploration accessible. The Bible knows all about this. It mentions spiritists, diviners, channelers, mediums, false prophets, sorcery, even pharmakia, which is spiritual revelation via the use of drugs. It doesn't say these practices are invalid. Rather, it acknowledges they are valid, but that they ultimately do not lead to God. As one with much experience, I can also attest to the truth of this fact. However, I must stress, it is impossible to determine without seeing both sides. It is, in fact, rather convincing, of its own merit, without the Spirit of God to contrast with it. It is incredibly dangerous.

you take issue with the submission to Jesus bit; with the faith bit I explained in my earlier post. You don't like it. You don't see why it should be necessary. I will tell you plainly why it is necessary. It is necessary because your failure to do this is directly responsible for every one of these errors you have made, which I have already addressed. Among these failures, for that matter, is your inability to even recognize these failures when they exist. Look! I'm pointing them out. You know nothing of them, but you wish to resist. Yet they have already been well explained. This is but a small sampling of your inherent evil nature, which is real.

your failure to take this step inhibits your ability to believe and to draw conclusions. Without considering those preliminary conclusions established, proceeding further is impossible. I am knowledgeable in the ways of the mind. What I am speaking of is an inherent prerequisite to receiving data. Just as understanding trigonometry is a prerequisite to understanding physics, it is a prerequisite. You do not understand this from your position, but I do. And in this case, I happen to speak for God. Or at least the God of the Bible, I do.

cheers.

I don't accept the idea that people involved with the occult are evil just because is contradicts authoritarian religious doctrinaire, or that all people involved are members of Satan's conspiracy. The issue is Christianity's prohibitions against Immanentizing the eschaton and seeking personal connections to divinity. They're afraid of losing control, and rightly so, but the pendulum is swinging to the Left Hand Path. <3

hey, I'm interested. You acknowledge that Christianity does have some sort of stranglehold on the path to God, while also suggesting you believe God may be sought and found elsewhere. I am curious: do you believe Jesus to be a spiritually significant figure? Do you believe the Bible to be spiritually significant literature? I am not asking if you believe these things to be absolute; merely whether you believe them to contain legitimacy.

I'm an agnostic Gnostic. Christianity was gnostic before it was co-opted by Constantine and the founding of the Church of Rome. The Bible is a memory of a memory. A map of a map. A fading link to another's vision. Much of the real value of Semitic Mythology comes from what they took out of the Bible like the Gospel of Thomas. Spiritual connection is not something we can learn about from a book, we can only learn the keys to our personal connection to the Christ Consciousness.

I'm sorry, but that bit about the history of Christianity is false, and is plainly established to be false. Look.

my premises is this, and I invite your logical response: if you accept science's ability to verify historicity, it takes very little investigation to conclude that much of the New Testament, detailing the ministry of Jesus, the acts of his apostles, and the origins of Christianity, all predate Constantine, the official Biblical canon, and the Roman Catholic Church by a wide margin. This is considered historical fact, based only on the documents we currently possess, which science has evaluated. That means you can either refute science, spurring a whole different discussion, you can ignore logic, rendering discussion impossible, or you can accept scientific determination as a valid benchmark, in which case, I have more to tell you. Keep in mind, though, if we're refuting science, you can't claim anything about the history of Gnosticism for certain.

anyway, moving right along. These documents, which modern science has validated, have not been changed in any significant way since at least the first century AD. The New Testament of today is essentially comprised of the same books, with all the same contents, as also existed then. Keep in mind I'm not claiming the New Testament was whole. Merely that the books which still exist in it to this day are an accurate reflection of the earliest renditions we have knowledge of. The Dead Sea Scrolls serve as good proof of this, but we have other proof, also, as is outlined in this video.

now, I'm sure you're familiar with what these books say. I won't get into the magic and the bullshit about it. But we can agree they do detail the life of Jesus we know today as well as the early history of the church. Strangely enough, in addition to the documents themselves predating the rule of Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church, the narratives, also, give an account of times which predate them in the same way. So now we have not only historicity, but consistency, as well.

let's assume, as a thought experiment, that the tales of the New Testament, as detailed in these historical documents, were true. Hell, let's say they're just partially accurate. What the New Testament claims is that not only did incredible, incomprehensible miracles take place, but that, additionally, a movement began as a result of these occurrences which caused great, unilateral uproar. It upset the Jews, it upset the Romans; pretty much everybody was incredibly outraged. Yet it still could not be controlled. Now, fuck the miracles! Let's just say that's impossible. Let's say the outrage is the only part that even happened for sure. Is it so unreasonable, then, to imagine Roman powers decided to adopt this movement, after the fact, and proceed to determine its terms by purporting to represent it, as the Roman Catholic Church? I ask this because this is precisely what happened. Not the other way around. Seriously.

