Conversation with St Michael the Archangel

[Adachi 772]

Found this while looking up Archangel Michael. Seems pretty interesting. Not 100% sure if this is accurate, since this convo was done through a medium, but it seems very genuine, and aligns well with some beliefs I've had lately.

 

http://goldenageofgaia.com/2011/09/15/archangel-michael-creating-a-world-of-peace/

[Dattebayo 2,850]

There's only ONE angel I'm interested in speaking with:

 

That being said, I found it interesting, but I'm very skeptical.

Many mediums have been proven to be fake, and if this woman was really possesed by a giant 4-faced servant of God, you'd think her subconscious would be fried.

 

But the world of peace he professed sounded nice.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Dattebayo

[Spartan 433]

LOL Heaven is going to need to take a direct control of humanity if they truelly believe peace is 100% possible

[Yellow Diamond 7,569]

I hate to sound so dismissive, but this seems to be little more than Gnosticism cloaked in New Age speak.

[Milky Jade 138]

I hate to sound dismissive, but this seems to be little more than Bullshit cloaked in No Sources

[Scootalove 10,689]

I wouldn't say that it isn't true, but it could be a ploy to make people believe it.

[Adachi 772]

Yeah, a bit of healthy skepticism is always encouraged when looking at things like this. I think it does make sense though. All the people who will ascend will already have been enlightened,and if everyone becomes immortal, there will be no need for childbirth, therefore, the kingdom will be made up of nothing but enlightened individuals. And for any disputes that occur, there will be plenty of angels to resolve them. And I'm sure that all inhabitants will constantly feel a feeling of peace, love, and harmony, since they will be much closer to the source. 

 

Plus, I was always skeptical of the notion of one deity being master over all creation. It makes sense to me that if one watches over creation, everyone watches over creation. The responsibility is too great for one being, which is why the one split off into billions/trillions of other beings. And I've been reading how Saint Michael and Jesus could be the same being. I'm positive that they are, because both have the same attitude of serving others, the same Christlike behaviour, etc. Plus, religion needs a feminine aspect to balance it out. Just like how we can't have light without darkness, or the sun without the moon, etc. And Michael mentioned Gaia, who works under the goddess. And "spread peace and harmony" sounds a lot better and makes more sense than "believe my book that was written by imperfect man is my 100% infallible word or die" Another thing, the collective is very tolerant on religions, as long as those religions are rooted in love, and not in the old ways of man. They realize the validity of many religions, like Buddhism, Shinto, certain forms of Christianity, etc.

[Yellow Diamond 7,569]

Yeah, a bit of healthy skepticism is always encouraged when looking at things like this. I think it does make sense though. All the people who will ascend will already have been enlightened,and if everyone becomes immortal, there will be no need for childbirth, therefore, the kingdom will be made up of nothing but enlightened individuals. And for any disputes that occur, there will be plenty of angels to resolve them. And I'm sure that all inhabitants will constantly feel a feeling of peace, love, and harmony, since they will be much closer to the source. 

 

Plus, I was always skeptical of the notion of one deity being master over all creation. It makes sense to me that if one watches over creation, everyone watches over creation. The responsibility is too great for one being, which is why the one split off into billions/trillions of other beings. And I've been reading how Saint Michael and Jesus could be the same being. I'm positive that they are, because both have the same attitude of serving others, the same Christlike behaviour, etc. Plus, religion needs a feminine aspect to balance it out. Just like how we can't have light without darkness, or the sun without the moon, etc. And Michael mentioned Gaia, who works under the goddess. And "spread peace and harmony" sounds a lot better and makes more sense than "believe my book that was written by imperfect man is my 100% infallible word or die" Another thing, the collective is very tolerant on religions, as long as those religions are rooted in love, and not in the old ways of man. They realize the validity of many religions, like Buddhism, Shinto, certain forms of Christianity, etc.

 

There are several issues here that I think a worth addressing, at least within an orthodox Christian theological framework.

