• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

"UFO's" drug culture, and the occult

Migrated topic.

Gondrio

Rising Star
I'm not exactly new to this forum, however, my visit has been delayed for a great length of time (2 years or so). I would like to share with you why, as I was very into the psychedelic experience, UFO lore and what not before my conversion to Christianity, and I figured this little piece might be of interest to some.

I was very interested in A.T.O. (All Things Occult), prior to becoming a Christian, and one area that I read quite a bit on were aliens, U.F.O.'s, etc. To me, the connection between UFO phenomena and the occult was fairly easy to notice and substantiate, even prior to becoming a Christian. I would note that prominent UFO researchers, including John Keel (who I believe wrote The Mothman Prophecies), Jacques Vallee, and others, have made this very same connection, that is, the "link" between UFO phenomena and occult phenomena. I essentially hold to the position that beyond the husk of mistaken UFO sightings and outright lies, there is a real core of experiences promoted and engineered by demonic beings.

Indeed, Keel himself states in UFO's: Operation Trojan Horse that "...UFO's do not seem to exist as tangible, manufactured objects. They do not conform to the accepted natural laws of our environment... The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon." Hopefully you recognize that Keel and Vallee are fairly established names in the field and (at least to my knowledge; I could be wrong) non-Christians.

That being said, I realize that this forum is full of non-Christians. I would hope that you all hear me out, if only for curiosity's sake. It is my contention that UFO phenomena are attributable to what the Scriptures would denote as fallen angels, or, put otherwise, spirits that are in ethical rebellion against their Maker. I realize that, chances are, I just lost your respect. For curiosity's sake, hear me out. If you disagree with me, I want you to disagree with me on good, solid grounds, after all!

When most people hear the term "spirit" they immediately think of something whimsical, transparent, separated from the real world of time and space and quanta and energy, belonging to Dante and Tolkien, and not to the time-space in which we live. That would be incorrect. I think that a fair Biblical notion of a "Spirit" is simply a Person (roughly speaking, an Entity with Intellect, Self-Awareness, and Volition) that is not annexed to a physical frame, but that has the capacity to interact with the "stuff" of physical reality.

In other words, Biblically, I think it would be safe to say that a spirit is an Entity that can interact with quantum particles, that is, the stuff of physical universe. In that sense, it really isn't even "supernatural", depending on how one uses the term.

That being said, I think that an honest evaluation of UFO phenomena, even if it does not convince you of Christianity, could and should lead you to the conclusion that these "Beings" are more extra-dimensional than extra-terrestrial and, indeed, that they are more or less Entities that can interact with quantum particles and present themselves to our consciousness. That, in and of itself, does not entail Christianity.

I would hope that you hear me out, simply because John Keel, Jacques Vallee, J. Allen Hynek and others all more or less agree with me, even though none of them, to my knowledge, are Christians. By the way, those aren't random names I picked out to support my position. Those are three of the most well-known "authorities" in the field, one of whom address the United Nations on the topic of UFO's. If that weren't enough, Kenneth Arnold, who made perhaps the most famous sighting of UFO's in 1947 (and, I believed, coined the term "flying saucer" ) concluded that they were not physical airships at all, but rather some form of living energy.
I will claim that if you read Strieber's own writings on this subject, you will become aware of what I am saying. If Keel, Vallee, Hynek, Arnold, and others aren't enough, Strieber should be. When Strieber first began encountering the beings that he wrote about he himself wondered whether they were demons or not; but seeing as he was not a Christian, he ended up not seeing them in that light.

Later on in his works, Strieber describes his encounter in these words: "I felt an absolutely indescribable sense of menace. It was hell on earth to be there and yet I couldn't move, couldn't cry out, and couldn't get away. I lay as still as death, suffering inner agonies. Whatever was there seemed so monstrously ugly, so filthy and dark and sinister ... I still remember that thing crouching there, so terribly ugly, its arms and legs like limbs of a great insect, its eyes glaring at me." At least from looking online, I believe that is from Transformation, pg. 121. Also see this, from Transformation pp. 44-45: "Increasingly I felt as if I were entering a struggle that might be a struggle for my soul, my essence, or whatever part of me might have reference to the eternal... It was clear that the soul was very much at issue. People [have] experienced feeling as if their souls were being dragged from their bodies. More than one person had seen the visitors in the context of near-death experience."

Lastly, these beings demonstrate an antipathy to Jesus Christ and Christianity. And no, I am not just making that up. I remember reading in a Strieber book (I can't remember which one; I could find the reference if necessary) that the visitors told him something along the lines that they used to have more contact with men in the past when men practiced paganism, and would in the future if men returned to indigenous religions and Wicca, and forsook Christianity.

So now, by all accounts, Christian and non-Christian alike (and I think this is key...), we have Non-Embodied Entities capable of producing effects in space-time and presenting themselves to our consciousness (or, Biblically, "spirits" ) who apparently have an antipathy to Jesus Christ, and a predilection for nature religions, the occult, and drug use. On nature religions, I already mentioned the Strieber quote. Also, I remember reading a book by (or about, I forget which) by Wallace Black Elk, I believe he was Black Elk's grandson, about how he used to interact with the Star People, or Star Nations (I forget what he called them), and how they would interact with them when he desired. It is hard to see that he classified them as different than the other spirits with which he interacted.

As to drugs, I think it is commonly well-known that drugs and paganism more or less tend to go together, and often people encounter "hyper-spatial" or interdimensional beings (read, spirits... unfortunately old and tried words don't seem as cool and attention-grabbing) through psychedelics. Are you aware that in India, some Hindus use marijuana and hashish for transporting themselves into the spirit-world so as to make contact with spirit-entities (demons)? It is because of this property -- being an "inter-dimensional gateway" -- it is classified as a sorceress potion (due to its varied cultural applications for shamanistic and occult purposes, and it pharmacological properties), along with other drugs such as peyote, mushrooms, mescaline, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide 25 (LSD) and others. Further, many "drug-gurus" have spoken to the UFO phenomenon. I believe that Jerry Garcia talked about a UFO experience (I believe will on drugs; I might be mistaken), and Terrence McKenna said (regarding UFO and contact phenomena) "We are part of a symbiotic relationship with something that disguises itself as an extra-terrestrial invasion so as not to alarm us."

