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 -
danielost

why did satan get kicked out of heaven

875 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Truthseeker007

Dude, I used to be a member of the Temple of Set, I have more than a little insight into who and what Set is.

You're getting your information from a site that calls itself "Hollywood Subliminals?" :geek:

As a neter of darkness and night, Set was the complement to Horus (neter of the Sun and daylight) in predynastic times. So integral was this relationship that the heads of the two neteru were frequently shown on a single body (hieroglyphic name Hrwyfy "He with the Two Faces"). With regard to the annual cycle, Horus was thought to govern the waxing of the Sun from the South Solstice, while Set governed the waning of the Sun from the North Solstice.

The oldest form of the Prince of Darkness, the archetype of Isolate Intelligence, is the Egyptian god Set, whose Priesthood can be traced to predynastic times. Images of Set have been dated to ca.3200 BCE, with astronomically-based estimates of inscriptions dating to 5000 BCE.

In earlier Latin texts the day Saturday was called Saturn Day, in direct reference to Saturn. In earlier ancient Egypt this day is called Sabt, which means Sirius a.k.a. the Dog Star. Plutarch associates Sabt with the Egyptian Anubis (Jackel-headed God).

In later Roman eras Saturn was the great god of agriculture (Green-Man/Horned-God stuff) and was celebrated with the festival Saturnalia and Sol Invictus ("Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun," on December 25) . . . no doubt later the Christians in their genocide of all things Pagan demonized this deity and took control over (while confusing) the date of the 25th as the birth of their Dying & Resurrecting Sun of God.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. Maybe you didn't read all of my post. It was the Egyptian Set, the Egyptian God known as Set, which represented Satan or Saturn; the Persians, instead of calling it Saturn or set, called the planet Satan, and personified the planet as though it were a person the Persians were the first to invent the personification of that which was called Satan. Later, the time being in approximately the mid part of the Christian Age, Western mystics, in studying various religions, latched on to the Persian teachings of Satan and brought into the Christian religion. Prior to that there was no Satan..

Edited by Truthseeker007
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Truthseeker007

The Persians:

The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism is best known for being the origin of doctrines found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, such as: the good versus evil dualism, the concept of Satan and demons, the resurrection of the dead, a final battle between good and evil, the final judgment of the wicked, and monotheism. During the Babylonian exile, Jews were exposed to these ideas and later incorporated into Judaism. Zoroastrianism is also the origin of the concept of the god of light and his angels being locked in a cosmic struggle with a god of darkness and his demons.

Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord) is worshipped by Zoroastrians as the good God. Opposed to the Wise Lord is Ahriman (the evil god). The Earth was created by the Wise Lord to be a battlefield in which to fight the evil god. Human beings have free will to choose between the Lord and the evil god. Those who choose the evil god go to hell for a time. Those who choose the Lord will resurrect at the time of the Last Judgment. (Zoroastrianism)

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research23.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

True.... "we are free to live and choose to grow almost as we desire, but not without being subjected to Universal , Spiritual Law."

I understand perfectly well the relevent aspects of nature and its accompanying physical laws, which we are subject to, but never created for. We were created to rule nature, not be ruled by it. That is exactly what the bible says, there is no grey area where either one of us can be right. What one can do is simply not accept or believe it, but that will be solely up to you.

To rule nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I do not agree... simply because there is no such thing as a universal consciousness, whom we call god. God is not a universal consciousness, he is a self aware being, which created the universe we live in and can interact with it and manipulate it, but is not an actual part of it. You may disagree, but I cannot accept a pnthesitic approach to God, because to do so would violate the most fundamental aspect of being God, his eternal existence, beyond time, space and matter.... in other words beyond the universe, which did in fact hace a beginning.

For your view to work, the universe would itself have to be eternal, which we know is NOT the case.

In view of our souls all belonging to God, it is true, in that he is the author and owner of all life, and when we die, that spark returns to be with God, good or evil, that spark returns to God, becuase the spark does not contain any of the good or evil that was innacted by the person in question or the animal in question whatever it may be.

But a different fate is held for our spirits, the element of self awareness and personality that make us all who we are, and which animals do not have. These are indeed seperate entities from God and will remain so for eternity.

