(04-05-2016 03:58 PM)hydrogonian Wrote: Here, he's avoiding answering my question. He can't specifically name an esoteric system outside of the one I am referring to. He just cites "hidden tradition", "esoteric components", "mixtures of teachings", and "a spirituality that seeks answers inside the practitioner". The key is that there is use of "hidden hints" or "elaborate manuals" (which?) and that it specifically avoids practice that is not hidden (exoteric).
Firs of all, there is no established theory regarding scope, aspects, nature and meaning of esotericism. There is some form of loosely based consensus that esotericism refers to all knowledge that was rejected by both positive science during rennaisance, and mainstream religion.
However, I'm not keen on that definition too much. If we take the literal meaning of the word, esotericism would refer to inner, concealed, spirituality.
That being said, there are many schools. Hindu esotericism, Buddhist esotericism, Islamic esotericism (Sufi Islam schools), Kabbalah, Neo-Paganism, Old Paganism, Indo-European neo-paganism (exploration of symbolic, exotic meanings of all major European pagan pantheons). Pardon me if i hadn't used everywhere the most popular term. Then, there is also some Christian esoteric tradition, for example Grail Myth and it's alleged mysteries, cult of Templar order, etc.
Quote:It's all very Indiana Jones in its exciting vaguery and necessarily exclusive if for nothing but his inability to say anything substantial about "it". For Orion, the prospect of a map, and everything that can be imagined about it, is more exciting and legitimate than the actual map and "treasure" itself. I'm sure that my even posting here about any of it is scandalous to him. It makes him feel good to at once be able to claim that he is defending a vague, exclusive knowledge that even he can't point directly to.
Hold on for a second. I'm not defending esoteric teaching as being legitimate or truthful at all. I'm objecting it's dogmatic demonization which lacks any basis and often relies on pseudo-historicity of applying modern obsessions to ancient cultures that were completely oblivious to it, that other religions often avoid simply because they are either too exotic, or too obscure for westerners, or some other forms of hypocrisy.
Quote:Again, note the absence of specificity let alone a wider framework. Good luck with your clarity. He's essentially insisting on backing out of any framework derived clarity for a non-specific awe of "esoterism".
Obviously esotericism belongs to spiritual framework. That being said, clarity or specificity is missing whenever there is comparative religion, and most definitely when somebody is trying to get into the roots - etiology of a certain religious traditions. Lack of clarity is simply mandated. Not even major Abrahamic religions are clear in their origins. Was Judaism always monotheist ? Was it at first Monolatric ? Are Yahwe and El related ? Etc. etc. These are things that theologians obsessed over and tried to clear out, without any form of definitive conclusion anywhere in sight. Aren't these mysteries as well ?
You claim as if only esoteric teachings have mysteries.
Quote:He's probably referring to Gnosticism without realizing that Gnosticism is irrevocably part and parcel with Platonism and Kabbalism (more on this below). He's rejecting the framework that allows for the proper identification and categorization of religious practice even when the superficial names and details of these various "systems" change.
Yes, and faith based spirituality is part and parcel of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Does it make these religions one and same ? No it doesn't.
Quote:He didn't rebut a single thing. He then proceeds to recreate his "Satansim" straw-man while reinforcing the take-away that he fails to grasp the concept of "Satanism" even though I bent over backwards to explain how the concept is used.
Satan is in Abrahamic religions a fallen angel who promised to lure people away from God and tempt them into sin. Obviously, concept of Satan, when applied, is very very wide. And above all - Completely subject to dogma of tradition. For any Christian tradition (Protestant, Orthodox, Independent), Satan will be any teaching they deem as false - because that's what Satan does - he deceives. So for Orthodox Christians, Protestantism is deception.
But therein lies the problem. Anything can be deception, and anyone can be the deceived one. Even when you read the Bible, meaning that you derive from it can be your own illusion or deception. Hence objectivity.
Quote:Ironically, he before reinforced that his vague "esoterism" is "Satanism" as it is perceived by anyone who acknowledges the concept, by claiming that it is a process of the "inner" person.
It really depends on
your definition of Satanism. For some people, inner realization does not mean letting yourself be open to influences of dark forces. It can even be opposite.