 

1. Angels are incorporeal, or lacking in physical forms. Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Son of God, assumed true human flesh. (It goes without saying that the Son of God is greater than the angels as well.) The Incarnation ensures that we are not dealing with a phantasm or spiritual being in the guise of human likeness. Without the Incarnation, Christ's suffering and death are a mere puppet show -- a far worse thing to imagine given how physical human beings are. In essence, if Christ were an angel, no matter how sincere his intentions, we would be hoodwinked. His death would in turn be an empty example.
2. "Enlightened" ascendance, or some emerging as a non-physical entity whose existence is premised on knowledge, is inherently exclusive and thus contradictory to the Christian kerygma. Placing revelation in grades of awareness undermines its purpose as revelatory. If this is revelation, it is not being made known to all people; rather, knowledge belongs to a select group of people.Terms like  "the collective" only enhance the nebulous nature of this supposed higher existence.
3. God's omniscience is greater than human comprehension. To argue that no one being could ever oversee all of time and creation is true insofar as it does not apply to the divine; but God is divine, and thus these constraints do not apply.
4. "Believe my book that was written by imperfect man is my 100% infallible word or die" is an assessment which can be contested on a number of grounds. First, we are called to believe in God, whose work is revealed through the biblical writings; second, unless you are dealing with a particularly narrow brand of Christianity, Christians should not assume the state of one's salvation; and third, infallibility centrally applies to what is necessary for salvation. Expressed in different terms, Scripture will not lead you astray as it pertains to your salvation.
5. Religion "needing" a feminine aspect assumes, I think, that God may somehow be ontologically male, which is not the case. Both men and women should be religious in the sense that they are orienting themselves toward God, but such is not necessary to satisfy cosmic dualism.

And color me ever more skeptical when my faith may or may not satisfy some broad standards for validity.

 

To be clear, my point is not necessarily to convince you to alter your position toward mine -- though I would advise you steer clear of this Gaia movement -- but rather to express why one cannot simply pluck up Jewish and Christian terms and drop them into their New Age vocabulary. A hallmark of a Gnostic belief system is to assimilate the terms and narratives of established systems to gain credibility. Using similar terms, however, does not mean their usage is faithful to the sources.

[Something Floaty 1,334]

Found this while looking up Archangel Michael. Seems pretty interesting. Not 100% sure if this is accurate, since this convo was done through a medium, but it seems very genuine, and aligns well with some beliefs I've had lately.

 

http://goldenageofgaia.com/2011/09/15/archangel-michael-creating-a-world-of-peace/

 

It's as real as the conversation I had with Captain Picard.

[Adachi 772]

There are several issues here that I think a worth addressing, at least within an orthodox Christian theological framework.

 

1. Angels are incorporeal, or lacking in physical forms. Jesus Christ, who is the incarnate Son of God, assumed true human flesh. (It goes without saying that the Son of God is greater than the angels as well.) The Incarnation ensures that we are not dealing with a phantasm or spiritual being in the guise of human likeness. Without the Incarnation, Christ's suffering and death are a mere puppet show -- a far worse thing to imagine given how physical human beings are. In essence, if Christ were an angel, no matter how sincere his intentions, we would be hoodwinked. His death would in turn be an empty example.
2. "Enlightened" ascendance, or some emerging as a non-physical entity whose existence is premised on knowledge, is inherently exclusive and thus contradictory to the Christian kerygma. Placing revelation in grades of awareness undermines its purpose as revelatory. If this is revelation, it is not being made known to all people; rather, knowledge belongs to a select group of people.Terms like  "the collective" only enhance the nebulous nature of this supposed higher existence.
3. God's omniscience is greater than human comprehension. To argue that no one being could ever oversee all of time and creation is true insofar as it does not apply to the divine; but God is divine, and thus these constraints do not apply.
4. "Believe my book that was written by imperfect man is my 100% infallible word or die" is an assessment which can be contested on a number of grounds. First, we are called to believe in God, whose work is revealed through the biblical writings; second, unless you are dealing with a particularly narrow brand of Christianity, Christians should not assume the state of one's salvation; and third, infallibility centrally applies to what is necessary for salvation. Expressed in different terms, Scripture will not lead you astray as it pertains to your salvation.
5. Religion "needing" a feminine aspect assumes, I think, that God may somehow be ontologically male, which is not the case. Both men and women should be religious in the sense that they are orienting themselves toward God, but such is not necessary to satisfy cosmic dualism.

