"UFO's" drug culture, and the occult

[Gondrio]

im sorry to take up the role of the typical antagonist, but i just cant resist.
so you'v stated the bible is the word of god and perfectly logical; god is eternal, infinite, transcendent, all loving, just and so on.
so lets start with the obvious and adress this logical bible.
the inconsistant triad anyone? God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. so why is there evil? these three charectoristics do not logicaly allow it. god loves all creations, knows the pain that will be caused and has the power to stop them.

You are basing this question off the Bible, but your assumption that "god loves all creations" finds no basis within the pages of scripture.

Romans 9:13 (God speaking) - "As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Romans 9:11-12 Paul says, "Though they [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call – she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’" And when Paul raised the question in verse 14, "Is there injustice on God's part?" He says, no, and quotes Moses (in verse 15): "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." And when he raises the question in verse 19, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" He answers in verse 21, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"

Romans 9:16 - "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

Romans 9:17-18 - "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." It was this last phrase that raised the objection. If he hardens whomever he wills – if God has the right to decree who will become rebellious – then "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"

Paul has portrayed God as absolutely sovereign. He decides who will believe and undeservingly be saved and who will rebel and deservingly perish. Before they were born or had done anything good or evil, he loves Jacob and gives Esau over to wickedness and destruction (Rom 9:11-13). He is free and unconstrained from influences outside himself when he decrees who will receive mercy and who will not (Rom 9:15-18 ).

Why is this right for him to do? He has given answers in verses 14-18 and now he gives two more. I will summarize them very briefly and do very little defending on my own. I will let them stand and read one very powerful summary quotation from Jonathan Edwards (which I quoted in the above post), that has helped me see the enormous implications of this passage.

First Argument: The Qualitative Difference Between Potter and Clay Makes Foolish the Criticism of the Clay

First Paul argues that a potter has the authority and right over the clay to make a wide range of vessels from the same lump. Verse 21: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?" The argument here is basically: Potters know more than clay about what is wise to make. I say this because Paul asks in verse 20, "Who are you, O man, [that is, a mere man, a mere piece of clay] to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’" In other words, the argument is simply this: we humans don’t know enough to elevate our values and our standards and our insights to the point of judging God and saying: You used your sovereignty in an unwise, unrighteous way. That’s argument number one. There is an infinite, qualitative difference between potter and clay that makes it foolish and wrong for clay to criticize the choices of the potter.

Second Argument: The Purpose Is to Display God’s Glory for the Vessels of Mercy

The second argument goes deeper. I think it is the deepest argument in all the Bible for why God is right to unconditionally choose whom to love and whom to hate, whom to show mercy and whom to harden, whom to make a vessel for honor and whom to make a vessel for dishonor. The deepest reason this is right, Paul says, is that it displays most fully the glory of God, including his wrath against sin and his power in judgment, so that the vessels of mercy can know him most completely and worship him with the greatest intensity for all eternity.

I will read it to you from verses 22-23 and you decide if you think that is a fair restatement of Paul’s argument. "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory."

There are three purposes mentioned in Verses 22-23 and the first two serve the third. First (v. 22) God acts to show his wrath against sin – that he is a holy God who hates sin. Second (v. 22) God acts to show his power in judgment. Third, (v. 23) all of this self-revelation is to make known the riches of his glory (including his holy wrath and mighty power) for the vessels of mercy. In other words, the final and deepest argument Paul gives for why God acts in sovereign freedom is that this way of acting displays most fully the glory of God, including his wrath against sin and his power in judgment, so that the vessels of mercy can know him most completely and worship him with the greatest intensity for all eternity.

Edwards on Why God Ordained That Evil Be

"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 )

So I ask, "Is God less glorious because he ordained that there be real evil and real guilt and just punishment?" Paul’s answer is, no, just the opposite. God’s glory will shine the more truly and brightly for having decreed and governed this universe as we know it. God must be for Himself in order to be for us.