Quote:Okay, Orion, your "inner" esoterism isn't Satanist or Luciferian. Feel better? What you believe about "it" is entirely inconsequential.
What mine Esoterism ? You wan't to say that you no longer consider Egyptian religions as source of Satanism or that you think that they are irrelevant for modern theological problems, or something else ? Or are you going to agree with me that ancient teachings have been deeply misunderstood, abused, misapplied for modern contexts, without any necessity to do that.
Actually, Christian concept of Satan is so self-sufficient that introducing ancient religions into the whole story as some sort of prelude to NWO etc. created an unnecessary mess for no other reason but to give it some sort of false "mystery", conspiracy, drama, and exoticism. Or as you put it - Indiana Jones.
Quote:To reassure that forum that you aren't making things up, because you haven't been specific yet, please explain some various and differing traditional forms of Western Esoterism and their primary text sources.
Told at the beginning of my reply.
Quote:St. Augustine, the arguably premiere Doctor of the Early Church, was a proponent of a so-called esoteric Christianity (assumingly non-Kabbalistic, non-Gnostic, and non-Platonic)? How so? Explanation? Proof?
I never said that ? I said he referred to Hermes Trismagistus without any stigma or demonization as an example of early positive spirituality.
Quote:Kabbalism / works-centric "esoterism" is what I am referring to, and therefore it is what you are attempting to tell me is not the only form of esoterism. That can't be it.
It would mean that only people from Levant in the entire wold had inner teachings in antiquity. That is such an absurdity that it requires no further objections.
Quote:I already acknowledged Platonism, so that can't be it. Furthermore, Platonism and Neo-Platonism aren't esoteric.
Well, philosophy, as a path to wisdom, is necessarily an inner discipline. There is no such thing as mass philosophy.
Quote:Gnosticism (being saved by virtue of secret knowledge), Platonism, and Kabbalism are all species of religious practice within the same works-centric family.
I can give this statement some credit. It's not too incorrect. But you also need to define "works". If it refers to making favors to God, or sacrifices or anything like that, than you would be wrong.
Inner path has that one thing common with outer path. They both claim to be seeking the one and only universal truth. And that truth has nothing to do with works. Reaching Truth means acknowledgment of Truth. When you acknowledge something, it's not works at all.
So if you mean by "works" "path towards discovering truth" let's call it works then, but It's a bad word to use really. Acknowledging Truth is an entirely mental activity.
Quote:They comprise one end of the religious spectrum, although the former two systems are widely dead in named practice, outside of some remaining and minor influence within exoteric Christianity, in favor of Kabbalism that incorporates both.
Obviously, if you refer to occult rituals, then let's say woks can be defined as an important component of occultism. But if occult rituals are only an object of reaching Truth, than how does that separate them from any other religious rituals ?
In other words, there is no religion without established rituals. It's a common fallacy, that Baptists for example abuse. To them, Hindu rituals are works, but Baptist prayers, marriages, baptisms etc. are not works. That's total jibberish. Their measure of who is working and who believes is completely subjective, and remains nothing but an unqualified "muh opinion"
Quote:Hermeticism, as it is practiced in the West, as I before mentioned is a subroutine of Kabbalistic magic and Kabbalistic Freemasonry.
I can make much closer relation between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Do i make them one and same ? No i don't
Quote:It is long departed from any minor Greek practice that connected Hermes to Thoth (mediator of the Law). Doing any serious reading on any of these subjects, or reading on legitimate sources for the Egyptian religious practice, would readily illustrate this fact. It's an invention with no legitimate connection to Egypt aside from made-up speculation/myth that it was lost in the Alexandrian Library burning and then recovered. Sadly, the Egyptians forgot to mention it in any of the several millenia of detailed religious documentation studied by legitimate Egyptian scholars.
You just described history of any ancient teaching - uncertain authorship, uncertain date, uncertain connections to other religions/teachings/philosophies of the time, uncertain place of origin etc. That being said, same uncertainties are present for origins of Christianity.
Quote:Islam has long been inundated with Kabbalism if it wasn't begun specifically on its premises, as after all it is a works based religion.
Many modern schools of Islam consider Kabbalah to be Satanic. Actually, most of them.