I can honestly say, I do not know all things pertaining to the mystery of the universe , and the source of it all , no one can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

To rule nature?

Exactly, that was the purpose of mankinds creation, people seem to forget this stuff, but that is exactly what the bible says...

Genesis1:28

28And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Psalm 8:4-5

You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.

The phrase usually translated as “a little lower than the angels” is actually “a little lower than the elohim in the Hebrew text.

What this means, is that we were created only a little lower than the gods... and we had powers that compared to theirs. That is what we lost with the fall.

Instead of an infusion of the physical and the divine, we became merely physical, our divine aspect being lost, divine does not mean immortal by the way, we only had a conditional immortality, not an effective immortality, our conditional immortality was directly connected to access to the Tree of Life, which we lost, when we were expelled from Eden, but which will be given back to humanity on a permanent basis when we get back that which was lost to us, when Jesus returns.

So Yes Rule nature.... as Jesus commanded the storm to cease and many other things that we could do naturally once in the long distant past.

I can honestly say, I do not know all things pertaining to the mystery of the universe , and the source of it all , no one can.

That is why trust in the word of God, he knows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Etu Malku

AE never saw Set as we see "Satan". Yes I agree that Abrahamic faiths have taken and distorted gods from other religions and created this "Satan". But AE themsleves, as with Greeks and Romans had no "Satan", no equivalent at all. To take Set and make him the "Prince of Darkeness" an anti-God, would, I suspect, shock the ancients. Calling Set "Satan" is a modern conceit based on Abrahamic propaganda and not the reality of what AE themselves believed.

"AE never saw Set as we see "Satan"" That would depend on how you see the Prince of Darkness, which is who I associated Set with. even with Satan, groups of people understand him differently than each other, a Satanic Order is not going to view Satan the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. Maybe you didn't read all of my post. It was the Egyptian Set, the Egyptian God known as Set, which represented Satan or Saturn; the Persians, instead of calling it Saturn or set, called the planet Satan, and personified the planet as though it were a person the Persians were the first to invent the personification of that which was called Satan. Later, the time being in approximately the mid part of the Christian Age, Western mystics, in studying various religions, latched on to the Persian teachings of Satan and brought into the Christian religion. Prior to that there was no Satan..

I understood perfectly well what you posted, it is you who doesn't understand what I am saying. Your information, as I researched was from some stupid site called "Hollywood Subliminals" . . . my information comes from scholarly research and academically sound texts.

The Persians:

The ancient religion of Zoroastrianism is best known for being the origin of doctrines found in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, such as: the good versus evil dualism, the concept of Satan and demons, the resurrection of the dead, a final battle between good and evil, the final judgment of the wicked, and monotheism. During the Babylonian exile, Jews were exposed to these ideas and later incorporated into Judaism. Zoroastrianism is also the origin of the concept of the god of light and his angels being locked in a cosmic struggle with a god of darkness and his demons.

Ahura Mazda (the Wise Lord) is worshipped by Zoroastrians as the good God. Opposed to the Wise Lord is Ahriman (the evil god). The Earth was created by the Wise Lord to be a battlefield in which to fight the evil god. Human beings have free will to choose between the Lord and the evil god. Those who choose the evil god go to hell for a time. Those who choose the Lord will resurrect at the time of the Last Judgment. (Zoroastrianism)

http://www.near-deat...research23.html

Where I have nothing against Mr. Lewis Loflin, from where you drew this information from, I would have to question someone's scholarship who doesn't have any degree from college or a University, though he does have honors from Northeast State Technical Community College in Computer Information Technology. Mr. Loflin sounds like an intelligent man from what I have read, but if you (or anyone else) wishes to really get to the bottom of research, you need to go to the top of researchers.

The Torah dates from 1500 BC- Abraham was 1800 BC. Zoroastrianism is from between 800 and 600 BC, and the oldest references to it are only from around 250 BC. Judaism is much older than Zoroastrianism. Early Judaism was not a dual-based religion as was Zoroastrian, Christian, and Muslim.