And color me ever more skeptical when my faith may or may not satisfy some broad standards for validity.

 

To be clear, my point is not necessarily to convince you to alter your position toward mine -- though I would advise you steer clear of this Gaia movement -- but rather to express why one cannot simply pluck up Jewish and Christian terms and drop them into their New Age vocabulary. A hallmark of a Gnostic belief system is to assimilate the terms and narratives of established systems to gain credibility. Using similar terms, however, does not mean their usage is faithful to the sources.

This enlightenment, is simply turning towards peace and harmony. And you lack faith in their ability to get the message spread. Who do you think convinced NATO to switch gears and go from warmongers to peacekeepers? Saint Michael gave them such overpowering feelings of peace, joy, etc that they became convinced that peace is preferable to war. It won't be a sudden ascension, it actually started around 1991, and at first, they are collecting all those who will be building the new kingdom, but eventually, they will start accepting other people, in waves. It won't be so fast that there will be a panic, but it will be a slow process. And the more who become enlightened, the more there will be who will spread the message. Funny story, the people who got me convinced to follow Gnostic Christianity were a Gnostic Luciferian couple. I guess they're very similar to Gnostic Christians, because they too believe in a God and Goddess, and also in the divinity of The Christ. The only difference is they consider Jesus, Lucifer, and Michael to all be the same being. Saint Michael started off an a regular angel, then got promoted to an archangel around the crucifixion.

 

Also, there would be nothing stopping Michael from assuming human form to go through the crucifixion. Assuming that Michael would be unable to do this would be like assuming Jesus (if he was a separate entity) would be unable to do the same thing. Biblical scholars have even found out that there might have been a major translation error, and Jesus/Lucifer/Saint Michael might all be the same being.

 

About the god and goddess, in the Bible, Christ clearly states that his FATHER is better than he. True, God could've had some feminine aspects, but I've done my homework. The early church destroyed almost all mentions of the Goddess, so people would only see the God. For some reason, it had to do with divine rights of kings and the power of the church.

 

Also, your argument about our calling to believe in God whose work is mentioned in the Bible has one strong fallacy. You're using texts from a book full of fallacies and contradictions to prove it's validity. Did you realize that the 10 commandments aren't even the real 10 commandments? God gave the real ones on stone, and they are for the most part, much different. Although I guess one can argue that that set was for the Jewish people, and Gentiles couldn't be trusted to follow the Jewish commandments.

 

Anyways, because of all the tampering of the Bible, I cannot trust it as the source of God's wisdom. It's a book that has some good stories, and the NT is still very useful for getting a basic understanding of Jesus, but beyond that, it's foundation is like that of sand. The one true way to become closer to God and the Goddess is to spend time out in nature, or spend time helping those in need, or meditating. Preferably a combination of all 3. The answers will find you.

[Yellow Diamond 7,569]

This enlightenment, is simply turning towards peace and harmony. And you lack faith in their ability to get the message spread. Who do you think convinced NATO to switch gears and go from warmongers to peacekeepers? Saint Michael gave them such overpowering feelings of peace, joy, etc that they became convinced that peace is preferable to war. It won't be a sudden ascension, it actually started around 1991, and at first, they are collecting all those who will be building the new kingdom, but eventually, they will start accepting other people, in waves. It won't be so fast that there will be a panic, but it will be a slow process. And the more who become enlightened, the more there will be who will spread the message. Funny story, the people who got me convinced to follow Gnostic Christianity were a Gnostic Luciferian couple. I guess they're very similar to Gnostic Christians, because they too believe in a God and Goddess, and also in the divinity of The Christ. The only difference is they consider Jesus, Lucifer, and Michael to all be the same being. Saint Michael started off an a regular angel, then got promoted to an archangel around the crucifixion.

 

I'm fairly certain NATO's shift in operational emphasis had everything to do with the drastic change in the political and military situation in Europe, i.e., the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But rest assured that NATO's leading members -- the United States and Great Britain -- retain massive nuclear and conventional arsenals. It's hardly a meditation on world peace.