Quote:It's a religion with a deep connection to Kabbalistic magic and numerology. Its primary esoteric sect, the Sufis, are foundationally no different than magical practitioners from any other western Kabbalistic tradition. Feel that magic in your feels, boys.
More opinions. More extremely wide definitions. Magic and numerology. I mean these two are inherently present in almost any religion,
particularly Abrahamic and middle-eastern ones. Magic and important numbers are all over the Bible. But when they are present in the Bible, they somehow don't constitute anything Biblical whatsoever. They only constitute "deep and inherent" part of other traditions, that you don't agree with when they are mentoned.
Quote:Saint Josephat was never canonized, and the story is a myth. It isn't theology. Cultures that intersect trade myths all of the time, and none of it means that actual religious practice is formed from the intersection.
What ? How did you derive that conclusion ? You said it as it it was the most logical conclusion that they don't form practice from intersection, not the other way round - It's absolutely logical that intersection leads to imported practices.
Quote:In short, its a specious assertion that you connect so-called esoteric Christianity with Buddhism based on this common myth. It's one of many weak arguments that waste everyone's time, mostly my own.
Well, yes, it really is the "so-called" Esoteric Christianity. It's a debated topic. But so is your own claim of universality of Kabbalah to all non-Christian teachings.
Quote:You haven't demonstrated that you know what Buddhism is. This is another example of you merely assigning a high value to something because it is mysterious to you.
I don't see any mystery in Buddha's teachings which is presented in a straight-forward way. I said that Buddhist path of spiritual realization is exclusively inner. Buddha rejects all strict religious observation, hence he made institutionalization extremely difficult and inconvenient. You can't go to a Buddhist church, or collectively pray to a Buddhist God.
Quote:Calling it an "esoteric teaching par excellence" is illustrative of your over-excited values system when it comes to this subject matter.
Yes, calling something esoteric is such an exercise in excitement.
Quote: I'll never be impressed by you listing a litany of words from the new-age bookstore.
What an ego trip
Quote:One long-dead Kabbalist who knew more than you or me in regard to religion, in an attempt to sum up Buddhism beyond the hype and buzzwords, once described Buddhism as merely "the religion with the aim of obliterating the soul". And he had a point. That's what it is. You are attempting to cease your own existence.
Of what significance is this long-dead Kabbalist's interpretation to us ? Is he some authority of a sort ? And what existence are you referring to ? To cease life, commit suicide ? Is that what Buddha teaches ?
Quote:then I wish you luck with what you don't understand and your over-excited values system.
Again, a you-me-you-me spiral. You are taking it too personal.
Quote:Furthermore, for the most esoteric of Buddhism variants, Tibetan Buddhism, there have been detailed accusations of the exact sort of rituals that I describe for higher level Kabbalistic practice: namely homosexual rituals practiced by heterosexual men and other methods of antinomianism. Note that these accusations were not made in comparison with Kabbalism, but merely to point out the dangers of Tibetan Buddhism. Good luck with the higher levels of "initiation", Orion.
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm
According to a website whose entire content is "criticism" (demonization) of Buddhism. Pass.
Quote:The concept of Lucifer as a helpful being is common to all Kabbalistic practice.
No it's not.
Quote: The only person making anything up is you. Ironically, in spite of you defending this esoterism, you cannot help but to assess it from the values system and terminology of the lowly "exoeteric" religions. A true western esoterist, such as perhaps what you aspire to be, would be proud of Lucifer's role in man's ascension when asked.
You are making things up again.
Quote:Crowley didn't "invent" anything, but expanded on Kabbalistic practice.
Yes, and David Koresh expanded Christian practice, and Osama Bin Laden Islamic one. Your point ?
Quote:A true western esoterist, or anyone who knows anything about Crowley, knows this. Stop making assertions on subject matter that you have no knowledge of. It's wasting everyone's time. Thelema is no more separate a "cult" from Kabbalah than any other Kabbalstic sect is a separate "cult" from another.
And Christianity is no more separate religion from Judaism. Hey, they even both claim a belief in deity Yahweh. That is more powerful connection than anything you can come up with that is a connection between any esoteric teachings.