Here is yet another example of the "nexus" between paganism, drugs, and UFO's. Jerry Garcia was very into magic, considered psychedelics to be one of, if not the, most formative experiences of his life, frequented with occultists and shamans (I believe they called Rolling Thunder out to their ranch, once, if I'm not mistaken). Terrence McKenna, who wrote voluminously about DMT, ayahuasca, and shamanism, also realize there is a connection. Meanwhile, Wallace Black Elk is summoning them with a prayer or a call, Whitley Strieber is being told by them to practice Wicca, and countless others are experiencing paranormal, poltergeist-esque phenomena after being encountered by these "visitors". Jacques Vallee wrote a book entitled Messengers of Deception, and he and Keel (whom, it seems, you respect) both point out the stunning similarity between UFO's and the demonological manifestations of the middle ages, as well as the faerie, sidhe, and other lore of pre-Christian Europe.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but William Burroughs, who, to his own pain, was one of the darkest minds in the 20th century, and probably has more occult "street cred" than any other man of that era, believed Strieber to be sincere, and actually spent time in his New York cabin trying to contact the "visitors". And it was Burroughs who was known for his drug use, homosexuality, and occult interests (from Crowley to Babylonian and Egyptian magic). When speaking of hostile spiritual forces, Burroughs had this to say:

"When I go into my psyche, at a certain point I meet a very hostile, very strong force. It’s as definite as somebody attacking me in a bar. We usually come to a standoff, but I don’t think that I’m necessarily winning or losing […]. Listen, baby, I’ve been coping with this for so many years. I know this invasion gets in. As soon as you get close to something important, that’s when you feel this invasion, and that’s the way you know there’s something there. I’ve felt myself just marched up like a puppy to go and do something that would get me insulted or humiliated. I was not in control […]. There are all degrees of possession. It happens all the time. What you have to do is confront the possession. You can do that only when you’ve wiped out the words. You don’t argue […]. You have to let it wash through. This is difficult, difficult; but I’ll tell you one thing: You detach yourself and allow this to wash through, to go through instead of trying to oppose, which you can’t do […]. The more you pull yourself together the further apart you get. You have to learn to let the thing pass through. I am a man of the world; I understand these things. They happen to all of us. All you have to do is understand them or see them for what they are, that’s all."

Jerry Garcia spoke of the higher intelligences that surrounded him, and that the enlightenment they brought was always accompanied by "a hollow mocking laughter" which sometimes addressed him as a "stupid f***."

Meanwhile, Whitley Striber, in 2003, was apparently left on the dark side of things: "I’m a realist and what is now real is that the only thing that appears to be left of the contact experience is the dark side. So that’s what we have to face now. … In any case, the experience I had and what happens now seem to me to be very different things, almost as if somebody good has left and somebody surpassingly evil has remained here. . . . There are beings here who are hostile to one another, and some who hate us with a passion so great that it would be considered psychotic if it was displayed by a human being. There are some in a very complex and parasitical relationship with our minds, and some of these seem to me to be close enough to the human to suggest that they are hybrids of some kind. . . . I believe that this presence is what keeps us trapped here on earth, what prevents mankind from becoming a cosmic being, and what has been maneuvering us toward the earliest possible extinction. . . . something so profoundly evil that it is almost beyond imagination." There is no citation, as that is from an occult (not a Christian) website, but I believe it to be accurate based on who was writing it.

Now, by this point, you might be thinking, "Why in the world is he bringing in Jerry Garcia, William Burroughs, and others into a discussion of UFO's??" I would simply contest that, Christian or non-Christian, the more you study this stuff, the more you have to admit, if you are honest, that the lines and edges blur, and that what one initially believes to be extra-terrestrial, in the end, is more "spiritual" or inter-dimensional, and they seem to go hand-in-hand with paganism, the occult, and the drug culture.

To conclude, Vallee states in Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults: "I believe there is a machinery of mass manipulation behind the UFO phenomenon. It aims at social and political goals by diverting attention from some human problems and by providing a potential release for tensions caused by others. The contactees are a part of that machinery. They are helping to create a new form of belief: an expectation of actual contact among large parts of the public. In turn this expectation makes millions of people hope for the imminent realization of that age-old dream: salvation from above, surrender to the greater power of some wise navigators of the cosmos (pg. 20)." He continues: "...if you take the trouble to join me in the analysis of the modern UFO myth, you will see human beings under the control of a strange force that is bending them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception."

I'm not trying to debate you, so I hope the volume of this post doesn't frustrate you. I just want to give you some food for thought. After all, as I said, I'm not quoting Christians here. I'm quoting UFO authorities and occult authorities, names that you should recognize, e.g. Strieber, Vallee, Hynek, Keel, et al.

I think that Christianity remarkably accounts for both the reality of contact experiences, while, at the same time, accounting for the reality of the fact that no verifiable artifacts ever remain, that the problems with an extra-terrestrial, mechanized spacecraft view is out of accord with mainstream scientific and popular thought, and that reality simply isn't all about aliens. In other words, there is a real phenomenon, but it is a deceptive phenomenon. Of course, I don't necessarily expect you to agree.

I just find it remarkable that most of those who research the field end up concluding that there are hyperspatial or interdimensional beings who are often frightening to encounter, that manifest behavior traditionally associated with demons, poltergeists, and faeries, that associate themselves with paganism and have a direct antipathy to Jesus Christ... and that there are many people out there who believe this very thing and yet simultaneously think that Christianity is ludicrous and foolishness. I find it remarkable, since Christianity teaches that there are non-embodied Entities that are inherently malicious and deceptive, that can manipulate physical phenomena and assume forms for themselves, able to be touched or seen on radar, and who harbor an intense antipathy to Jesus Christ.

