Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Enough objective proof for you?


Will Due

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't really think of her as a theistic satanist. She related to the term Lucifer, noting that Jesus is said to have referred to himself as the Morning Star. 

Her beliefs seem similar to the gnostics. 

She was  certainly " a satanist"   (from a reading of the secret doctrine)   but saw satan's role as productive, necessary, and at the behest of "god"  whereas most christians see satan as the enemy of god, a deceiver and an opponent of good. She saw him as lucifer, bringer of light,  (his original role as most powerful, loved, and honoured of all the angels) whereas christians judge him by what he became when he challenged gods authority to rule  ie  leading a rebellion of one third of the angels against god's rule of heaven and earth, and seeking to take over god's role as leader of the heavens    

I think you are right. It is a bit like  a bit like the gnostics. She seems to have believed that lucifer and satan were actually the holy spirit of god  She saw satan as doing the right thing by opening the eyes of humanity  And again this is close to the gnostic concept of a demi urge  The following are quotes from her book 

“Satan is the ‘Anointed Cherub’ of old. . . . God created Satan, the fairest and wisest of all his creatures in this part of His Universe, and made him Prince of the World, and of the Power of the Air…Thus, Satan being perfect in wisdom, and beauty, His vast empire is our earth, if not the whole solar system. . . . Certainly no other angelic power of greater or even equal dignity has been revealed to us.” (p. 229)

“Stand in awe of him, and sin not; speak his name with trembling . . . . For Satan is the magistrate of the justice of God (Karma); he beareth the balance and the sword . . . . For to him are committed Weight and Measure and Number.” and “It is “Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god,” and this without any allusive metaphor to its wickedness and depravity. For he is one with the Logos, “the first son, eldest of the gods,” (p.234)

The glory of Satan is the shadow of the Lord”: God in the manifested world; “the throne of Satan is the footstool of Adonai” — that footstool being the whole Kosmos. (VidePart II., “Is Pleroma Satans Lair?”) When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God; it anathematizes God made manifest in matter or in the objective; it maledicts God, or the ever-incomprehensible Wisdom, revealing itself as Light and Shadow, good and evil in nature, in the only manner comprehensible to the limited intellect of Man.  This is the true philosophical and metaphysical interpretation of Samael, or Satan” (p.235)

“But Satan will now be shown, in the teaching of the Secret Doctrine, allegorized as Good, and Sacrifice, a God of Wisdom, under different names.” (p.237)

“In this case it is but natural — even from the dead letter standpoint — to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light,” bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper: “in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil” — can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour.” (p.243)

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't really think of her as a theistic satanist. She related to the term Lucifer, noting that Jesus is said to have referred to himself as the Morning Star. 

Also interesting are teachings of Rudolf Steiner's Antroposophy. He distinguishes the spirit of evil into two entities - Lucifer and Ahriman. Was a member of Theosophical Society but later formed his own Antroposophy.

 

------------------------------

The anthroposophical view is that good is found in the balance between two polar influences on world and human evolution. These are often described through their mythological embodiments as spiritual adversaries which endeavour to tempt and corrupt humanity, Lucifer and his counterpart Ahriman. These have both positive and negative aspects. Lucifer is the light spirit, which "plays on human pride and offers the delusion of divinity", but also motivates creativity and spirituality; Ahriman is the dark spirit that tempts human beings to "...deny [their] link with divinity and to live entirely on the material plane", but that also stimulates intellectuality and technology. Both figures exert a negative effect on humanity when their influence becomes misplaced or one-sided, yet their influences are necessary for human freedom to unfold.[1][4]

Each human being has the task to find a balance between these opposing influences, and each is helped in this task by the mediation of the Representative of Humanity, also known as the Christ being, a spiritual entity who stands between and harmonizes the two extremes

Edited by Mr. Argon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

She was  certainly " a satanist"   (from a reading of the secret doctrine)   but saw satan's role as productive, necessary and at the behest of god whereas most christians see satan as the enemy of god, a deceiver and an opponent of good. She saw him as lucifer, bringer of light,  (his original role as most powerful, loved, and honoured of all the angels) whereas christians judge him by what he became when he challenged gods authority to rule  ie  leading a rebellion of one third of the angels against god's rule of heaven and earth, and seeking to take over god's role as leader of the heavens    

If you read the Theosophists' own take on her (and I think they would probably know her better), they don't see it that way. 