God ordered abraham to sacrifice his son, yes, in hindsight we know god was testing. but god is all knowing, he didnt need to test at all; what was he finding out?

Good question. When I say that the Bible is "consistent" and "philosophically profound", I am not just making that up. Abraham was called by God to sacrifice his son on Mount Moriah, in Jerusalem, but why?

Genesis 22:7-9 - "And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here am I, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

When Abraham said this, he was speaking under inspiration of the Holy spirit. He did not yet know that many years later, God would "provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering"... Gods own Son, on that same mountain in Jerusalem! (Ephesians 5:2)

have you read judges 19:1? the story goes, a guest comes to an old mans house, evil men come to the door and demand the guest for the night. the old man replies
No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”
seriously, this is the word of god, why would he say that and what was he teaching?

As Lot offered his daughters to protect his guests (Gen 19:8 ), the host offers his daughter to protect the Levite. The author does not comment on the morality of this offer, but the whole story is presented as a final illustration of the evil consequences of forsaking Gods rule and doing what is right in ones own eyes.

 

[Enoon]

I'd like to know your take on this topic.

Why do I believe in the gospel of Paul and not the Gnostic gospel? Well, Paul actually raises that question in the letter to the Galatians.

There are 5 pieces of evidence that Paul’s gospel is Gods gospel

Well to be honest I disagree with your apparent definition of the word 'evidence' or proof. It seems to me that Paul believed he was spreading the word of God, but simply because he believed so, does not - in my book - make it so. All the listed 'evidence' is just him stating that he acted the way he did upon his premise, that he was doing it because of his calling. His action may have had noble intent etc. but it still doesn't mean he was actually professing the word of God.
It also doesn't mean that the Gnostic texts are wrong.
Also I did not want to hear why you did or didn't believe in them, I wanted to hear your take on the contents of them.

The message of Paul is utterly consistent with the rest of scripture in more aspects seen at face value. God chose to use Paul because the gospel is a message of grace for the enemies of God, and the messenger must be a picture of the message.

That just makes me sad. Enemies of God... who would want to be enemies of God?

I suggest you read the gospel, because "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17) God has spoken to man. The canon of scripture is closed, and you will not hear the voice of God through any other manner other than the reading of Gods word. Its like this... the great God before whom the nations are as a drop in a bucket, comes to you and begins to talk to you through the words and truths of Holy Scripture. Maybe you have been familiar with the Bible and Christian truth for many years, and it has meant little to you, but one day you wake up to the fact that God is actually speaking to you through the biblical message. As you listen to what God is saying, you find yourself brought very low, for God talks to you about your sin, and guilt, and weakness, and blindness, and folly, and compels you to judge yourself hopeless and helpless, and to cry out for forgiveness. But this is not all. You come to realize as you listen that God is actually opening his heart to you, making friends with you and enlisting you as a disciple. Hes done it the same way for 2000 years. So its not mere intellectual arguments that drive one to to God (many believers in God do not know Jesus Christ), but rather the work of the Holy spirit in the life of that person, driving him to see the reality of his depraved condition. It is then and only then which Jesus Christ can be embraced as savior and Lord.

I have spoken with God, and it is nothing like you say it is. It does not speak of sins, in fact, it absolves, forgives and releases all negativity. In its presence all is loved. As I've stated above, it is indifferent to sins. The only thing it is not indifferent to is that I turn away from it, ignore it at times, forget how to speak to it. And then it is saddened it seems. But it never holds a grudge. It simply waits and abides. It is magnificent and words can never do justice to it.
God does not however speak to me through scripture. It speaks through me through my inner self. I feel it staring out of me, and I out of it.
I wonder how you can live by all these quotes... it must make life very easy if one can refer to some line in a book instead of using ones own mind to find answers.
The answers and the divinity lie, as far as my empirical evidence as well as my intuition suggest, within. But I assume to you I am simply an atheist, or a heretic or a sinner at the very least. I'm tired of hearing you quote things. Unless you actually give a genuine answer that comes from you, I don't think I will bother answering any more.