 

In any event, overpowering feelings of peace is still vague and shrouded. It has more to do with secret knowledge than revelation. It's no better than Paul Tillich saying God is the depth of your own being. In the Christian context, salvation is not a matter of attaining secret insight, nor should it be as it robs God of his divine sovereignty.

 

 

Also, there would be nothing stopping Michael from assuming human form to go through the crucifixion. Assuming that Michael would be unable to do this would be like assuming Jesus (if he was a separate entity) would be unable to do the same thing. Biblical scholars have even found out that there might have been a major translation error, and Jesus/Lucifer/Saint Michael might all be the same being.

 

I have read from some of the best biblical scholarship available (e.g., Fitzmyer, Brown, Achtemeier), and not once have I ever heard of a major translation error that would confuse Jesus with Lucifer and St. Michael. The onus is on you, I'm afraid, to cite that source from credible scholarship.

 

 

About the god and goddess, in the Bible, Christ clearly states that his FATHER is better than he.

 

And Jesus states he and the Father are one (John 10:30). It has nothing to do with ontological subordinationism but rather the process of salvation history. Christ is obedient even to death (Phil 2:6-11) because his will is in perfect accord with the Father. As the Son, he points to the Father through his own sonship.

 

True, God could've had some feminine aspects, but I've done my homework. The early church destroyed almost all mentions of the Goddess, so people would only see the God. For some reason, it had to do with divine rights of kings and the power of the church.

 

The divine right of kings is a much later development after the canon was finalized sometime in the third or fourth century. I certainly wouldn't deny the political atmosphere surrounding the suppression of certain texts, but by and large the Church rejected Gnostic literature because it was and still is not in keeping with the teaching of Jesus handed down to the Apostles. Evidence of budding distress can be found in the Letters of John, in which there is indication of splinter groups (perhaps proto-Gnostics) forming and breaking away from the early Christian communities. It's not a new problem, despite what some may claim every twenty or so years

 

But the onus is yet again on your end to substantiate the destruction of mentions of "the Goddess" by Christian churches, as if it revealed their nefarious intentions to use the canon to suppress people.

 

Also, your argument about our calling to believe in God whose work is mentioned in the Bible has one strong fallacy. You're using texts from a book full of fallacies and contradictions to prove it's validity. Did you realize that the 10 commandments aren't even the real 10 commandments? God gave the real ones on stone, and they are for the most part, much different. Although I guess one can argue that that set was for the Jewish people, and Gentiles couldn't be trusted to follow the Jewish commandments.

 

I'm not certain what you are talking about when you mention "the real 10 commandments." But I sense that this may be yet another instance of picking from Scripture, recalibrating the content, and claiming the rest is false. It's not an uncommon means by which to try and invalidate the canon -- which is not surprising when it leads into this:

 

Anyways, because of all the tampering of the Bible, I cannot trust it as the source of God's wisdom. It's a book that has some good stories, and the NT is still very useful for getting a basic understanding of Jesus, but beyond that, it's foundation is like that of sand. The one true way to become closer to God and the Goddess is to spend time out in nature, or spend time helping those in need, or meditating. Preferably a combination of all 3. The answers will find you.

 

And that means we are ultimately communicating from two very different perspectives.

[Adachi 772]

I'm fairly certain NATO's shift in operational emphasis had everything to do with the drastic change in the political and military situation in Europe, i.e., the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But rest assured that NATO's leading members -- the United States and Great Britain -- retain massive nuclear and conventional arsenals. It's hardly a meditation on world peace.

 

In any event, overpowering feelings of peace is still vague and shrouded. It has more to do with secret knowledge than revelation. It's no better than Paul Tillich saying God is the depth of your own being. In the Christian context, salvation is not a matter of attaining secret insight, nor should it be as it robs God of his divine sovereignty.

 

 

I have read from some of the best biblical scholarship available (e.g., Fitzmyer, Brown, Achtemeier), and not once have I ever heard of a major translation error that would confuse Jesus with Lucifer and St. Michael. The onus is on you, I'm afraid, to cite that source from credible scholarship.