This is yet one more example of how Christianity is the key that unlocks reality, and I hope that you at least consider my position. If not, I'd be interested on what you think after you have continued to study the matter. I would just counsel you that it is the goal of these fallen entities to deceive you, and envelop your mind in an endless maze and that leads to nowhere, and that is inherently deceptive. Indeed, those who study it the most don't even believe that these visitors are interstellar or "alien" anymore. They are lying. After all, the Scripture does say that the devil is a liar, and the father of lying.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. What say ye?
 
Its not so much that some people have something against christ as a diety as opposed to pagan ideas of fae etc..though there are those people out there as well. There is ALOT of evidence suggesting that Christ never walked the earth as an actaul human. If you get deep into religous studies ingeneral it becomes quite apparant that everything about jesus, from his birth froma virgin mother to his crusifixtion and resurection are all aspects found in older religous ideas like those of egypt..and also that these ideas were based on astro-theology..basically, Jesus was the sun..and the whole thing was a metaphorical story played out in the heavens. When Rome came into power they saw the political gain in literalizing these metaphores.."jesus christ" was transformed into a literal man and the comlex knowledge and relation to the stars was lost and what was left in it's place was a dogmatic fear based religion that was politically motivated..

Of course that just the theory I reasonate with.

About the UFO connection..I tend to think it's more complicated than that..

"that the visitors told him something along the lines that they used to have more contact with men in the past when men practiced paganism, and would in the future if men returned to indigenous religions and Wicca, and forsook Christianity."

Well..wicca is NOT an indigenous religion at all..its a new thing.

I dont understand why a being telling someone that they should return to indigenous practices like paganism should in any way link them to the "fallen angles" of modern christianity. That there is already sort of assuming something of paganism. From what I can tell, christianity has done more harm on earth and stepped all over the rights of other people than any other movement in all of history.

Personally, while I agree with some of whats written here in reguards to beings comming interdimensionally, I think this is all a bit overgeneralized, and from my own personal experience with these entities (while "sober", and otherwise) alot of this does not reasonate.

"They are lying. After all, the Scripture does say that the devil is a liar, and the father of lying."

Hmm..it also says women are made from the rib of Adam..

Welcome to the Nexus!:d
 
Its not so much that some people have something against christ as a diety as opposed to pagan ideas of fae etc

I know that these are hard words, but biblically, if one is not pro-Christ, they are anti-Christ. To reject His absolute authority in your life as a a deity, is to reject him altogether. He will not tolerate partiality (Luke 10:27, James 4:4, 1 John 2:15).


If you get deep into religous studies ingeneral it becomes quite apparant that everything about jesus, from his birth froma virgin mother to his crusifixtion and resurection are all aspects found in older religous ideas like those of egypt..and also that these ideas were based on astro-theology..basically, Jesus was the sun..and the whole thing was a metaphorical story played out in the heavens. When Rome came into power they saw the political gain in literalizing these metaphores.."jesus christ" was transformed into a literal man and the comlex knowledge and relation to the stars was lost and what was left in it's place was a dogmatic fear based religion that was politically motivated..

I think if one were to unbiasedly examine the options, they would see that the bible must be what it claims to be, the Word of God, because no one but God could have had a motive for writing it. Wicked men would not write a book which condemns wickedness and gives all glory to a holy, sin-hating God. Good men could not write a book on their own initiative and represent it falsely as the Word of God. If they did that they would be deceivers, and therefore not good men.Therefore God is the only person who could be the real Author. Furthermore, The Bible is counter-intuitive to starting a fictitious religion. All the authors and heroes (except Jesus) are horribly flawed, from Adam and Eve all the way through the disciples and Paul. The only common thread is the grace of God in using these imperfect humans. either the Scriptures were written by evil men, which fits the description of everyone in the Bible except Christ, or good men doing a poor job of pulling off a wicked scheme, which makes them wicked (and incompetent).

In response to the supposed Egyptian similarities:

All About Horus: An Egyptian Copy of Christ? Response to Zeitgeist movie:

Osiris. Horus. Jesus. Not Triplets!:

Was the life of Jesus copied from Horus:

Basically long story short, the Zeitgeist claims have no ugaritic text nor manuscript etc to back the claims, no serious scholar takes hold to these views, Wikipedia even has a section for bashing it :lol: . The guy who made this claim used a few uneducated ridiculous sources for his claims.

But to be fair, I do agree that there are many legal code similarities found in other pagan religions (and they are often superficial and obscured), however, I think that they are only further evidence of the OT account of Genesis. The Lord taught his ways to Adam and His people who passed them on to their children. Noah brought these truths to the post flood world and his decedents spread these truths throughout the world, even though these developing cultures apostatized they held to the teachings of there ancestors. And also, look at how well Abraham was known, and his interactions with the kings of the earth! Furthermore, since the Bible did not begin to be composed until about 1440 B.C. In my own estimation (and that of scripture), its safe to say that there's no religious idea that was not copied from (1) the general revelation of conscience, and (2) the special revelation of oral or pre-canonical written tradition.

And because of human depravity, the Egyptian book of the dead and other ancient near eastern law codes (Ie. The Code of Ur-nammu, The Code of Eshnunna, The Code of Lipit-Ishtar, The Code of Hammurabi, the Hittite laws, and the Middle Assyrian laws), distorted previous revelation so that their laws do not always accurately reflect God's moral law (Rom 1:18-32).

Well..wicca is NOT an indigenous religion at all..its a new thing.

Yes, but much of Wicca practice and symbolism can be traced back to the Celts, so on and so forth.

From what I can tell, Christianity has done more harm on earth and stepped all over the rights of other people than any other movement in all of history.