much love
Enoon

 

[Gondrio]

Well to be honest I disagree with your apparent definition of the word 'evidence' or proof. It seems to me that Paul believed he was spreading the word of God, but simply because he believed so, does not - in my book - make it so. All the listed 'evidence' is just him stating that he acted the way he did upon his premise, that he was doing it because of his calling. His action may have had noble intent etc. but it still doesn't mean he was actually professing the word of God.
It also doesn't mean that the Gnostic texts are wrong.
Also I did not want to hear why you did or didn't believe in them, I wanted to hear your take on the contents of them.

Paul considered his intent to be noble, as a pharisee, doing God a favor, purifying the land from Christians. What on earth then would drive a man with the caricature of Paul, to begin staunchly preaching the very gospel he hated? You must take account into his testimony. He says a light from heaven flashed in front of him, blinding him (and he was later miraculously healed), and the voice of the one whom he was persecuting, spoke. If he was of "noble intent", then quite simply, his gospel is true. It should also be noted, that Paul actually met Jesus in the flesh:

1 Corinthians 15:4-8 - "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at one, of whom the greater part remain to be present, but some have fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time."

2 Peter 1:16 - For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

what the Church had to do was not create a canon, but recognize which books God had inspired. Herman Ridderbos' Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures is a good read on that topic.

Respecting the other (presumably six?) gospels that were circulating, these were all Gnostic "Christian" texts and were never accepted by the Church as canonical. The Church has never been gnostic and gnosticism is explicitly rejected as an antichrist (an idol put iin the place of Christ and true Christianity) in the NT Epistles and does not comport at all with the Gospels.

Moreover even a brief perusal of these "gospels" will show you how the Church could recognize the difference between God's Word and gnostic material in the same way that we know the difference between wheat and chaff or cheese and chalk. I can well believe that even a non-Christian would be able to tell the value of the Four Gospels compared with the valuelessness of the gnostic "gospels."

That just makes me sad. Enemies of God... who would want to be enemies of God?

Certainly not I! However, those who believe in Christ, are not only saved from death, they are future heirs with Christ, because they are in Christ (The implications of this are astounding). Heaven is the saints home. They are members of Gods household, and God is our loving Father.......God.......GOD!! Those who are in Christ will be shown love without measure. Those who know nothing of Christ will be shown justice without measure.

I wonder how you can live by all these quotes... it must make life very easy if one can refer to some line in a book instead of using ones own mind to find answers.

Friend, don't get me wrong, I still use my mind. But in my own life, I always surrender my mind to the highest authority, the word of God. According to my book, our mind is fallen and fallible. Like the rest of us. Therefore, our thinking is prone to self-justifying error. You can say you know God, but do you have any other reason to base that on than your own feelings? It is only a matter of years until we are faced with eternity.

 

[Enoon]

Well, Paul could have had a miniature seizure and seen white light, he could have eaten psychedelic mushrooms and seen a white light, he could have been imagining it, or he could have made up the story entirely - or someone made up the story and Paul never saw the light nor proclaimed that he did. All these are possibilities.
Also possible, he spoke with God but misunderstood. His noble intent may still be mislead or be untrue. AND whoever transcribed his gospel could have been changing it around to suit their needs... IMO there is no absolute truth and therefore I can't accept any one source as the absolute truth. This is why I find the Gnostic scriptures so interesting, because it seemed they did not follow certain lines in a book to a literal extend that makes me, quite frankly, nauseated.
I like the Christian principles, but until I found the Gnostic interpretations I could never befriend myself with it. Things were always taken too literal, and most of all, the authority to speak with the divine was taken from me by the church. With Gnosticism I am allowed to know God myself, not vicariously through the clergy. In fact I am encouraged to do so by self-reflection and introspection. This all reflected what I had known intuitively for a long time.
Do I have any other reason to base my knowledge of God on, but my feelings? What else is there? In the end we can't really go on anything else. I also never claimed to KNOW God, I said I've spoken with it. I wish to know it, I'm still seeking though, still transforming. The Gnostic texts have given me the ability to see my experiences in a more full and un-inhibiting context. But in the end they were still experiences, and they were real. If I start question my reality, I start questioning everything and end in absolute nihilism. There is no point in that. I have to believe that my existence and my experiences are real. And so my meeting with God was real, and the feeling and the gnosis that I recieved and brought back from then were real also.
Who are you to question this?