Older than all of these is the original monotheistic cult of the Aten designed by Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Good vs Evil, and the days of end can be traced to ancient Sumerian stories long before anything Judeo-Christian-Muslim.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
markprice

Not exactly. Maybe these quotes will give you a better idea:

[a bunch of quotes]

See more:

"Evil does not exist - only stupidity"

Seems like you and your quotees all strive to deny a fundamental reality: evil, like nature and many other things(entity), does not depend on the human mind for its existence. Evil is not even a natural part of this world. An alien corrupting force more powerful than nature or humanity hardly relies on opinion for its existence. You can and did describe it accurately with the vibration concept but it is in no way limited by that very limited concept. I don't expect anyone to grasp this without individual experience. You don't learn this in school because it is unteachable. Once you have learned you will see the truth easily behind all forms of teaching which allude to it in one way or another.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

To rule nature?

Yes, to ruke nature. God gave us dominum(spch) over the beast, to do as we wished to do to them. I think this was taken down a notc. or two after the flood. When god put the fear of man into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LostSouls7

So let me get this straight..

Set is Satan...

but satan is just a personification of the planet Saturn...

they called the planet Satan....

So if Satan and Set.. are a planet.. then he's STILL IN heaven!

So all the Summerian Texts talk about "the end" etc

and a lot of stuff Christians talk about...

And then Satan was stolen from the God Set..

which is only a planet...but

here the Christians turned him into a demon monster with horns.

This is interesting...

I think this is info organized religions don't want people to read about.

Then they would lose a lot of money control over people...

something to ponder

Edited by LostSouls7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truthseeker007

"AE never saw Set as we see "Satan"" That would depend on how you see the Prince of Darkness, which is who I associated Set with. even with Satan, groups of people understand him differently than each other, a Satanic Order is not going to view Satan the same as the Roman Catholic Church.

I understood perfectly well what you posted, it is you who doesn't understand what I am saying. Your information, as I researched was from some stupid site called "Hollywood Subliminals" . . . my information comes from scholarly research and academically sound texts.

Where I have nothing against Mr. Lewis Loflin, from where you drew this information from, I would have to question someone's scholarship who doesn't have any degree from college or a University, though he does have honors from Northeast State Technical Community College in Computer Information Technology. Mr. Loflin sounds like an intelligent man from what I have read, but if you (or anyone else) wishes to really get to the bottom of research, you need to go to the top of researchers.

The Torah dates from 1500 BC- Abraham was 1800 BC. Zoroastrianism is from between 800 and 600 BC, and the oldest references to it are only from around 250 BC. Judaism is much older than Zoroastrianism. Early Judaism was not a dual-based religion as was Zoroastrian, Christian, and Muslim.

Older than all of these is the original monotheistic cult of the Aten designed by Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Good vs Evil, and the days of end can be traced to ancient Sumerian stories long before anything Judeo-Christian-Muslim.

Just because something comes from "scholarly research and academically sound texts" does not make it true. You don't need a degree from

some stupid college to do research. College is just a scam anyway.

No one can say definitively one way or the other. Historians cannot "find" Moses, the alleged founder of Judaism, so much like Hinduism it's difficult to date since it's generally seen as a religion that slowly emerged on its own.

Zoroaster, who has been deemed a historical figure, cannot be pinpointed to a given century, let alone a millennium. Some say he was as early as 2000 BCE some say as late as 100 CE. Until Zoroaster's era can be decided and/or the historicity of Moses be found, the question is rather unanswerable.

"Whether Zoroastrianism is older than Judaism is uncertain. Nevertheless, it has had an undeniable impact upon Western religious belief. Examples include a tangible, active force for evil (Angra Mainyu, or Satan); a judgment of souls after death; and afterlives in heaven and hell. None of these ideas are present in original Judaism. It is possible that the Jews heard them at the end of the Babylonian Exile, under the Persian emperor Cyrus.

Zoroastrianism and Judaism:

Zoroastrianism and Judaism have ties that were knotted many centuries before Christianity appeared on the religious stage of this planet. The Zoroastrian way of life has markedly influenced the early Hebrew religious fabric. Just how did this come about both at the social and doctrinal level is a subject worth exploring and understanding.

Read more: http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Zoroastrim/zoroastrianism_and_judaism.htm#ixzz2a8CNt9tl

Edited by Truthseeker007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LostSouls7

Moses was A Wizard... huge beard, robs and magic staff.