 

 

And Jesus states he and the Father are one (John 10:30). It has nothing to do with ontological subordinationism but rather the process of salvation history. Christ is obedient even to death (Phil 2:6-11) because his will is in perfect accord with the Father. As the Son, he points to the Father through his own sonship.

 

 

The divine right of kings is a much later development after the canon was finalized sometime in the third or fourth century. I certainly wouldn't deny the political atmosphere surrounding the suppression of certain texts, but by and large the Church rejected Gnostic literature because it was and still is not in keeping with the teaching of Jesus handed down to the Apostles. Evidence of budding distress can be found in the Letters of John, in which there is indication of splinter groups (perhaps proto-Gnostics) forming and breaking away from the early Christian communities. It's not a new problem, despite what some may claim every twenty or so years

 

But the onus is yet again on your end to substantiate the destruction of mentions of "the Goddess" by Christian churches, as if it revealed their nefarious intentions to use the canon to suppress people.

 

 

I'm not certain what you are talking about when you mention "the real 10 commandments." But I sense that this may be yet another instance of picking from Scripture, recalibrating the content, and claiming the rest is false. It's not an uncommon means by which to try and invalidate the canon -- which is not surprising when it leads into this:

 

 

And that means we are ultimately communicating from two very different perspectives.

I'll ask around for solid proof. But I recommend you watch some of Lucifera Morningstar's videos (yes, I know she's a Luciferian but she knows her stuff and knows the whole Bible inside and out). A lot of the stuff, I learned from her. If you ask her for unbiased sources, I'm sure she'll provide them.

 

Edit: Here's one example. Why would the OT oppress women, slaves, and witches? Because the Hebrew kingdoms wanted to keep war slaves, and also, women and witches would endanger the position of power that kings held. Women, because if they had equal rights, that would endanger a pure patriarchy, and witches, because they were the intellectuals, they could tap into the divine magick (which is freely available from all of the gods) to find out the true intentions of the kings. Magick is not evil. The only thing affecting magick is intent, and whatever energy one puts into the earth, they get back threefold. So, magick was not a threat to the people, because no witch would dare to cast a curse on a king, unless absolutely needed, because the witch would most likely die, or get a 3x as powerful curse. (don't think Christian witches even had any curse spells, for they had to draw upon the holy power of God/angels)

Edited April 21, 2014 by Princess of the Sun

[Milky Jade 138]

For this, you have to assume a different point of view. It's like a mosaic picture that only makes sense if looked at from afar.

 

And then you can open this can of worms:

Since when has heaven been interested in human affairs, and if so, why is this the way to go about it? A human medium reporting on goldenageofgaia.com?

 

Why does this article sound like some smart-arse penned it that absolutely sucked at making it sound like he *didn't* converse with himself (read: roleplay?)?

 

Why aren't the red carpets being rolled out yet?

 

Why does there exist a perfect record of this conversation, but none that we could have?

 

THIS THING. http://goldenageofgaia.com/accountability/

 

 

 

So bottom line, what the actual...? If I let this taylor series converge, I would most certainly be landed with Bullshit.

I know this because I've seen many a Bullshit in my time.

 

Don't buy a pencil from this site's cup.

[Adachi 772]

For this, you have to assume a different point of view. It's like a mosaic picture that only makes sense if looked at from afar.

 

And then you can open this can of worms:

Since when has heaven been interested in human affairs, and if so, why is this the way to go about it? A human medium reporting on goldenageofgaia.com?

 

Why does this article sound like some smart-arse penned it that absolutely sucked at making it sound like he *didn't* converse with himself (read: roleplay?)?

 

Why aren't the red carpets being rolled out yet?

 

Why does there exist a perfect record of this conversation, but none that we could have?

 

THIS THING. http://goldenageofgaia.com/accountability/

 

 

 

So bottom line, what the actual...? If I let this taylor series converge, I would most certainly be landed with Bullshit.

I know this because I've seen many a Bullshit in my time.

 

Don't buy a pencil from this site's cup.