Many who have done damage to the name of Christianity (for instance, the Crusaders), who label themselves as Christians, know nothing of a relationship with the triune God. I know this because they show no signs of being genuinely born again. Sadly, most in these degenerate times remain ignorant of the signs given throughout the old and new testament. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most of the Western world knows nothing of genuine Christianity. The American church has been polluted with health, wealth, and prosperity preaching as well as wall street methodology for the last 80 years or so.

Hmm..it also says women are made from the rib of Adam..

Yes, she was not made out of his head to surpass him, nor from his feet to be trampled on, but from his side to be equal to him, and near his heart to be dear to him. Having said that, the relationship between man and woman, like everything else in creation, is to teach us a spiritual principle about God. When you see the glory of this world, you are seeing but a small glimpse of Gods glory. Consider the following quotes if you will:

Psalm 19:1 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language there their voice is not heard."

"Every moment God's existence, power, wisdom, and goodness, are being sounded abroad by the heavenly heralds which shine upon us from above. He who would guess at divine sublimity should gaze upward into the starry vault; he who would imagine infinity must peer into the boundless expanse; he who desires to see divine wisdom should consider the balancing of the orbs; he who would know divine fidelity must mark the regularity of the planetary motions; and he who would attain some conceptions of divine power, greatness, and majesty, must estimate the forces of attraction, the magnitude of the fixed stars, and the brightness of the whole celestial train. It is not merely glory that the heavens declare, but the " glory of God, " for they deliver to us such unanswerable arguments for a conscious, intelligent, planning, controlling, and presiding Creator, that no unprejudiced person can remain unconvinced by them. The testimony given by the heavens is no mere hint, but a plain, unmistakable declaration; and it is a declaration of the most constant and abiding kind. Yet for all this, to what avail is the loudest declaration to a deaf man, or the clearest showing to one spiritually blind? God the Holy Ghost must illuminate us, or all the suns in the milky way never will"

-Charles Spurgeon

For further illustration, Jonathan Edwards lists a variety of scenes from nature and suggests which attributes of Christ they were made to picture:

"The Son of God created the world for his very end, to communicate himself in an image of his own excellency....

So that when we are delighted with flowery meadows and gentle breezes of wind, we may consider that we only see the emanations of the sweet benevolence of Jesus Christ; when we behold the fragrant rose and lily, we see his love and purity.

So the green trees and fields, and singing of birds, are the emanations of his infinite joy and benignity; the easiness and naturalness of trees and vines [are] shadows of his infinite beauty and loveliness; the crystal rivers and murmuring streams have the footsteps of his sweet grace and bounty.

When we behold the light and brightness of the sun, the golden edges of an evening cloud, or the beauteous bow, we behold the adumbrations of his glory and goodness; and the blue skies, of his mildness and gentleness.

There are also many things wherein we may behold his awful majesty: in the sun in his strength, in comets, in thunder, in the towering thunder clouds, in ragged rocks and the brows of mountains. That beauteous light with which the world is filled in a clear day is a lively shadow of his spotless holiness and happiness, and delight in communicating himself."

just food for thought...

Welcome to the Nexus!

Thank You Kindly!:d
 
you make some fair points, regarding supposed UFO's not conforming to laws of physics etc.
however, i think the issue lies with bias. And i dont mean that in a derogatory sense. I think it depends on ones own premise; whether your more persuaded by religious, endigenouse, scietific or generaly skeptical beliefs. for example, you have 4 people in a room, each from one of the mentioned view points, each given the exact same evidence, your going to be presented with 4 very unique ideas.
Biblically, I think it would be safe to say that a spirit is an Entity that can interact with quantum particles, that is, the stuff of physical universe yes from a christian perspective, but from a scientific approach, that could easily be simply thought of as an anomoly in data. An ancient greek may call it a god...i think its all just different words to represent something we dont truly know; nobody can define what they dont know.
i wouldnt disagree that something could be extradimensional, but whether that something is just another animal like ourselves in a different dimension, whether these "dimensions" are nothing more than what are senses have evolved not to interpret; or whether they are in fact fallen angels. who knows?
i deffinatly have quams with the antipathy to jesus assertion; i think to rely and believe in oneself based soley on a small group of peoples select accounts of an experience is ludacris. no offence intended, but scientificaly speaking and otherwise, what one person notes which can not be tested, explained or disproven is often dismissed. i think this should apply to Striebers account.
to adress the drug and paganism link, again, using a tiny select group of people as an example to base a belief is a very dodgy ground to walk on. people are individuals, with unique experiences, beliefs, and reasons; i think that should be respected.
with regards to burroughs supposed "homosexuality" i really have to question its relevance to your argument and your reasoning behind including such a statement?
Vallee states in Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults: "I believe there is a machinery of mass manipulation behind the UFO phenomenon. It aims at social and political goals by diverting attention from some human problems and by providing a potential release for tensions caused by others now i im really treading carefuly not to insult, but ufo's as a form of control?...religion has been a noted, blatent form of control from its inception. not to belittle your beliefs, but the structure around it, is known to be corrupt and has plauged societies throughout history; both as a reason to coerce its population, scaremonger to gain control and push for crusades with alterior political motives.
 
"I know that these are hard words, but biblically, if one is not pro-Christ, they are anti-Christ. To reject His absolute authority in your life as a a deity, is to reject him altogether. He will not tolerate partiality"

"I think if one were to unbiasedly examine the options, they would see that the bible must be what it claims to be, the Word of God, because no one but God could have had a motive for writing it. Wicked men would not write a book which condemns wickedness and gives all glory to a holy, sin-hating God. Good men could not write a book on their own initiative and represent it falsely as the Word of God. If they did that they would be deceivers, and therefore not good men.Therefore God is the only person who could be the real Author."