She didn't equate Lucifer and Satan, either. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwie_tKh3ZLXAhVizoMKHRSjDcQQFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fblavatskytheosophy.com%2Flucifer-the-lightbringer%2F&usg=AOvVaw2H4_jVC3_SU9dDpi5zR4AP

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ChaosRose said:

If you read the Theosophists' own take on her (and I think they would probably know her better), they don't see it that way. 

I agree and i don't think theosophy is seen in a negative light today, except by some fundamentalists. She had a sort of gnostic take on the nature of satan I don't tend to interpret it that way but i've already explained my take  on the duality of good and evil within humanity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Also interesting are teachings of Rudolf Steiner's Antroposophy. He distinguishes the spirit of evil into two entities - Lucifer and Ahriman. Was a member of Theosophical Society but later formed his own Antroposophy.

 

------------------------------

The anthroposophical view is that good is found in the balance between two polar influences on world and human evolution. These are often described through their mythological embodiments as spiritual adversaries which endeavour to tempt and corrupt humanity, Lucifer and his counterpart Ahriman. These have both positive and negative aspects. Lucifer is the light spirit, which "plays on human pride and offers the delusion of divinity", but also motivates creativity and spirituality; Ahriman is the dark spirit that tempts human beings to "...deny [their] link with divinity and to live entirely on the material plane", but that also stimulates intellectuality and technology. Both figures exert a negative effect on humanity when their influence becomes misplaced or one-sided, yet their influences are necessary for human freedom to unfold.[1][4]

Each human being has the task to find a balance between these opposing influences, and each is helped in this task by the mediation of the Representative of Humanity, also known as the Christ being, a spiritual entity who stands between and harmonizes the two extremes


Everyone seems to have juggled the players and roles around. 

They all seem to agree, though, that the spiritual is above the material. 

And they all agree that there is an aspect that attempts to come between us and the spiritual. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:


Everyone seems to have juggled the players and roles around. 

They all seem to agree, though, that the spiritual is above the material. 

And they all agree that there is an aspect that attempts to come between us and the spiritual.

Aiming at the points in which they agreed. I like that. But they also agreed on something quite controversial;

They agreed that evil is necessary but a tempting factor in human evolution, which may lead humanity astray, but which can also make humanity Divine.

Edited by Mr. Argon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

Aiming at the points in which they agreed. I like that. But they also agreed on something quite controversial;

They agreed that evil is necessary but a tempting factor in human evolution, which may lead humanity astray, but which can also make him Divine.

Did they really agree on that?

I think a lot of them believed the world to be a prison built for the sole purpose of tricking us into forgetting our divine nature.

Built by a lesser entity (entities)?

Kind of like a cosmic ant farm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard Stephan Hoeller pontificate on the merits of capitalism, though. 

The idea is that people have the opportunity to amass as much crap as possible, so that they can learn it still won't fill that void. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

The idea is that people have the opportunity to amass as much crap as possible, so that they can learn it still won't fill that void.

The prevalent spirit of modern capitalism and scientism is an Ahrimanic aspect of evil. It makes humanity dry and prosaic, chained more and more on material plane. So it goes along well with what you just said.

Orwel's "1984" comes to mind.

And also Huxley's "Brave New World."

Edited by Mr. Argon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

The prevalent spirit of modern capitalism and scientism is an Ahrimanic aspect of evil. It makes humanity dry and prosaic, chained more and more on material plane. So it goes along well with what you just said.

The problem with letting everything run amok is that in the short term, it does still create more suffering. 

And I don't see many people waking up to the fact that another yacht isn't going to make them feel better. 

Ah well. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Stephan Hoeller is still too optimistic about the human ability to learn.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

And I don't see many people waking up to the fact that another yacht isn't going to make them feel better.