Quote:All esoterism is "hocus pocus" to use your loaded terminology. That is, it is based on, as you say, "inner" search or "working" toward "enlightenment". All "work" is considered magic in these systems. In western esoteric theology, "work" and "magic" are generally interchangeable and are parallel concepts.
Ok, that is your take on esotericism, and it's not unique. Many people consider all of that hocus pocus. Some people consider all religion hocus pocus.
Well, i consider all that "magic" hocus pocus too, that being said. Along with all these societies that cultivate a culture of super-massive egosim.
Quote:See above. Also, the myth of Lucifer is a precisely a myth that connects directly to your "inward" practice.
How come you know what's inside anyway ? According to you, seeking inside you will find the devil. How come ?
Quote:Your false dichotomy of so called "outward" Luciferian myth and inward practice does not exist. Again, stop making claims on subject matter that you don't understand.
Again, stop making claims on my understanding bundled with failing to explain anything. On what basis do you conclude at all what is outside and what is inside. Did you peek inside or outside ? Who did you see there ? On what basis do you claim that inner realization leads to pact with the devil ?
Quote:You got me. You've made quite the rhetorical point by ignoring the fact that no one cares about what any sect thinks of themselves
This can be said by anyone, about anything. What is this, an argument or a brawl ?
Quote:If I were a believer in it, unlike you, I would have no issue in describing the system as luciferian or "satanist"
Yes and if i were you behind keyboard, i would write a long post about how great Orion is. This is embarrassing.
Quote:if I were to use the latter terminology of exoetric practioners to describe myself.
Why would anyone allow himself to be described and labelled by the other ? Do you let Muslims label you ? As a polytheist ? Do you say "Yes, i am a polytheist !". Do you say "yes, i am Infidel !". Everyone understands why self-identification is necessary to any identity, be it religious, ethnic, or any other.
Quote:"Satanism", specifically, is a relative concept that describes any enemy of the opposite system of Kabbalah. Do most armies describe themselves using the terminology of the enemy?
Funny thing is, there is nothing in the teachings of Kabbalah that refers to Christianity in any way as an antagonistic religion. And according to Christianity, only thing we can derive as an antagonistic form is "false teachings" and "false prophets" doctrine. However, it is subject to doctrine. Some people can exclude everything that doesn't correspond to their doctrine as "false" and "wicked". Others will be less exclusive.
Quote:I responded, essentially refuting your false dichotomy that one period of scholars, as a broad category, has to be wrong for the other to be correct. I implied that there were a plethora of "early Christian scholars" and therefore citing them all in one category is not legitimate. I stated that some were adopted into legitimacy by "the Church" while others were not. Citing them all together is not a complete or otherwise discernable argument.
But you never pointed any arguments whatsoever on why do you consider anyone to be correct, who do you consider correct and for what reason. Only thing i read is "i think". Yes we know who did The Church adopt, but then, if you take Church history as a reference, you don't answer any questions, you ask more - which Church, which era, which council, which area, which Emperor, which subjects. Who is purer, who is less idolatrous, icons or no icons, trinity or no trinity, ecumenism or no ecumenism, sola fide/sola scriptura or these + tradition.
You said "The Church" as if you pointed to some kind of well of truth, not a loose communion of local churches with different traditions that split up 1)before reaching consensus, 2)quickly after reaching consensus on theological doctrine, 3) and many centuries after that, multiple times.
Quote:Then, in spite of the conversation clearly being about the "early" Church, by virtue of your own statements as well as my responses to those statements, you go on to throw a list of early, mid, and later denominations at me in an attempt to rebut my statement of the Church legitimizing some "scholars" and not others.
Well that is the truth isn't it ? There were from beginning many churches, therefore many schools. And many excluded opinions. But who excluded who ? Did Justinian exclude Monophysites, or did Monophysites exclude him. Who is "The Excluder". Obviously, it depends on whose side do you belong to. This is so obvious and straightforward.
Quote:In one breath, you appeal to the authority of the early scholars and the early church against my argument for later scholars, and in the next you appeal to an argument that de-legitimatizes the "early church" in its choice of scholars because it is one of "thirty mainstream Christianities".