I find those statemets to be incongruent..Why would such a loving god and a good man not tolerate the indigenous land based traditions of peoples that are not even from the same geographical region where chrisitainty was birthed? Acceptance and tolerance to diversity IMO is very important and without it totalitarianism seems to take over.

Honestly I think people make the mistake far too often of putting faith in words and books, texts etc and quoting them more than they just base how they act here on personal gnosis. Im not saying you are wrong or that I am rigtht..I am just saying again, this all seems way way over-simplified and leaves out a huge portion of the human population..not everyone is christian, and to just lable them as "anti-christ" is to really miss the point of who they are from they're perspective..it's sort of a cop-out.
 
not to seem like im bashing, but i was raised a christian. Gondrio, as a christian, with the assertion that the bible is the word of god. what bible are you refering to? old and new testimont alike?
also, out of curiosity, as a result do you then take the book in its most literal sense?
i ask this as through my time, iv found even people within the same parish, household and religious establishments have their own take on the above matters in particular. to me, the differences in belief have a huge impact.
 
i read your post, and I don't see a solid connection here between christianity and UFO's. It seems as thought you are reaching for a connection and since you want it so bad, you are creating it yourself. I agree with your position that UFO's are more extra dimensional rather than extra terrestrial, but it seems like quite a jump from there to declare them "demons" as described by christianity.

I was raised in a very conservative christian family (my dad is a baptist reverend) and the older I get the more illogic I see in the whole thing. I like the story of christ but statements like this "I know that these are hard words, but biblically, if one is not pro-Christ, they are anti-Christ. To reject His absolute authority in your life as a a deity, is to reject him altogether. He will not tolerate partiality" are simply illogical. Just because some things about the story of christ resonate with you does not mean you need to take the whole bible as truth. Some real mystical writings were used as inspiration for the bible, but it has been heavily edited and manipulated over the years. What I feel to be the most mystical and relevant christian book (the gospel of thomas) was left out of the bible when that panel decided what books would be in the bible; this really leaves me dumbfounded and upset with mainstream christianity and further validates my opinion that the bible is flawed and being used as a mind control tool. Faith is not your friend, rather its a fallacy.

Can I politely ask why you accept the bible as truth and not the book of Mormon? both profess their own divinity, yet Christians denounce Mormonism as heresy. I really don't see much of a difference.
 
Gondrio, your post is fascinating. Thank you for putting so much time and effort into it; you are articulate and educated and surprisingly, I greatly enjoyed reading the post.

One thing keeps sticking in my mind though...you write as though you consider Christianity to be the end-all, the root of everything. Is it not possible that your Christian frame of reference is just another explanation for a unique and essentially unverified phenomenon such as "alien encounters" or "UFOs" or "hyperspatial beings" or whatever you want to call them? That is a rather easy trap for any passionate believer to fall into...

To claim that Christianity came first and that all of these other possibilities and avenues of exploration or explanation or experience of these "beings" are all traceable back to a Christian mythos seems rather self-serving and short-sighted, even though stated with obvious passion.
 
unansweredquestions said:
i think the issue lies with bias. And i dont mean that in a derogatory sense. I think it depends on ones own premise; whether your more persuaded by religious, endigenouse, scietific or generaly skeptical beliefs. for example, you have 4 people in a room, each from one of the mentioned view points, each given the exact same evidence, your going to be presented with 4 very unique ideas.

I suppose that in the end, it all boils down to a totally different argument, and relies, on my own "empirically verifiable grounds." But If my exegesis of the Biblical material is sound, and my application of it to what we have been considering is pertinent, then it is not properly "my" view but the writer of the scriptures. I have rendered my opinion, and I suppose what it all boils down to is the Bible, and its validity as the supposed Word of God.

unansweredquestions said:
i think its all just different words to represent something we dont truly know; nobody can define what they dont know.

I am going to sound exceedingly biased on this, but that’s only because I am. Presuppositions can be proved, unlike axioms. If in order to make sense of any fact, one must presuppose God's existence, then of course we can use external evidence in support of biblical claims, and there is much support which stands in the face of secular scrutiny. I think that we all can agree that the universe did not come from nothing. So, who created it? We are still left without a reasonable answer if we deny an omnipotent, omniscient, almighty creator (like the one we find in scripture). I would go so far as to say that the Bible holds the only reasonable explanation for our existence, and purpose.

“Logic is neither above God nor arbitrarily decreed by God. Its ultimate basis is in God's eternal nature. God is a rational God and necessarily so. Therefore logic is necessary. Human logical systems don't always reflect God's logic perfectly. But insofar as they do, they are necessarily true.”

-John Frame

What we call logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, if you will.

In the above post, I gave an argument above for the Bible. I am curious to know how you might respond.
 
"What we call logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, if you will."

Ok, well..why? thats quite the claim you make there without any shred of supporting evidence..why logic? why not illogical or irrational thought?


"I think that we all can agree that the universe did not come from nothing."

See thats a funny statement to use as any supporting evidence of "god" in the way you are referring to god..for one thing "god" is an ambiguous term that seems to have as many definitions as people who subscribe to the idea of a god. You say that the universe did not come from nothing, which does logically make sense..but the universe doesnt necessarily seem like a fundamentaly logical place..the place is rddled with paradoxes for one thing, which make no sense..so to say that it did not come from nothing doesnt always say much, since even if it came from "god"..well by your "logic" you can just replace "universe" with "god" and come to the same conlusion, that it cant come from nothing..so then..does "god" believe in god?

Personally I find the deepest level of insight is found within the paradox itself, for it's pradox that seems to exist in a place beyong all dicotemy..it is what we might call "true objectiveness"(only from or point of refernce though) or what Id call the "object itself" and it endlessly attempts incarnation into the subjective realm..casting off only glimmering reflections of itself like ripples in a pond..those ripples are what we call the paradox..