now, I don't know much about the history of Gnosticism, especially when it comes to dates. I know the Gnostics were around since at least the times of Jesus, and maybe they even predate Jesus! But I do not know how much of Gnostic literature came to parallel Christian literature, nor do I know when that may have occurred. I would be interested to hear your take on it, though, considering I am uneducated, and considering I am challenging you to a discussion.

either way, I have just dismantled what you have asserted as your primary basis. I can do this shit all day. I encourage you to investigate, and to reevaluate your beliefs, if applicable, so that further discovery may be made possible. I won't be surprised if you just can't find the time, but I must ask: how in the world can you profess to have any investment in the truth, then, if you choose to turn away in the event your understanding of it is challenged?

cheers, and <3.

The Roman Catholic Church was created because Constantine had a vision that Christianity would be his tool to unite the empire. It was a tool for the acquisition of power, derived by a personal connection to spirit.

The historic authenticity of New Testament books does not authenticate the historical accuracy of the story. There are plenty more works of mythological fiction that predate Christianity. In the ancient world there was not strict lines between fiction and non-fiction, real and made up. Parables.

I am quite well versed in how the Roman Catholic Church was formed, corrupted, and then perused a policy of genocide against all dissonant Christianity (such as Gnotics). The Dead Sea Scrolls disagree with modern Christianity on a lot of key points, people who tell you otherwise are either willfully ignorant, or intentionally deceptive. The Nag Hammadi library as well. I do profess investment in the Truth, but I am also aware that my light is not your light. We each carry with us a perspective of Truth, our personal connection to The Greater. I feel that I have a well researched, and personally experienced connection to my personal Truth, whereas you regurgitate corrupted cannon. By their fruits you will know them... Do you not know how evil the Jesuits are?

I've had this discussion many times before, proselytutes such as yourself always take great Pride in "correcting" heretics. You are not here to share each other's light of Truth, you just want to shine your light in my face until I "get it". I'm not anti-Christianity just anti-Catholic (though protestants didn't fall far from the tree, and have all since been corrupted by nefarious Jesuit & Zionist influence), some Christians will find their way into the fold of New Age society. Other's will take up arms against it. I take no offense in your beliefs, but you take offense with mine. We are working to fulfill prophecies that predate Christianity by a long-shot, a new Eden. The Jesuits & Zionists are working to fulfill their own, a new Hell. Do you really understand what future you are working for?

I'm aware historic authenticity, on its own, does not authenticate the accuracy of the stories of the Bible themselves. I tried to leave room for that possibility with my previous suppositions, which I felt were generous. However, what historic authenticity does do is contrast distinctly with these first few assertions you begin your post with, from the assumptions of the motives of Constantine which remain hearsay, to the acts of the Catholic Church which romanticize the involvement of Gnosticism to an unwarranted degree, to, most disturbingly, your claims about the inconsistencies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which an entire world of scholars and historians plainly know to be unilaterally false.

you speak of willful ignorance: I implore you to consider that this prioritization of "your light," a personal construct, over empirical comparisons between known sets of data, is precisely the willful ignorance of which you speak. You accuse me of regurgitating corrupted canon and refer to the Jesuits by broad, dismissive generalizations to refute me while, alternatively, I accredit no righteousness to the Jesuits; referencing canon merely by its characteristic of scientifically established validity. This, I assure you, is willful ignorance on your part as well.

while I do not take great pride as you claim, I do confess desiring deeply to correct you and shine my light in your face, if only because I enjoy the luxury of being confirmed beyond personal conviction, know the revelation of real truth to be righteous in all instances, and wish simply to do good, even in defiance of your objections. You make another generalization which accuses the activity of Protestants of nefarious influence, and another, still, thereafter, accusing the Jesuits and Zionists both of a sinister agenda, but I reiterate: the illegitimate aims of these peoples, which you have already been shown to have understood generally, slandered senselessly, and not corroborated, pertain in no way to my purposes, because your understanding of the history of the Bible, as has again been demonstrated, is inaccurate. I clarify: I do not represent the Jesuits, the Zionists, or any illegitimate institution. I represent the Bible alone, and established history plainly admits the formation of the Bible to have unfolded absent of corruption and manipulation. It is you alone who claim otherwise, with bias.