In other words, i acknowledge the fact that Christianity is wide, rich in different, and sometimes conflicting theologies, rich in scholarship, tradition, and inter-factional relations. And hence, i acknowledge that there are multiple, different approaches to esoteric teachings, and not one universal teaching that aligns with your opinion. Ta-da.
Quote:For your information, the "early Church" when it is described as such did and does not include Lutherans or "thirty mainstream Christianities". But you know this.
Does it include celebration of Sol Invictus ? Or not ? Your claim that there was any universality of either teachings or practice in early Christianity is not according to any historical testimony. Particularly when you analyze process of Christianization of Roman Empire that was a disjointed, non-coordinate process that included so many approaches.
Again who is THE authority on exclusion and inclusion ? Who can say "St. Patrick was a joke", or "Slavic Christianization was a joke, as well as their tolerance to pagan wisdom". Who can say "Monophysites split from Church" and not the other way round. You simply point to either yourself or your tradition as an authority which i reject, on a basis of objectivity.
Quote:You are merely attempting to throw anything at the wall in hopes that it will stick, regardless of how it makes sense in the context of our continued conversation.
I'm merely completely throwing away any opinionated statement as an "objective" reference.
Quote:How do you know who "recoiled like venomous snakes" to what doctrine?
I know that Augustine didn't claim that Hermes was a Satanist. That's a mild approach, if not outright tolerance towards Paganism.
Quote:Who ever told you that the requirement for religion was so called "objectivity" or, to give you a better word, "tolerance" for all views?
No, i never said objectivity was requirement for religion. I said non-doctrinary approach is the only method for religious people (both me and you are religious) to be objective when discussing in subject of comparative religion.
Quote:How do you know that these men were not well past the point of considering other views when they became Doctors of the Church and were instead arguing for what they believed to be the "objective" truth in the face of destructive paths and lies?
Really, how do i ? Or, do i ?
Quote:You are assigning a false sense and requirement of modern liberal religious tolerance to men that you didn't know and that were, incidentally, instrumental in the formation of a rigid religious doctrine that changed the world for all time.
Religious tolerance does not necessarily mean tolerance to other concepts. Muslims are not generally tolerant towards Christians, but they are tolerant, and inclusive of Jesus Christ for example.
Quote:In no way, shape, or form did you respond to my statement. If anything, you are making an argument for my assertion that it is not unreasonable for later scholars to coax out a less culturally and politically biased form of Christianity.
But it can go both ways. Both early ones could be correct and wrong, and later ones could be also correct and wrong. And claiming that one form is not politically and more importantly, cultural biased is the most common fallacy that usually comes from ethnocentrism - not seeing your own position as culturally defined.
Many Baptists consider themselves to be culturally neutral, unbiased and universal - all while preaching in a business suit from a shopping mall on subject of how freedoms and hard work are important. Don't you see an irony in it ? They are literally preaching America.
Quote:This is a predictable response to me pointing out that you don't have knowledge on the subject matter.
Yes, predictable response to "you know shi*" talk.
Quote:Yes, the noble savage. Cosmogeny vs. a religion that revolves around man himself, very good. However, your further explanation fails to mete out the true theological significance of these two worldviews - let alone their history. Last, your phrasing is inundated with all sorts of modern biases (ironic, no?) regarding "closed minds" and "brain programming" that I'm used to hearing from another contingent.
They are just words. Relax. Why Cosmogeny. You are just proving that you are incapable of understanding why religion was "real" to ancient man. You simply cannot understand that what we now see as a superstition, to somebody, was a real event.
To us, Slavic concept of Oak tree as a representation of the world was powerful symbolism. No ! To primordial Slavs it was real ! World really was just like an Oak tree, with underworld at its root, and God Perun at it's top. The fact that world didn't physically resemble an oak tree had nothing to do with the "tree" concept appearing as unreal to them. Because that is the whole point, these concepts were considered universal. It was the order of all things. He could, identify with such worldview, recognize it anywhere instantly, live it both on a personal level, where noble and dark influences fought for domination, and on a level of politics, spirit, family. etc.