If you look for god, the thing, true objectivness within any one thing I think you are fundamentally missing the larger point, which is that there is no point at all..and there never was. Points are like sharp tips that protrude out of larger structures, yet we would never say they are the structure in its totality..youwont find "god" in a book, in a text, in this religion or that religion..any more than you will find god in a blade of grass or a beautiful woman..that is the nature of the thing..it's hyper-real and based on the reflection of it's own reflection..

...Or maybe like someone said to me last night.."I am a figment of my imagination"..yeah I like that one the best!
 
Vector said:
I was raised in a very conservative christian family (my dad is a baptist reverend) and the older I get the more illogic I see in the whole thing. I like the story of christ but statements like this "I know that these are hard words, but biblically, if one is not pro-Christ, they are anti-Christ. To reject His absolute authority in your life as a a deity, is to reject him altogether. He will not tolerate partiality" are simply illogical. Just because some things about the story of christ resonate with you does not mean you need to take the whole bible as truth.

I don't think the the Bible as a "whole" is in the slightest off the cuff, or filled with digressions, or the like. It exhibits a highly organized structure, and a strong logical flavor. With this in mind, I do not think it is reasonable to suppose that a book like the Bible, composed by many authors in different languages and cultures over a 1600 year period, would accidentally reflect a teaching so philosophically profound, logically consistent and supremely glorifying to God. Yet small children can grasp the essentials of it. such a feat this requires an intellect beyond human.

If I may propose the gospel to you, I think you will find it highly logical. The old testament is Christ concealed, the new testament is Christ revealed. As stated earlier, most of the American evangelical church has fallen prone to heresy. The true gospel can be very briefly summarized by the following:

God is just. You and I have committed injustice against God (Sin - Romans 3:23). The punishment rises with the dignity of the one insulted. If you commit injustice against a judge, opposed to a homeless man, the punishment for insulting the judge will be much greater. So therefore, if you insult an infinite God, the punishment is infinite (this is where we get the idea of an eternal Hell). So Hell is the punishment which the sinner justly receives. But what is Hell? Hell is constantly described throughout the Bible as a place of fire. Fire is used repeatedly in the Bible as a metaphor of Gods presence, like Moses and the burning bush (which didn't burn up because God is infinite). Some people describe hell as an absence of God. But rather, I think its His wrath against the injustice (Romans 1:18 ). So God is just. We have established that. But God is not only just, but also love (The original pattern for love in fact). So in short, He sends His Son Jesus, who is the same divine essence of the Father but a different person. The Son is born of a virgin Mary by the spirit of God to do the will of the Father (Matthew 12:50) Man is merely natural (the light was taken from man in the garden by which He sees God desirable above all things, and he is left to pursue this word: pleasure, power, esteem, status), and therefore fallen to do the will of the devil (John 8:44). Jesus walks on this Earth living a life absolutely perfect (He is the fulfillment of the law - Romans 10:4). He then goes to the cross and bares our sin, and the punishment which you and I deserve (the wrath of almighty God) is poured out on His Son on that tree (Isaiah 53:10, Philippians 4:18, Galatians 3:13) which satisfies the perfect divine justice of God. And the perfect life which Christ lived can be imputed to us by faith, as Christ was the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). So this was the pain of the cross. It wasn't the cat of nine tails, or the 39 lashes minus one. It was the cup of Gods wrath.

In the words of a great preacher:

"The gospel is the sum of wisdom; a collection of knowledge; a treasure-house of truth; and a disclosure of mysterious secrets. In it we see how justice and mercy may be associated; here we see unalterable law entirely satisfied, and sovereign love carrying away the sinner in triumph. Our meditation on it broadens the mind; and as it opens to our soul in successive flashes of glory, we stand astonished at the profound wisdom manifest in it. Yes, dear friends! if you seek wisdom, you will see it displayed in all its greatness; not in the firmness of the earth's foundations: not in the measured march of the clouds of the sky, nor in the perpetual motions of the waves of the sea; not in the vegetation with all its intricate forms of beauty, nor in the animal with its marvelous tissue of nerve, and vein, and sinew; nor even in man, that last and loftiest work of the Creator. But turn aside and see this great sight!—an incarnate God on the cross; a substitute atoning for mortal's guilt; a sacrifice satisfying the vengeance of Heaven, and delivering the rebellious sinner. Here is essential wisdom; enthroned, crowned, and glorified. Admire, you men and women of the earth, if you are not blind; and you who glory in your learning, bow your heads in reverence, and admit that all your skill could not have devised a gospel that is one so just to God, and so safe to man."


C.H. Spurgeon

Vector said:
Some real mystical writings were used as inspiration for the bible, but it has been heavily edited and manipulated over the years.

Actually, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. We have many manuscripts today which verify the reliability of the bible we have today. Some of these texts inculde: The Bodmer Papyrus 11 (150-200AD), The Coptic and Egyptian scrolls (200 AD), The Chester Beatty Papyri (200AD), Codex Vaticanus (AS 325-350), Codex Sinaiticus (AD 350), Codes Sinaiticus (AD 350), Codes Alexandrinus (AD 400), Codes Ephraemi (400s AD), Codes Bezae (AD 450), The Codex Corbiensis (400-500 AD), and the Dead sea scrolls. This list, is by no means exhaustive, and thus, the claim that the Bible was altered is totally unfounded, and has no basis in archeology.

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word. The internal evidences are those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin. One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its consistency, another is its prophetic fulfillment. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, certain cities, and mankind. Other prophecies concern the coming of One who would be the Messiah, the Savior of all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and His lineage, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible contains.

Vector said:
What I feel to be the most mystical and relevant christian book (the gospel of thomas) was left out of the bible when that panel decided what books would be in the bible; this really leaves me dumbfounded and upset with mainstream Christianity and further validates my opinion that the bible is flawed and being used as a mind control tool. Faith is not your friend, rather its a fallacy.