You are right that our mind is fallible, but IMO you should never surrender your authority to any God that is outside of you, but only to the one that lies within.

much love
Enoon

 

[AstraLex]

Hello Gondrio, I just read your post.

Well, if you want my opinion, here it goes.

I don’t know any of your so called occult and UFO authorities. I only listen to my Inner Self. Maybe your so called authorities started to realize that everything comes from within and it scared them a lifetime?

I believe in Jesus Christ and pray to God every night. But, in the same time, I believe that I am the creator of my own personal reality.

There are no demons, fears or hate in my preferred reality. I just simply not incorporate them in my life. Maybe, you too should take your destiny in your own hands? And not follow some dogmas?

But if you are keen to believe anything you hear and read, especially Complot Theories (government’s complot, aliens complot, devil’s complot etc.) and tend to incorporate all of this into your reality, you will end up with a pretty messed up inner psychic system!

So, in your case, you only seem to be able to choose between: willy-nilly believing some dubious occult people or willy-nilly believing in some respectable old religion (like the Christianity), you are much better off by being a Christian than an occultist.

So, follow Christs main message: “Love others around you as much as you love yourself.” (=automatically assuming that you love yourself absolutely). Let the love to God, yourself and to others around you take the place of fear, doubt and anxiety you may experience now

As a side note, how often do you go to the Church, talk to the real priests and partake in the Holy Communion ritual? Christianity can give you a strong mental basis to confront your inner fears (or demons in your current definition). Simply reading the Bible, Evangelic writings and such is not enough. Going to the church and partaking in the rituals is an absolute must to become a real Christian.

Really, seeing how your soul is popping from ufologism to occultism to Christianity back and forth is painful. Citing and combining all this into some absurd collection of quotes where I fail to see any logic behind. You hold some beliefs, like everybody else. But you somehow fail to see that its YOU who are self-reinforcing them. That it’s YOU who throws otherwise unrelated quotes together to make them sound as if they are connected, just to prove your current point of view.

Don’t you find it funny, that before you adopted the Christian belief system, you quoted your occult and ufo spiritual guru’s. And you found everything to be consistent. Now you quote the Scriptures and find everything ‘to fall into their place’ according to your new logic.

Want an advice? Unplug your internet connection and don’t go online for at least 3 months. Don’t read anything but the Scriptures (in real book form, not on your screen!!!) for at least 3 months. Go to the Church at least 1 time a week for a period of at least 3 months, talk to other real-life believers and real-life priests. And definitely don’t do any drugs for the similar period of time, even better – never

Have a nice day, I wish you lots of light and love. I hope one day you will recover from your current mental condition. My prayers are with you

 

[jamie]

"So, in your case, you only seem to be able to choose between: willy-nilly believing some dubious occult people or willy-nilly believing in some respectable old religion (like the Christianity), you are much better off by being a Christian than an occultist"

Why is christianity(which can be very occult) better than the "occult"(a broad generalizarion)?..and why is christianity the one that is "respectable"?

 

[Sally]

1) Define your meaning of ‘UFO’. There is a high possibility of misinterpretation due to the many connotations associated with the term.
2) Define ‘Paganism’. Are you upholding the traditional Christian opinion toward Paganism?
3) Define ‘Demons’.

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."

Please elaborate? Can you provide examples of these “age-old demonological phenomenon” so that we too can attempt to draw comparisons.