Malayan savage, when he stabbed a wooden doll, he didn't think he was symbolically stabbing his enemy. To him it was a literal substition for that act ! It bore no "symbolism" in modern, twisted sense. It was a real act, thought to bear real consequences. They even chanted a mantra that described how their act was passed to Archangel Gabriel, so they wouldn't bear responsibility.
Quote:You're confusing what I said. The theology can be known because it is so widespread across different Kabbalistic religions, clubs and sects. The specific passwords and other minutia is difficult to know reliably due to group specific secrecy on those matters. Though, it can also be known perhaps to a degree from some text sources, I would just never claim that I knew the minutia of the myriad of masonic rituals, for instance, without being there myself. I don't assume that all sects use the same rituals or go as far as the next.
You are describing modus operandi of all living religion. Difference is only in level of secrecy or obscurity, but core is the same. Different practices, different rituals, different teachings.
Quote:I disagree that it is "dangerous" given the relative success in being able to date these various civilizations. Most can be positioned on a timeline that shows clear predating.
No, dating is based on material evidence that is
discovered and preserved. Most of it is neither discovered nor preserved. Proto Indo-European religion is neither known in its exact content, nor discovered nor is there any material evidence for it. But we know that it existed an that it is older than say cult of Ra in Egypt.
So "dating" refers do dates of specific historical mention. If somebody mentions something early enough, that is the earliest established date.
Quote:This will mostly be a matter of choice in perspective. I stick with the scholarly view, in general, and should any rational person. Constantly asking "what if" in willful ignorance of evidence is a recipe for simply stating that we can't trust archeological knowledge. I'm a fan of trusting it until an opposing view can be proven.
Exactly. There is a good reason to consider European pantheons very common, and a good reason to consider them having common ancestors. And hence, a good reason
not to be certain that any Pantheon/cult/religion is significantly older than other
Quote:He's not exclusive in the context of the aforementioned link to Tibetan Buddhists engaging in roughly the same thing, or written accounts of O.T.O. members and other "sex magic" practitioners engaging in the consumption of menstrual blood mixed with semen, or the Frankist antinomians, and therefore likely an number of other advanced Kabbalstic "esoteric" practitioners" (all different, but of course).
Reports don't constitute established teachings. There are reports of children molestation by clergy in pretty much all corners of Christian world. Is children molestation Christian teaching ? No.
Quote:And then there is Crowley. I'm no more a fan of dismissing him than I am dismissing any central piece of evidence merely because it is too widely mentioned or taken for granted.
But we can take Crowley as a definitive reference only to his own teachings. Which were highly modified, influenced, and put into practice - by him.
Quote:Last, this thread is (or was) specifically about Satanic rituals in Hollywood. If you follow Roosh's links out from his recent pertinent article, the primary claims are that new up and coming celebrities are forced to engage in homosexual practice as initiation and continued ritual.
Later on in the thread, many other outrageous claims are made.
Quote:Oh, Orion, just stop responding if you need to continuously invent assertions. Sometimes they are a passable excuse for a proposal for an argument, and sometimes they are unquestionably false and thus just a blatant invention. In this case, the situation is the latter.
The "abyss" is not made up by Crowley, but an actual physical part of the Kabbalstic tree where Da'at (invisible on illustrations of most trees, leaving only the abyss) resides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da'at
![[Image: 288px-Ktreewnames.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Ktreewnames.png/288px-Ktreewnames.png)
See where Da'at is? Da'at is usually not depicted and that wide space, where it is, is the "abyss".
Yes, that picture is the only place where i saw the concept of "Abyss" as a part of Kabbalistic tree of life. It is even so imprecisely drawn.
At the same place i can draw a similar line and write down "Chuck Norris walk of death".
Where did you draw that concept of abyss as something that is taught by Kabbalah as a specific line that need be crossed to "Become like God". I only read about it in Thelema.
Quote:A system that does not attain to reach that far, or at least in any of its teaching that anyone outside of itself knows about, is Mormonism. This system, as illustrated by its own cosmological language, attains for only the Veil; crossed after physical death.
I never heard Mormons preach that. That's you again, isn't it.
Quote:I'm only taking your cue.
But more specifically, this was nothing that required "backing up". I was being glib with you because of your silly assertion that Freemasons don't know their own rituals.