I'm well aware of the prophecies you seek to fulfill. I confess, they do predate Christianity by a longshot. I will elaborate. They were first made known to the modern world by ancient Egypt, proceeding afterward in bits and pieces to nearly all the advanced societies of the world. They exist now as the mysteries, kept alive behind closed doors by secret, mystical temples. They have their origin in Atlantis, the vast, worldwide empire which existed prior to the Great Deluge. Your mythology, of course, claims them to have proceeded forth from Enoch, the first great king. I, however, know them simply to be deceptive relics of the evil antediluvian world my God rightfully destroyed.

I have some additional information you may be interested in. I did not discover this information looking to "correct heretics," as you may assume. Rather, hear me: I do not exaggerate in the slightest when I say that I, personally, in a way that even you, an active proponent of the Left Hand Path and an avid student of the mysteries, cannot comprehend, was supernaturally chosen as the Masonic Christ; the New Age Messiah; the Maitreya of the New World; the true capstone of the pyramid. I swear to you this is completely true and that I can qualify this statement in great depth. And it is from this position, of great, unprecedented perspective, that I have been led to accept the one true God and his Anointed, warning against the evils of the world with the great wealth of information I only now possess. I promise you I am like no dogmatist you have ever beheld. I know the divinity of Jesus to be valid like the world does not.

if you are, indeed, invested in the truth, you will assess me. I swear to you I withstand scrutiny.

I am not a proponent of the Left Hand Path, but I am aware that that is where the currents are flowing. It is destructive and will lead to chaos. This destruction is a natural consequence of holding the spirit of humanity on the Right Hand Path for too long. The correction to balance will be painful.

The very idea that there will be a New Age "savior" is straw man created by opponents. There is no external savior in this. That's just what the authoritarians what people to believe. Wait around for an external God to save you. Wait around for someone to tell you what to believe. Truth is only derived from Authority. Elitist.

So you want a test?

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Who is the Morningstar?

well, the morning star is traditionally understood to be Lucifer. It is also a name that has been used to describe both Venus and the star Sirius. In that verse, though, I imagine the term is meant to either signify Jesus personally, or, alternatively, to simply reference an aspect of spiritual transformation, in relation to the specific spiritual transformation the Bible describes. I don't feel like opening up my Bible to examine context, though, so there may yet be something I do not understand. I encourage you to accept that you may not understand, either, despite what you may have heard about the traditional connotations of the term. Though I do welcome your explanation nonetheless.

the Maitreya is not a straw man. All New Age and mystery doctrine openly professes an expectation of a "savior," or, at the least, an avatar of the Christ Consciousness; a deity of some sort who will walk the Earth and lead. The very purpose of the restoration of the mysteries is in preparation of the arrival of this deity. This, again, can be clarified by investigating. Here's a start. Here's another start. Good luck.

The way occult tradition works is that you imagine a God-head. Faith that this God-head exists helps the visualization, but not necessary if you have a good enough imagination. It's a way of transforming thought patterns in order to manifest intended changes in "reality". Basically the whole thing is placebo, but placebo is strong. Especially in those with vivid imaginations. Media and Politics is, by it's nature occult. They're in it to manifest a change through the imagination.

I'm purely agnostic. The only thing I know is my own experience, everything else is hearsay. My spirituality is my personal connection to planes of reality that binds us all, the global consciousness as Jung put it. For me, this connection to the whole is different then yours. But this diversity is important, because this is all in perfect synchronicity for future (by definition). God's plan, if that's how you choose to visualize it.

Lucifer is the Morningstar, the Light-Bearer, the Serpent that invited us to eat the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the source of illumination, the Christ Consciousness, the source of enlightenment. The New Age is massive enlightenment and the Catholic church knows it. They are the stewards of the throne and terrified of loosing power. They delved into the occult knowledge they kept from others, and became corrupted. They've convinced themselves they use the power for good, but any use corrupts. Sounds a lot like LotRs? All this is explained in fiction everywhere. Dune, Matrix, Fight Club, Star Wars, ecetera. Fiction is how we share our personal vision, a parable. Occult, with strong taboos in totalitarian thought. The use of imagination.

"This is the awe-inspiring universe of magic: There are no atoms, only waves and motions all around. Here, you discard all belief in barriers to understanding. You put aside understanding itself. This universe cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be detected in any way by fixed perceptions. It is the ultimate void where no preordained screens occur upon which forms may be projected. You have only one awareness here — the screen of the magi: Imagination! Here, you learn what it is to be human. You are a creator of order, of beautiful shapes and systems, an organizer of chaos." ~The Atreides Manifesto

I meant to reply to this sooner, but I forgot.

anyway, I know I'm a Christian, and that this may sound weird in that context, but I'm also incredibly well-versed in the ways of the mysteries. I imagine you've picked up bits and pieces; they're all over the place. Gnosticism is one example; Theosophy is another; OTO, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Hermeticism, Jacobinism, Illuminism; blah blah blah. That's all well and good, but these are all just pieces of the real puzzle, none of which elucidate the nature of the puzzle particularly clearly.