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.

Why do you think that? Again, an example would be nice.

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.

How have you concluded that entities interact with quantum particles, what are the solid grounds for this conclusion?

What is your definition of ‘supernatural’? Have you looked into the behaviour of subatomic particles?

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.

It is all well and good to select people who support your argument, but it is also ideal to consider those who don’t. Look at both those you support and oppose and construct an argument weighing up the validity of both the approaches.

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."

Why have you selected these quotes? What are they in reference to in the argument as a whole?

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.

Upon what grounds has Strieber drawn this conclusion? It’s a sweeping statement.

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)?

Never overestimate or underestimate your audience. You are on a forum dedicated to entheogenic use. I am sure many people are aware of Sadhu monks and their relationship with marajuana.

What is your meaning of ‘demon’?

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.

‘Sorceress potion’…feminised? What is you purpose behind the use of that word? What are its ‘cultural applications…occult purposes and pharmacological properties?’

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.

What do you mean by UFO? An ‘unidentified flying object’? I fail to see what an unknown object in the sky has to do with drug use?

And, yes there are similarities between the ‘alien abduction experience’ and the folklore of ‘fairy abduction’. The only difference being the time context and time interpretation

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."

and…? You need to provide further explanation on this, what do you make of this quote?

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***."

Again, I fail to see what this has to do with drug use, UFO’s or Christianity.

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.

That is one sentence! Where is the evidence for this statement? Not everyone draws that conclusion, not everyone has a terrifying encounter.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. What say ye?

I say thanks for splitting the argument into small paragraphs to make it easy to read…

But, in full honesty this is a very disjointed and hard to understand argument. There are a lot of open ended statements which are not backed up with evidence. If you want us to be convinced of your argument, evidence and quotes are your best friend.

My question to you; what was the purpose of this post? What were you aiming to achieve?

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

I have not read all the posts so far, so this might have already been said, but I really wanted to get this out of my head. In response to Gondrio quoting Burroughs: "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." These forces in our psyche aren't necessarily so foreign as to be demons. This hostile force is the Ego. The part of you that you are supposed to transcend during a psychedelic experience. I am sure that most people on this forum have heard of the term "ego death". Ego death is when you finally see you for what you really are. You are stripped of the safely selfish view that your ego wants you to see and wants you to show to the rest of the world. What Burroughs seems to be describing is a fight between his true self and his ego. He seems to be having a hard time letting go of his ego and in the end this means his ego has triumphed. Sure, it is possible that there are demons and I definitely believe in UFO's, but maybe instead of blaming external non-human forces for our shortcomings we should realize that the problems are within ourselves. THe hardest part is admitting it: We are all Ego-holics.

Hi. I am PowerfulMedicine, and I am an Ego-holic. thx

 

[gibran2]

...Ego death is when you finally see you for what you really are. You are stripped of the safely selfish view that your ego wants you to see and wants you to show to the rest of the world. What Burroughs seems to be describing is a fight between his true self and his ego. He seems to be having a hard time letting go of his ego and in the end this means his ego has triumphed. Sure, it is possible that there are demons and I definitely believe in UFO's, but maybe instead of blaming external non-human forces for our shortcomings we should realize that the problems are within ourselves. THe hardest part is admitting it: We are all Ego-holics.

Hi. I am PowerfulMedicine, and I am an Ego-holic. thx

If the ego is as terrible and useless as many seem to think it is, then why did evolution see fit to give us one?