The same thing can be said for the Bible. Anyone could have written it. I admit that there are prophecies, which might be the only thing true (other than Hebrew history). Gnostic Christians won't argue that there is a Christ, and I'm sure the Gaians won't either, and they acknowledge that there is a god. Both the original scriptures, and the Bible were modified over and over for personal gain, just like the US Constitution. I respect people's rights to believe what they believe, but I'm pretty sure there is a goddess, or at least that God is not guilty of the atrocities that were credited to him in the OT. The Bible even says we were born in "god's image", which can be translated to being made of a piece of the same divine energy that God is made of.

 

Also, the reason why Heaven is so interested in affairs on Earth? Do you seriously need to ask this? When God has been with us since the beginning? And we're his children? Of course he would be very interested, and wants us all to ascend, so we can reach the next stage of evolution and become spiritual beings. If that's too hard to swallow, there's the belief from Zen Buddhism where we can either become one with the light, or go to the darkness (the void) and be swallowed up.

 

Edit: Also, being rewarded for living lives of serving others and being good sounds a lot more credible than believing in a book that was written by man (primarily by kings who have an interest in keeping people ignorant)

Edited April 21, 2014 by Princess of the Sun

[Milky Jade 138]

Edit: Also, being rewarded for living lives of serving others and being good sounds a lot more credible than believing in a book that was written by man (primarily by kings who have an interest in keeping people ignorant)

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are these two things correlated? Negatively?

A reward is more credible than a belief? Are beliefs credible? What?

 

God is not guilty of the atrocities that were credited to him in the OT.

I would tentatively suggest that this is highly convenient, if I may:

The plagues sent by god to devastate egypt were then somehow.. not his handiwork? Did humans rally the locusts, lice and flies to be unleashed on themselves? Transformed rivers to blood and killed their first-borns? Made it rain frogs?

They ordered two bears to kill 42 children?

Among all the exercises of rationalization and confirmatory biases, this has to be the most paltry one. I'm sorry but.. are you for real?

 

Of course all the manslaughter is said to be sanctioned by god, which is actually isn't, but then why grant that he exists only in order to cherrypick? In order to make of him the best while all the information he have on him come from the bible?

And

Goddess?

 

 

Also, the reason why Heaven is so interested in affairs on Earth? Do you seriously need to ask this? When God has been with us since the beginning? And we're his children? Of course he would be very interested, and wants us all to ascend, so we can reach the next stage of evolution and become spiritual beings.

 

I don't think I have to go deeper into this than to quote Hitchens.

Or better yet, I'll defer to him:

Watch all of it, though if you don't want to, the quote starts around 5:25.

[Yellow Diamond 7,569]

I'll ask around for solid proof. But I recommend you watch some of Lucifera Morningstar's videos (yes, I know she's a Luciferian but she knows her stuff and knows the whole Bible inside and out). A lot of the stuff, I learned from her. If you ask her for unbiased sources, I'm sure she'll provide them.

 

Took one glance at the videos posted on her account: "The Church is the Anti-Christ, the Beast"; "Exposing Christianity and Catholicism (The Whore and Her Daughters)." Certainly these have no agenda! Frankly speaking, I'm not sitting through an hour of various anti-Christian and anti-Catholic polemics in the hopes of finding a grain of (misplaced) truth amongst a pile of rubbish.

 

Now if you can find me credible scholarship on the subject, I'll give it my attention; otherwise I'm not going to do all the homework for none of the gain.

[Adachi 772]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are these two things correlated? Negatively?

A reward is more credible than a belief? Are beliefs credible? What?

 

I would tentatively suggest that this is highly convenient, if I may:

The plagues sent by god to devastate egypt were then somehow.. not his handiwork? Did humans rally the locusts, lice and flies to be unleashed on themselves? Transformed rivers to blood and killed their first-borns? Made it rain frogs?

They ordered two bears to kill 42 children?

Among all the exercises of rationalization and confirmatory biases, this has to be the most paltry one. I'm sorry but.. are you for real?

 

Of course all the manslaughter is said to be sanctioned by god, which is actually isn't, but then why grant that he exists only in order to cherrypick? In order to make of him the best while all the information he have on him come from the bible?