We don't argue for why the scripture is to be accepted, to do so is to be the judge of what is and is not the scripture, and to put our judgment and reason over the word of God. The church does not define scripture, but the scripture defines the church. The church receives the scripture and has done so... we cannot give "reasons" as to why, or those reasons become rational criteria as to what is and is not scripture. Ultimately, the defense must be upon presuppositional principles.

Vector said:
Can I politely ask why you accept the bible as truth and not the book of Mormon? both profess their own divinity, yet Christians denounce Mormonism as heresy. I really don't see much of a difference.

There are many reasons why I reject Mormonism, but one of the main reasons I deny Mormonism is their rejection of the triune God, which is clearly taught in scripture. They teach that there are three separate Gods, instead of one God and three persons (with the same attribution). This is nothing short of heresy.

In my belief, it was John Calvin, and others alike who resurfaced the doctrines of the early church, before it fell into apostasy with the Roman Catholics, who's doctrines clearly violate scripture. The word of God is the highest authority.
 
"God is just. You and I have committed injustice against God"

I sure as hell know I have commited no injustice against god. Im perfect just as I am, if you arent happy with yourself I would say learn to change what you need to change for YOU, and love YOU..dont do it for "god"..

So then..this is what really gets me about this kind of stuff..are you saying that god *didnt* create everything?..and if he did..then how or what did god use?..did god use itslef to create "us"(or itself)?..and if so, how does god commit injustice against god?

Or, better yet, what of the light bringer?(lucifer)..is god schizophrenic and does it now deem aspects of it's own psychology as committing injustice?..I might be inclined to suggest this god to a good transpersonal psychotherapist:d ..

All kidding aside though..I jsut tend to find all this more relative to human psychology and the ego's attmept to explain everything in terms of ultimatums.

"We don't argue for why the scripture is to be accepted, to do so is to be the judge of what is and is not the scripture, and to put our judgment and reason over the word of God"

So there is no room for obvious contemplation and questions?..we are to blindly believe in the words of a book written thousands of years ago..
 
"One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its consistency"

Seriousily, you keep making weird claims like this..how is it evidence that the Bible is truely God's word? Just because there may be some consistancy throughout history all of a sudden makes that evidence that it was written by god?

When you make claims like that you start to sound very very iffy and more a fanatic than someone trying to have a serious non-biased discussion..though you already stated you are biased when it comes to this particular topic..which is ok..but you must keep in mind how it comes off sounding when you make unfounded claims.

I studied religous anthropology and some of these claims would be totally challenged and shot down in a classroom discussion and unless you can drop the bias and try to see more than one side to the whole thing you will continue to come off as biased, which wont help you get your point across. You are free to believe what you want to believe, but when it comes to a discussion like this you must accept how all this sounds.
 
fractal enchantment said:
So then..this is what really gets me about this kind of stuff..are you saying that god *didnt* create everything?..and if he did..then how or what did god use?..did god use itslef to create "us"(or itself)?..and if so, how does god commit injustice against god?

God can decree an action that is sinful for a human to perform, because he decrees it for non-sinful reasons.

A sin is only sinful because of the attitude of the heart in doing it. When humans sin, we are by definition rebelling against God. But in ordaining human sin, God doesn't rebel against himself. Rather, he ordains our sins with good ends in mind, which makes the act of ordaining them not sinful, since the attitude of his heart is not rebellious but righteous.

Some biblical expressions that seem to support this understading are Genesis 50:20 and Romans 11:32.

Why did God allow injustice in the first place? listen to one whose insight and understanding of these things is far beyond mine, Jonathan Edwards, answering the question why a good and holy God would decree that there be hardening and evil. Listen carefully. Think hard. This is not the Bible. This is a man who I believe understood the Bible correctly on this point:

"It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God’s glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent [=radiant], that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all...

Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God’s holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God’s grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired, and the sense of it not so great...

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect. (Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning the Divine Decrees," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), p. 528 )"
 
^Well..that all sounds fine and dandy, but it still hasnt really adressed my origional question as to weather or not god did create everything, where then god came from, and if god did create everything is "sin" just something that lies inside of god as much as it does inside of us?..and if so, why shoudl Ifollow god any more than I would follow myslef, since god seems just as flawed (or perfect) as myself?..

That whole post you made IMO just makes me think again how much it sounds like this all just a metaphore for the vast landscape of the human psyche..

None of that seems convincing of a chrisitan god.
 
fractal enchantment said:
^Well..that all sounds fine and dandy, but it still hasnt really adressed my origional question as to weather or not god did create everything, where then god came from, and if god did create everything is "sin" just something that lies inside of god as much as it does inside of us?..and if so, why shoudl Ifollow god any more than I would follow myslef, since god seems just as flawed (or perfect) as myself?..

That whole post you made IMO just makes me think again how much it sounds like this all just a metaphore for the vast landscape of the human psyche..

None of that seems convincing of a chrisitan god.

Oh, I'm sorry. I obviously misread your post. I'm going to get some sleep now, and I will be back with a response in a few hours or so.
 
fractal enchantment said:
Its not so much that some people have something against christ as a diety as opposed to pagan ideas of fae etc..though there are those people out there as well. There is ALOT of evidence suggesting that Christ never walked the earth as an actaul human. If you get deep into religous studies ingeneral it becomes quite apparant that everything about jesus, from his birth froma virgin mother to his crusifixtion and resurection are all aspects found in older religous ideas like those of egypt..and also that these ideas were based on astro-theology..basically, Jesus was the sun..and the whole thing was a metaphorical story played out in the heavens. When Rome came into power they saw the political gain in literalizing these metaphores.."jesus christ" was transformed into a literal man and the comlex knowledge and relation to the stars was lost and what was left in it's place was a dogmatic fear based religion that was politically motivated..