 

[universecannon]

I think the whole ego thing is a bit murky and depends on how you define it. I see a strong ego as being different than a big ego in that a strong ego is important to have in order to hold our integrity-especially when navigating psychedelic headspace. This might be why there were so many burnouts after the 60's, they all sought to kill the ego instead of befriending it and making it a thing of their own creation. To me a big ego is rigid, not spontaneous, and tends to gets stuck in all sorts of fixed ideas along with usually holding onto some sort of exaggerated self-image. It strives to control things it cannot and this often leads to pessimism, negativity, and anger, since it cannot let go. A strong ego, again by my definition, remains flexible and open to admitting inadequacy while flowing with the wind of life..just me thinking outloud

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

I didn't say it was useless, the ego is a necessary part of the human experience and the fact is that it is part of us, but it aims to prevent us from transcending our perceived self. The ego serves to protect yourself from the negative aspects of your true self. If somehow the ego of every person were to be turned off right now, I would think, many people would be incapacitated by all the negative aspects they see in themselves. I would say that ego death serves as a useful tool for one to get more in touch with who they actually are and to integrate the problems that are revealed to them in order to improve one's self.

Not to mention without an ego there would be nothing to struggle against and what is the fun of that. The human experience is one of constant struggle. Fighting with the internal and external force that abound. The ego makes life worth living and fighting for. I for one would not want a pointless existence of bliss and paradise.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

I think the whole ego thing is a bit murky and depends on how you define it. I see a strong ego as being different than a big ego in that a strong ego is important to have in order to hold our integrity-especially when navigating psychedelic headspace. This might be why there were so many burnouts after the 60's, they all sought to kill the ego instead of befriending it and making it a thing of their own creation. To me a big ego is rigid, not spontaneous, and tends to gets stuck in all sorts of fixed ideas along with usually holding onto some sort of exaggerated self-image. It strives to control things it cannot and this often leads to pessimism, negativity, and anger, since it cannot let go. A strong ego, again by my definition, remains flexible and open to admitting inadequacy while flowing with the wind of life..just me thinking outloud

That is pretty much what I am saying UniverseCannon. You just define the self as a strong ego. The point of ego death is to change the synthetic ego into what you truly are. Make your ego and self one and the same. THis is in no way easy. In fact, I would go as fara as to say that this is what true enlightenment is.

 

[Gondrio]

I have not read all the posts so far, so this might have already been said, but I really wanted to get this out of my head. In response to Gondrio quoting Burroughs: "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." These forces in our psyche aren't necessarily so foreign as to be demons. This hostile force is the Ego. The part of you that you are supposed to transcend during a psychedelic experience. I am sure that most people on this forum have heard of the term "ego death". Ego death is when you finally see you for what you really are. You are stripped of the safely selfish view that your ego wants you to see and wants you to show to the rest of the world. What Burroughs seems to be describing is a fight between his true self and his ego. He seems to be having a hard time letting go of his ego and in the end this means his ego has triumphed. Sure, it is possible that there are demons and I definitely believe in UFO's, but maybe instead of blaming external non-human forces for our shortcomings we should realize that the problems are within ourselves. THe hardest part is admitting it: We are all Ego-holics.

Hi. I am PowerfulMedicine, and I am an Ego-holic. thx

My stance in Christianity would be completely contradictory to your assertion, considering it is so damaging to ones own ego. I agree that we are ego-holics/self-conceited. I believe we, as humans, were made in Gods image. For man to be made in Gods image is to say that man and women can reflect and reproduce at our own creaturely level the holy ways of God. And in one sense we are truly human to the extent that we fulfill it. Genesis 1:1-25 sets forth God as personal, rational (having intelligence and will), creative, ruling over the world He has made, and morally admirable. (in that all He creates is good). So Gods image will reflect these qualities. Verses 28-30 show God blessing the newly created humans an setting them to rule creation as His representatives and deputies. The human capacity for communication and relationship with both God and other humans appears as a further aspect of the image. To be created in the image of God also means to have an eternal soul, or spirit (Gen 2:7), as personal and self conscious, with a God like capacity for knowledge, thought, and action. It also means to be morally pure, a quality which was lost in the fall, but now being progressively restored in Christ (Eph. 4:24, Col 3:10).