Only thing was missing was the wizard hat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arpee

So let me get this straight..

Set is Satan...

but satan is just a personification of the planet Saturn...

they called the planet Satan....

It is true that The Ancient Egyptians associated their gods with certain stars in the sky, but The Gods aren't stars themselves.

For example, The Goddess Isis was associated with Sirius, but the word for Sirius was "Sopdet".

I think this is info organized religions don't want people to read about.

Then they would lose a lot of money control over people...

Exactly. They don't want people to know the roots of Satan because it is not as scary as they make it to be. They made Satan "scary" by preaching that Satan is a deceiving being that got thrown out of "heaven" and now wants everyone to burn in hell. People can believe what they want, but that story of Satan sure did change so much over time.

Edited by Arpee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Big Bad Voodoo

Sadly we will never know. Because different sources mentioned all kind of different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tutankhaten-pasheri

"AE never saw Set as we see "Satan"" That would depend on how you see the Prince of Darkness, which is who I associated Set with. even with Satan, groups of people understand him differently than each other, a Satanic Order is not going to view Satan the same as the Roman Catholic

To me it is not a matter of how I or Catholic Church see Satan. I do not believe in such a creature, no matter if they are "evil", or as you see them. I also do not believe in a self creating, creator "God". There are large elements of what you have written that I agree with as concerns the destruction and deliberate distortion of the old paganism by the Christian Church. You see, as many of us do, that the modern Satan is hammered together from various old gods, I think Baal and Pan being foremost, yet with Set I think you do no different to the Christian destroyers. My point is that you have taken Set and overlayed your ideas on him. There is nothing in AE history that indicates they thought of Set in the terms that you do, and nothing until after the pharoanic period had ended to suggest that they saw Set as "The evil one". Edfu, which contains the scenes of Horus killing Set, is not typical of AE thought as it was constructed in a very late period, when Egyptians were ruled by foreigners. I do see and understand what you say about Satan, but I disagree that you overlay modern ideas on an AE god when there is no evidence that AE saw him in such terms. You need to look elsewhere, or create your own "God", for to attribute your ideas of Satan onto Set means that Ra, Osiris and Horus must also be included as they are so intertwined. If Set is Satan, then so must be Horus, despite what we see at Edfu, and Horus is certainly not an element of any Satan.

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Etu Malku

To me it is not a matter of how I or Catholic Church see Satan. I do not believe in such a creature, no matter if they are "evil", or as you see them. I also do not believe in a self creating, creator "God". There are large elements of what you have written that I agree with as concerns the destruction and deliberate distortion of the old paganism by the Christian Church. You see, as many of us do, that the modern Satan is hammered together from various old gods, I think Baal and Pan being foremost, yet with Set I think you do no different to the Christian destroyers. My point is that you have taken Set and overlayed your ideas on him. There is nothing in AE history that indicates they thought of Set in the terms that you do, and nothing until after the pharoanic period had ended to suggest that they saw Set as "The evil one". Edfu, which contains the scenes of Horus killing Set, is not typical of AE thought as it was constructed in a very late period, when Egyptians were ruled by foreigners. I do see and understand what you say about Satan, but I disagree that you overlay modern ideas on an AE god when there is no evidence that AE saw him in such terms. You need to look elsewhere, or create your own "God", for to attribute your ideas of Satan onto Set means that Ra, Osiris and Horus must also be included as they are so intertwined. If Set is Satan, then so must be Horus, despite what we see at Edfu, and Horus is certainly not an element of any Satan.

Oh Ye of Little Faith . . . :devil:

Images of Set have been dated to ca.3200 BCE, with astronomically‑based estimates of inscriptions dating to 5000 BCE. Set’s original name meant “cutter” or “Isolator” ‑ he is the personification of the process of initiation‑ of becoming more and more your own self.

The Egyptian god Set went through periods of immense popularity alternating with total denunciation. Set in the predynastic and archaic periods was an essentially positive deity introduced from the east as a god of the “extension” of “existence“. He is therefore god of “expanding” borders and radical changes of being, particularly birth, circumcision/ initiation, death in battle, and rebirth through the Opening of the Mouth ceremony. Popular among easterners, his first cult site being Pelusium in the eastern Delta, Set’s worship quickly spread to the “border” areas, where he was identified with local gods of initiation.