Perhaps a new fashion model will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

Perhaps a new fashion model will.

Lol. Plenty of distractions to try out, I guess. 

If one is so inclined. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I think a lot of them believed the world to be a prison built for the sole purpose of tricking us into forgetting our divine nature.

I think it is more of a school. Learning lessons in each incarnation. Extending consciousness.

 

Edited by Mr. Argon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Superbowl appearance with some very impressive bending laws of nature demonstrations would be swaying evidence. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Not nearly identical, but exactly like every other human that has ever lived and will ever live.

So he had parents? It sounds like you're saying a human created the universe.

 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

Well at least you wouldn't be able to deny the presence of this God-man if you were there.

If you desired it enough, if you were there back then, you could even approach him and ask him a question right? And look into his face to see if he was genuine or not, and that's objective. 

I'm assuming he's somehow demonstrated he created the universe, rather than simply claiming he did it.

 

4 hours ago, Will Due said:

I'm afraid I wasn't direct enough in my original post. I'm pretty sure everyone knows who the person is that I referred to in the first part of the OP. He could not reveal more than he did because two thousand years ago the consciousness of history and true scientific knowledge was a lot more limited than it is now, not to mention, religiously speaking, it was extremely dangerous to say too much. After all, the priests of those days had the power to have you killed as a blasphemer on a whim.

Ok, I see. I assumed you were speaking of a hypothetical God-man who was based off Jesus, but not an actual mortal human. The idea of a God who is afraid of people is silly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. Argon said:

I think it is more of a school. Learning lessons in each incarnation. Extending consciousness.

 

We should be surrounded by the enlightened, then. 

I look around and it's starting to resemble the movie Idiocracy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

The idea of a God who is afraid of people is silly.

Again, being aware of history is always a problem. This was the case two thousand years ago, this is the case today, and this factor is the governor of how much can be revealed at any point in time. 

Saying too much up until perhaps a couple of hundred years ago would get you killed, burned at the stake as a heretic or whatever. We take for granted our religious liberty today to speak our minds as we wish, but that was not the case before.

Jesus was not afraid of man, but the priests were afraid of him.

Priests are still afraid of him, that's why priests still busy themselves with the absurdity of preaching that you need to fear God.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I look around and it's starting to resemble the movie Idiocracy.

Haven't watched the movie, but I like the title - think that it has a connection with a mentality of most humanity at the present state of evolution, unfortunately. But it is evolution after all, and man has a free will.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

Haven't watched the movie, but I like the title - think that it has a connection with a mentality of most humanity at the present state of evolution, unfortunately. But it is evolution after all, and man has a free will.

Is it evolution? 

It looks like devolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Is it evolution? 

It looks like devolution. 

I think it is the case of a spiral evolving process. The man unfortunately learns through pain. When he descends into error the Cosmos itself brings things into Balance. In other words Karma faces a man with consequencies of his mistakes. And by the way I am not speaking about this from some high place and preaching like someone who is free of mistakes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I thought you might pray to be rid of the archons, but why for them? 

There is a possibility, however slight that may be, for some of the archons to be redeemed.

 

42. Can the Demiurge and his Archons be redeemed?

This possibility is alluded to in some Gnostic writings. At least one such being, the brother of the Demiurge, has turned to the good and been redeemed. His name is SABAOTH and also ABRAXAS. Cognate theories of universal redemption, even of demons and of the Demiurge, were articulated in early times by Origen (APOKATASTASIS PANTHON) and in our days by C. G. Jung (in Answer to Job).

LINK

 

 

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

There is a possibility, however slight that may be, for some of the archons to be redeemed.

I read some material on Archons, and that material suggests that Archons are beings without free will, and thus without any capacity for creation, only imitation. So I imagine them in a vision of, let's say something like Borg, or Hive kind of beings. Can't really grasp the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Will Due said:

[...] and if instead of these revelations being revealed by a flesh and blood person, were revealed instead by the words printed in a book . . .

Would that be enough objective proof for you?

Well, it depends. Who gets the book's royalties? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Parsec said:

Well, it depends. Who gets the book's royalties? 

Archons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.