Jesus was born a man, no different than you or I, In this man was manifested the Christ Consciousness, the omniscient intelligence of God omnipresent in every particle of creation. Christ is Gods infinite intelligence that is present in all of creation. The infinite Christ is the "only begotten son" of God, the Father. Christ Consciousness is the only pure reflection of spirit in the "created realm". This universal intelligence, also called kutastha chaitanya (Krishna Consciousness) in Hindu scriptures, was fully manifested in the incarnations of Jesus, Krishna, and other saints and divine souls. Christ is an honorific term, he was born Jesus and became Jesus the Christ. But don't be fooled, there have been many souls that have walked this earth with the Christ Consciousness fully manifested, some just stand out more with time. We must remember that these people must not be worship, rather studied, because within them is the role model in how to manifest the consciousness of the only begotten son, the Christ Consciousness.

I am not christian btw....

It is called "Aum, tat, sat" in Sanskrit. "Father, son, Holy spirit" in Christianity. Many cultures have different names, but what they are all explaining is. The father above creation (god), his son, which is his consciousness left in our existence, that we can all achieve, and is the goal of existence; Which is to realize that this is your true being. And the holy spirit or aum (om) in Sanskrit which means, "root word or seed-sound symbolizing that aspect of Godhead which creates and sustains all things; Cosmic Vibration".

Jesus just fully had the sonship manifested inside of him. There are written records from his time in Nepal talking about a saint Issa who came from Israel to learn and within time he "had the universe manifested inside of him". Jesus was no different than you or I. He was learned in the vedic knowledge in the East, came back to his homeland where he tried to spread the knowledge, and was killed. There are written logs still kept in monasteries till this day in Nepal about Issa (Jesus), its at your fingertips if you want it...
 
Wow it seems everyone has written a bible themselves in replying to this post, hears my book...

God, the creator, Krishna, Yaweh, father, whatever you call him, all the same is the one and true master dreamer. We are all part of his master dream and thus are all one. Where god came from and how he made existence are questions that we dont need to know the answers to yet. we need to not question just trust.

The bible is a moral guidebook explaining how we should live. It was handed down from god threw the pens of men, and even further scrutinized by other men that picked and choosed what would be in the final draft. And so obviously the bible is sceewed since men are so easily corrupted by satan.

People bring up how evil christianity is, but ever think that these people were not really living by the christian principles. Obviously Satan had taken hold and was lieing about true his colors, but his actions were clearly seen. People too often pick and choose quotes that they want and discard others.

Anyway my main point is there is one creator, one master dreamer, the bible is a book explaining his ways and history, but being written by men was corrupted by satan, and that all in all when he stands before you and asks, Am I your father? No matter what your beliefs and what your faith, if you have led a good life and accept him at that moment as your creator you will be one of his children once again. And with that all the answers to all your questions.
 
i dont know how I feel about the "creator" as a him..I find that I would lean more towards a female aspect to the creator..but even more so I feel it would be androgenous..something combined, yet going way beyond the culminated aspects of both..it would be truely trancendental..you wouldnt find it in any one place, since it is eveywhere, gleaming within every single thing..there is no end and there is no beginning..there is only something else..something far far beyond this limited human dicotemy, and it's probabily more beautiful and wonderful than we can probly imagine..all this talk of being saved or not saved or born again etc would fall away and we would just be..just be..
 
fractal enchantment said:
where then god came from

It is indeed a law of nature that something cannot come from nothing (law of ex nihilo nihil fit), but the laws of nature cannot be expected to bind the transcendent creator of nature.

Short answer: God is pure being. He alone has the power of being. The one who has the power to be all by himself, and speak beings into existence.

The question "who created God" is like asking "who made circles square". It assumes a self contradiction... that the uncreated creator is a created creature. To clear up any misconceptions about God being some sort of bafooned grandfather, I should add that no property of matter may be ascribed to Him. He has no weight, no measurements, no mass, no bulk, no parts, no form, no taste, no smell, no extension in space, and He is invisible. If He were any different He would be confined, and thus a finite being. However, in His infinite love, God has revealed Himself in His Son, who is the same divine essence of the Father, but a different person of the Trinity. Jesus took on the form of a man to be an atonement for mankind, so we will have someone to relate to for all eternity.

Luke 24:39 - "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

fractal enchantment said:
well by your "logic" you can just replace "universe" with "god" and come to the same conlusion, that it cant come from nothing..so then..does "god" believe in god?

So your supposition is that matter is eternal, instead of God? I say that a transcendent (supernatural) almighty creator of nature is demanded mainly because of the second law of thermodynamics which demands decay. If matter is eternal then it would be self maintaining. But the physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold. these differences interact, the interaction continues until sameness is reached and sameness remains sameness. it cant return to differentiation. Ie. matter changes and requires an unchanging point of reference to validate it.

fractal enchantment said:
and if god did create everything is "sin" just something that lies inside of god as much as it does inside of us?..and if so, why shoudl Ifollow god any more than I would follow myslef, since god seems just as flawed (or perfect) as myself?..

When Adam fell in the garden, what happened is that God took from man the light by which man could see the glorious desirability of God over all things. Without this light, man was left a merely natural being. And as such all his desires were swallowed up in darkness and went after things of the world: pleasure, power, esteem, status. God did not add these evil desires; he simply put a distance between man and the holy light of his glory. The point is this, God did not add to man an evil principle when Adam fell. The depravity of the human heart is not due to an addition, but to a privation. Concerning the source of depravity in the heart, John wrote: "The desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the pride of life are not of the Father, but are of the world" (1 John 2:16).

fractal enchantment said:
That whole post you made IMO just makes me think again how much it sounds like this all just a metaphore for the vast landscape of the human psyche..

None of that seems convincing of a chrisitan god.

Based upon your presuppostional beliefs, I'm sure you could attribute it to that. But like I said earlier, it is not very reasonable to suppose that man would write a book so damaging to His own pride. Yet, ALL other religions are polar opposites. Christianity stands alone in salvation by grace through faith alone, and not of works. I wonder why this is?
 
Back
Top Bottom