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

I am actually christian myself. In fact I am a practicing catholic who goes to church almost every week, although all of my views aren't in line with that of the church. Christianity is not at all contradictory to the views that I have expressed. There is a actually a sect of Christianity that hold many of these beliefs: Gnosticism. If you believe that we are created in the image of god and that we all are a piece of god, then to bypass the ego is to see God with untainted eyes. It is to see the godliness within yourself. It is also to see the humanity within God.

God probably has an ego too. This is evident in the way that we are imperfect. It is also evident when one recounts the stories of the Bible. God seems to be having an internal struggle of his own. God is learning how to deal with his creation. God is even learning what is right and wrong. Think of the story of Noah. God learned that it is wrong for him to drown the world and promised he would never do it again. He then appended the laws of physics to include refraction of light and caused the phenomenon we call a rainbow as the sign of this promise.

I think one of the main problems of Christianity and that of many modern religions is that they separate good and bad into two deities and then make the two deities dichotomous. This then makes people believe that God and the spiritual world are perfect and that the devil has dominion over all that is physical and that he creates all that is bad.

Clearly God is not perfect or else there would be no problems in all of creation, but God is the closest there is to perfection and God is all powerful. One way to see this is that creation is the mind of God. He controls all that exists in his mind which includes the entire universe that we perceive. Then there is the good of God's true self and bad of God's Ego.

 

[universecannon]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. "

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

I agree with that. Except the part about wise men. The common people regard it as true without justification, while the wise decide for themselves and don't take the oppressive religion spoon fed to them by the rulers.

 

[Gondrio]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. "

You're categorizing "religion" into a single conceptualization, which is understandable considering the pluralistic culture in which we live... Someone gets up on the stage and says "I'm a seeker of truth!", what happens? They applaud. But if he goes on saying "...and I found it", then he gets booed off the platform... Its a culture that says "it may be true for you, but its not true for me." I have news for you, there are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there's never more than one.

 

[cellux]

Friend, don't get me wrong, I still use my mind. But in my own life, I always surrender my mind to the highest authority, the word of God. According to my book, our mind is fallen and fallible. Like the rest of us. Therefore, our thinking is prone to self-justifying error. You can say you know God, but do you have any other reason to base that on than your own feelings?

I wouldn't call them feelings... Insight is a better word. Or revelation. Given to us through the grace of God, if you will.

Those experiences made a stronger impact on me than anything I've ever witnessed in everyday consciousness. The scriptures would be quite useless if I hadn't had my experience of meeting God within. I still remember the realization, the awe I felt when I came to understand that there is actually a God. I wept like a long lost child, who finally found his way home. Just one truly spiritual moment within those realms can inspire decades, even entire lifetimes of study and spiritual search over here.

I personally find this to be a better base than the Bible or any other doctrine. The light that helps me understand the infinite layers of scripture also comes from within, from this inner core. Without that light, scripture is meaningless.

 

[dpwishy]

I still remember the realization, the awe I felt when I came to understand that there is actually a God. I wept like a long lost child, who finally found his way home.

+1

 

[Gondrio]

Friend, don't get me wrong, I still use my mind. But in my own life, I always surrender my mind to the highest authority, the word of God. According to my book, our mind is fallen and fallible. Like the rest of us. Therefore, our thinking is prone to self-justifying error. You can say you know God, but do you have any other reason to base that on than your own feelings?

I wouldn't call them feelings... Insight is a better word. Or revelation. Given to us through the grace of God, if you will.

Those experiences made a stronger impact on me than anything I've ever witnessed in everyday consciousness. The scriptures would be quite useless if I hadn't had my experience of meeting God within. I still remember the realization, the awe I felt when I came to understand that there is actually a God. I wept like a long lost child, who finally found his way home. Just one truly spiritual moment within those realms can inspire decades, even entire lifetimes of study and spiritual search over here.

I personally find this to be a better base than the Bible or any other doctrine. The light that helps me understand the infinite layers of scripture also comes from within, from this inner core. Without that light, scripture is meaningless.

So then, you would define yourself as a follower of Christ?