And

Goddess?

 

 

I don't think I have to go deeper into this than to quote Hitchens.

Or better yet, I'll defer to him:

Watch all of it, though if you don't want to, the quote starts around 5:25.

Yes, many animals died. Who is to say they didn't go to the afterlife? I'm pretty sure that animals are considered innocent by God, since they're incapable of reasoning or having morals for the most part. Then again, the world is filled with the spirits of pets floating all over the place. But maybe they will all be called home.

 

Then again, someone who had 2 NDEs claims there is no Heaven or Hell, just a place for the dead, including departed loved ones and guides. I'm inclined to take the view of someone with experience, over the view of an old book or people who claimed to speak with angels through mediums.

Took one glance at the videos posted on her account: "The Church is the Anti-Christ, the Beast"; "Exposing Christianity and Catholicism (The Whore and Her Daughters)." Certainly these have no agenda! Frankly speaking, I'm not sitting through an hour of various anti-Christian and anti-Catholic polemics in the hopes of finding a grain of (misplaced) truth amongst a pile of rubbish.

 

Now if you can find me credible scholarship on the subject, I'll give it my attention; otherwise I'm not going to do all the homework for none of the gain.

Yes, she is against traditional Christianity and Catholicism, because they are both LYING. Well, according to our beliefs at least. But that's what she, her husband, and myself all agree on. No doubt that parts of the Bible are true. But it was tampered with so much both by the church, and by the very people who wrote it that nobody can take it fully credibly anymore. And Christianity and Catholicism worship the word instead of Jesus. No wonder our current pope is so sick of the church right now!

 

This is why people are turning Atheist, Buddhist, Luciferian, and Gnostic Christian, because Atheists don't have a spiritual belief, Buddhism has Christlike messages while being non judgmental and non self righteous, Luciferians believe in the potential of humanity rather than the divinity of a deity (well the theistic ones worship Lucifer I believe, but they consider him the real Christlike figure), and Gnostic Christians use a much older version of scripture than original Christianity without taking out any of the message, and focusing on the Christ and the mother. Also, unlike Christianity, Gnostic Christians believe that one only has to believe in the father to be ascended. Although to enter the bridal chamber one has to believe in angels too, otherwise their guardian angel cannot take them through the bridal chamber. And people can accuse them of using parts of other religions, but that's what pagan religions do. All religions are interlinked, whether we like it or not. There are going to be associations, and the Goddess Sophia, happens to be linked with Athena, Venus, Isis, and at least 1-2 others while the God is similarly linked to some masculine Gods. I'll explain more, but I need to cook now.

 

Edit: Finished cooking. I can explain in more depth. Also, you are looking at things through a Bible student's eyes. Assuming the Bible has any literal truth to it (which I strongly doubt), yes, I don't doubt there could've been plagues. But they were well deserved. The big hulking problem I have is that they spinster God, our father, into some monster that he's not.

 

Also, the Bible wasn't the first interpretation of his word. Before that, there was only scripture, and scripture can be tampered with. Which is why there are different sects of Jewish belief. Don't believe me? Someone managed to tamper with the beliefs of other religions as well. Maybe not directly, but he spread falsehoods. For example, many know Loki as a sly trickster, who can be malicious at times. But Loki is actual a fiery trickster who only likes to do harmless pranks. He never had the intention of harming anyone. And he still sits by Odin's side.

 

All of this "new age nonsense" is actually the result of people awakening to the true origins of their religions, and the true stories behind them.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Princess of the Sun

[Yellow Diamond 7,569]

 

Then again, someone who had 2 NDEs claims there is no Heaven or Hell, just a place for the dead, including departed loved ones and guides. I'm inclined to take the view of someone with experience, over the view of an old book or people who claimed to speak with angels through mediums.

 

Which is why we should take at face value someone on the internet who claims NATO was overcome with, as Huey Lewis put it, the (mysterious) power of love.