You mean my suggestion that they might not know their meaning.
Quote:It is reasonable to assume that they have this practice written down, and that no one is required to provide evidence that they do to you. Nobody cares about every little "what if" that you have, and you certainly shouldn't be using such thoughts as argument. The Freemasons exist and continue to practice, so it is reasonable to assume that they are practicing Freemasonry.
But Freemasons don't practice consumable rituals. They practice initiation. That is the key difference. Initiation process is something that is rather easy to break. This is one of the key motives in research of secret societies. How did many of them come to form, change, and break.
Quote:There is no remotely reasonable evidence to the contrary. How do we know that the Buddhists are actually practicing Buddhism? How do we know that the Native Americans are actually practicing their religion? Have you ever read a better book on Freemasonic myth or ritual by a Mason? Whatever they practice, that's what Freemasonry is. I'd venture that it is true Freemasonry, and if it isn't then it is now. Whatever the case, the argument is silly and absolutely irrelevant.
You went much farther than that. You said they practice everythinm, from Kabbalah to Saturn veneration, and veneration of Saturn hexagon discovered somewhere in this century.
Quote:Please go study and come back:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...bbalah.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
Yes i know what Kabbalah is. One person that crossed the abyss, please mention him.
Quote:Who said that most masons know anything beyond some mythology?
You did.
Quote:How do you know who is in your local lodge?
Stop missinforming people that their membership is ultra secret thing. It is secretive but not completely secret. Grand Masters usually go public about it, and often some members do.
Their only requirement is that they dont disclose membership of others. They can disclaim their own.
Quote:That's simply and blatantly untrue. I'm in one of the premiere cities for the free-masonic tradition in the nation, and cops and union workers are common in the membership. I know this from personal relationships, but I'm still curious as to how you know what a wide swath of your town's membership includes absent of membership yourself or the lodge simply being an undisciplined boy's club (possible); though this latter state of affairs would go against your exclusivity assertion.
Grand Master went public about it, so did their former Grand Master, one lawyer acknowledged it after it somehow leaked out, and the other guy, the CEO of the company, i found out through private connections, etc etc.
Quote:My impression is that lodges vary, but what I also get is that there is no significant initiations in the regular lodges but only for the members (probably very few) who move beyond them. For most members, it's a charitable fraternity that teaches Kabbalistic mythology in the form of rituals. I'm not even sure that most members read a single book on the subject.
That's my impression too.
Quote:"Freemasonry" doesn't imply that higher level initiations occur in those lodges, let alone in front of the common membership. It is possible and common to teach varying levels of Kabbalistic doctrine, and I'm not asserting that I know specifically how far any one sect takes it (beyond the sects for which there is varying degrees of evidence).
Last, I would never assume that taking a guys rod up the cornhole, or drinking cum and menstrual fluid, would lead to a beard and an aura of mysticism. Degeneracy isn't legitimately mystical in my mind. This assertion is a symptom of your spiritual over-valuation of these systems.
What my over-valuation of what systems ? I will never allow you to generalize different things here, deal with it.
Prove that cum drinking is inherent teaching of Kabbalah or Freemasonry, or whatever or GTFO. And if you do be specific. Which ritual, which teaching.
"Yeah all of these teachings" is not a valid, precise or specific designation. I can do the same by putting all middle-eastern religions in one basket but i don't do that.
Quote:I believe that all religion can be placed on a gamut of practice within a framework, with one type of Christianity representing the polar end of that practice. However, I would never frame the method of characterization as having anything to do with Christianity. I look at the structure of the religion, not belief in Christ. Theoretically, another religion (perhaps the original Hebrew religion for instance) could be placed on the same place on the gamut. Similarly, I judge other religions by their philosophy of practice, not whether or not they are Christian.
Yes as long as that scale is not completely fallacious, for example, claiming that all non-Christian rituals are work, and all Christian rituals are not work because we don't think they are significant.
One does not practice insignificant stuff.
Quote:How one values any one of those religions is up to the individual, and I have my individual views as well. I'm always open to a debate (though perhaps not in this thread that is all but dead) on the relative merits of religion on the gamut. I will say that I tend to be a person who believes in pure practice and I tend to discount hybrid systems, no matter what end of the gamut they favor. If I were a Kabbalist, I'd attempt to be the purest Kabbalist that I could be.