I, on the other hand, don't read. I pioneer this stuff. I discover it independently and realize it matches up later. Lodge masters don't do this, high priests don't do this, and esoteric wisdom teachers don't do this. They all read from books, are instructed by other initiates, or simply consult the spirit realm, themselves, without exception. That's not me. I am not to be compared either to you or these people. I'm more like the Ascended Masters these fuckers channel. In the flesh. I pioneer. I have the whole thing.

you seek to explain meaning to me. You mention the placebo effect. You mention thought transformation. You mention Jung and the collective unconscious. You equate parables to allegory and archetype in fiction. Trust me: I do know what you mean.

I have some information which may be of interest to you.

“I know not how I may seem to others, but to myself I am but a small child wandering upon the vast shores of knowledge, every now and then finding a small bright pebble to content myself with” ~Plato

All the mystery schools are very advanced forms of brain washing, so I too try to keep my distance. Watch from the sidelines, watch and learn. I listen to my intuition to tell me what is important and what is pomp. There's vast oceans of bullshit in the New Age movement, but with the right kind of mental filter, there's also something very fundamental.

I try to do my best to maintain an attitude of naivity, neither belief or disbelief in anything I explore. Agnostic. But I do develop strong suspicions.

Food for thought: The Christian Church was founded with a knowledge of occult. Christianity causes vast numbers of people to visualize a single powerful, vindictive, jealous, and genocidal deity. This occult magick empowers authoritarian government and religious institutions. Occult magick performed in the name of the Christ is used to obscure, terrorize, and make personal connections to Spirit taboo.

My website: http://www.life-wharton.com/magic.html

I agree they are brainwashing, and I agree they are advanced. Further reading....

while I would imagine you assume Christianity to have been founded with a knowledge of the occult due to its components and its practices, I, while also recognizing these clues, have come to a different conclusion. I simply believe the prophets of ancient Israel as well as the texts of the Bible to have been directly inspired by the Spirit of God.

being a divine agent as well as an exclusively spiritual entity, I can only figure the Spirit of God, whatever it may truly be, is inevitably familiar with the secret knowledge that guides wills, necessitates outcomes, and ultimately determines reality. I see this reflected in both the presentation and the specific directives given by the Bible, which, given my understanding, I consider a sincerely magical relic.

I believe the Bible functions on one hand just as a glyph does, just as an incantation does, and just as the parables of Jesus, themselves, do, for that matter: it addresses faculties the conscious bearer is not necessarily aware are even being addressed, ensuring certain cognitive functions are performed as it does so. Like the thought transformation and the "placebo effect" you alluded to earlier. Like the advanced brainwashing you mention, to some degree.

then, on the other hand, I also consider the Bible's direct instruction, which, alternatively, is perfectly comprehensible, to serve as guidance to again perform what we understand as magical functions; though these ways, of course, rely more on consciousness. The Bible, then, as a magical relic, manages to exist in both of these capacities, inexplicably, at the same time, merely by assuming the form of its own text. I consider this incredible. I consider this functionality completely inimitable by human means.

yet all the while, the Bible does this while explicitly specifying the ways in which it should be approached. In doing so, it designates terms; helping ensure this functionality is utilized correctly, as I believe this Spirit of God intends, rather than is exploited by men. To return to your original supposition, then, I would agree some of this magic, some of this power exercised by the Bible and its functions, indeed does empower authoritarian government and religious institutions, but I would say this is simply coincidence; merely being a result of its exploitation more than anything. However, I recognize the instructions it gives, when honored, also assure that this empowerment, this illegitimate brainwashing, is, ultimately, without effect; as it, again, upon being received, ensures this magical functionality is administered only in the way the Spirit of God intended. This is yet another way the Bible acts as a magical relic: it guarantees that its misuse is counterproductive in all instances. It guarantees that it can only be exploited in ways which are inconsistent with its own warning labels. And it does this while retaining a form that also functions as a glyph and as a comprehensible set of spiritual instructions. This, again, I would consider impossible were it merely the work of men.

I'll check out your website in more depth eventually. Right now I am in a hurry to finish typing and sleep.