 

With all due respect, I've read a good deal about Christian Gnosticism, so I'm not particularly interested in an extended polemical lecture. Suffice it to say that I adamantly disagree with its cosmic dualism, exclusivity, and slipshod adoption of mainline Christian and Jewish content. It's all very loving and cosmic -- then you have people like Marcion who claimed the Old Testament was written by an evil God, and jettisoned portions of the New Testament canon because they were too Jewish. That's tampering with the text.

 

But I will say this prior to my departure from this discussion: I now more than ever appreciate why the Church Fathers were so concerned with Gnosticism. The entire enterprise is a series of veils woven in colorful shades, masking with apparent beauty that which is insidious.

[Adachi 772]

Which is why we should take at face value someone on the internet who claims NATO was overcome with, as Huey Lewis put it, the (mysterious) power of love.

 

With all due respect, I've read a good deal about Christian Gnosticism, so I'm not particularly interested in an extended polemical lecture. Suffice it to say that I adamantly disagree with its cosmic dualism, exclusivity, and slipshod adoption of mainline Christian and Jewish content. It's all very loving and cosmic -- then you have people like Marcion who claimed the Old Testament was written by an evil God, and jettisoned portions of the New Testament canon because they were too Jewish. That's tampering with the text.

 

But I will say this prior to my departure from this discussion: I now more than ever appreciate why the Church Fathers were so concerned with Gnosticism. The entire enterprise is a series of veils woven in colorful shades, masking with apparent beauty that which is insidious.

I respect your decision. Although I disagree with it being "exclusive". When all you need is to believe in God, it's actually more open than Christianity, which requires 10 extra rules. Anyways, we have let this get too off track, but if anyone wants to message me to debate Christian Gnosticism, feel free to. With that, unless someone else has something to say about the interview, I'm out.

[Milky Jade 138]

Yes, many animals died. Who is to say they didn't go to the afterlife? I'm pretty sure that animals are considered innocent by God, since they're incapable of reasoning or having morals for the most part. Then again, the world is filled with the spirits of pets floating all over the place. But maybe they will all be called home.

And so did many humans, in the name of god.

I'll take this as a concession, then

 

Then again, someone who had 2 NDEs claims there is no Heaven or Hell, just a place for the dead, including departed loved ones and guides. I'm inclined to take the view of someone with experience

You keep bringing things up I can't really settle without sounding like Hitchen's living mouthpiece.

But I - Don't - Care ♪:

 

 

Any questions?

[Adachi 772]

And so did many humans, in the name of god.

I'll take this as a concession, then

 

You keep bringing things up I can't really settle without sounding like Hitchen's living mouthpiece.

But I - Don't - Care ♪:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XLgYr35G7I

 

Any questions?

The humans who died for Christ were either reborn, or they achieved a Christlike enough state for their souls to achieve full Christhood, and more than likely became some of the lucky ones who are able to participate in helping build the new kingdom. I'm not expecting you to believe in what I believe in, but that's my belief. I'm still not quite sure what afterlife will be like myself. One belief, I got from Gnostic Luciferianism where all good people become ascended. Another belief is all who achieve Christhood become ascended. And yet another belief where one simply believes in God, and they can be ascended (although not believing in angels results in being unable to enter the bridal chamber). At any rate, I've pretty much explained my case, so any future posts on this topic will be about the actual conversation.

[Milky Jade 138]

The humans who died for Christ were either reborn, or they achieved a Christlike enough state for their souls to achieve full Christhood, and more than likely became some of the lucky ones who are able to participate in helping build the new kingdom. I'm not expecting you to believe in what I believe in, but that's my belief. I'm still not quite sure what afterlife will be like myself. One belief, I got from Gnostic Luciferianism where all good people become ascended. Another belief is all who achieve Christhood become ascended. And yet another belief where one simply believes in God, and they can be ascended (although not believing in angels results in being unable to enter the bridal chamber). At any rate, I've pretty much explained my case, so any future posts on this topic will be about the actual conversation.

 

You seem to have given this a considerable amount of thought. Or the opposite.

 

Anyway, yeah, I think you made your case clear as day to anybody here.

I said what I wanted to say on the 'actual' topic.

I think I covered it all, albeit tersely, already for everybody else, too.