Yes, but that would also be subjectivity. Argument about what is pure is the core of religious debates. That's the whole point. Who is the purest Christian ? Who is purest Kabbalist ?
One and same question.
Quote:See, here you are responding to your own post, as quoted, and arguing against it.
It's really too much.
Your original post about Saturday being the sixth day can be found near the bottom of this post:
/thread-53191...pid1266713
You're simply throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick; even if it means arguing against yourself.
No, I'm pointing out the relativity of week cycles, and you are still failing to prove they are not relative, but claim some form of astronomic justification which does not exist.
Quote:Yes, there is an "objective" justification for the seven day week.
Objectively, the seven day week has a Biblical connotation of the seven days of creation; as I before explained. That's why it is used.
So according to you, Biblical justification is objective one, hence people who didn't have 7 day week didn't exist and they lived in some sort of cosmic void. Are you serious ?
Why would an Inca take your opinion on it as objective. To an Inca, there is no week. Non-existence of week is objective to him.
Quote:What you mean to say is that there is not a non-bliblical reason for the seven day week. And, yes, the Bible is an "objective" source for the Hebrew creation mythology. Yet, here we are and arguing about it, especially absent any greater "esoteric" calendar knowledge won't get you very far in internet arguments with strangers or in any other capacity. What, precisely, is the point of this specific argument? Do you have any further knowledge of the calendar?
Exactly. The point is, subjective religious belief cannot pass as an objective truth. And doesn't need to after all. There is no reason to claim that 7 day week is objective for those who don't believe Bible. Like believers in ancinent cults for example. Most of Christian scholars also agree that it doesn't matter which day is the 7th. But there are always stubborn individuals who think they had discovered in 21. century what NASA obviously is oblivious about.
Quote:The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. The Jews celebrate the Sabbath on the seventh day. Thus, Saturday is the Sabbath and the seventh day.
Yes, Jews celebrate Sabbath
on my Saturday. To a man who doesn't observe 7 day week, Jews celebrate Sabbath on the 7th day, after they worked for 6 days, without any day being specific or named. You see, Sabbath can fit into any day week format. You could work 6 days and rest 7th even in a week that has 20 days, by obviously, remembering how many days you worked.
Quote:The days are NOT the same and equal because they are a part of the solar year. Yes, they are made to fit into the format of one week. And?? Yes, it is religiously important. And??
When you wake up from amnesia, even when given all knowledge of calculation and all necessary instruments of calculation, from telescope to satellites, you would not be able to tell is the day you woke up in Saturday or Wednesday.
You could only find out by asking someone who had it written down by observing the human made 7 day week calendar, or by seeing it on a device that remembered it
Quote:but also who cares.
This is what your argument boils down to.
Quote:Again, there's that tenuous grasp of the meaning of "objective" and "subjective". Religious belief is "subjective". Bible mythology is comprised of precise words that most people agree on, at least more than almost any other text in translation, and thus it's mythology is not "subjective". Objectively, the creation myth is comprised of seven days.
Yes, objectively, Creation myth is comprised of 7 days. Not a seven day week. Or any week.
Quote:The Judeo-Christian mythology is a part of Western culture and traditional religious belief, and it has resulted in a seven day cycle that fits into a monthly lunar cycle, a 365 day solar cycle, and helps us to keep track of time and mark yearly milestones. No, you don't have to believe in it but, people who were smarter than you and me though that having a small cycle in-between the lunar and daily cycle would be useful, and if you want to get to work on the correct days then I suggest you adhere to the seven day biblical weekly cycle as your "orientation" regardless of your "subjective belief".
Yes, exactly ! They thought it would be useful ! Not based on astronomical laws ! And yes, in order to orient in a 7 day week, i use human made institution
based on consensus.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 2 users Like Killer Joe's post:
![[Image: cryingbabyincrib.jpg]](http://www.parentnormal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/cryingbabyincrib.jpg)
![[Image: treeveil.jpg]](http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/media/kabalah/treeveil.jpg)