Set’s original worship as a nighttime/polar deity suffered a decline with the rise of solar worship in the IVth dynasty. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of the last early monuments connected with the idea of the Setian afterlife as well as a solar one. The Great Pyramid had a special air shaft for the king’s “akh” to fly to the stars of Set. During the Middle Kingdom, Set was reduced to a symbol of Upper Egypt. It was during the time that Set was first blamed for the murder of Osirisa, a Semitic corn god who had arrived in the 3rd dynasty. The essential function of Set, was expanding the borders of existence and the returning that Chaotic energy to the center, this is the darkness that binds together the Egyptian light. The murder of Osiris is the destruction of the fetters of society, of accepting self‑change and civilization over the forces that lead stagnation.

The foreigners who ruled Egypt who were known as the Hyksos, they identified themselves with Set and established their capital at the ancient Setian site, Avaris. By the 19th and 20th dynasties a family of Setian priests from Tanis became the pharaonic line. During this time of expanding, borders, Set was extraordinarily popular, as can be seen from pharaohs’ names such as Seti (Set’s man) and Setnakt (Set is mighty). Two important Setian text were produced: First, the “Tale of Two Brothers” tells how Set (identified with the god Batta, whos name means “Lord of this world”) undergoes a series of metamorphoses (Kheperu) that changed him from a farm hand to a star in the constellation of the Thigh.

Soon afterwards Egypt entered a long decline, Set became a tremendously unpopular deity. His worship ceased everywhere except the oases and the city of Thebes, where his cult was absorbed into the cult of Montu, the warlord of Thebes. The negative and destructive aspects of isolation and destruction were emphasized and as Egypt turned more to an idealized past, Set‑hen, the god of the “Void” called the future, came to resemble the Christian Satan. (Set‑hen = Satan)

The Left Hand Path is a quest to become an immortal, potent, and powerful Essence. Set's other enemy is the demon of mindless chaos, Apep. Set is said to slay this creature every night just before dawn. This symbolizes overcoming self doubt and delusion, of acting at the times of greatest despair, or not being lulled to sleep by the powerful self‑hypnotizing engines of mankind.

Edited by Etu Malku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tutankhaten-pasheri

Set is Egyptian from the beginning. He was originally a god of the desert and represented confusion and chaos, rather like Pan. In this aspect, that of chaos, then yes, there is an element of the Satan you see, and also the Satan of Christianity. It would be wrong of me to say that Set has none of the attributes of Satan, for that is why he has beeen hijacked into that mythical creature along with other gods. You confuse these foreigners I mention. It is not the Hyksos, as Edfu was built in the Ptolemaic period, so the foreigners were Greeks. The Hyksos were expelled from Egypt more than a thousand years earlier. They had identified Set with Baal, and it is likely that this identification with foreign rule, despite popularity with the Ramessids some hundreds of years later, led to his complete fall and thus the images we see at Edfu in a time of foreign occupation. I believe any "bad" elements of Set are from this later identification with foreigners, not from his original personality and purpose, to stand in the bow of the solar barque and repel Apophis. The story of the Contendings of Set and Horus, are, to me, an analogy of early Egyptian pre-history. If the differences between Set and Horus were so great, then why would Set have been, for a time, seen as equal to Horus, why the statue of Ramesses III being crowned by Horus and Set as equals..

Your contention that a family of "Setian" priests from Tanis came to power is wrong. I presume you mean the Ramessids. They certainly came from the Delta, but not Tanis, as that city was not built until Ramesses III became Pharaoh. The first Ramessid, Ramesses I was not a priest, he was a general, an old comrade of Horemheb. There is much more, but time is against me. In this affair an element is missed out, mostly because it is not understood. It is the second shrine of Tutankhamun dealing with the afterlife. It is not part of the Am-Duat as anybody understands it. It needs understanding before any modern person can say what AE really believes regards death and what may come after, and perhaps even the nature of gods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Etu Malku

Set is Egyptian from the beginning. He was originally a god of the desert and represented confusion and chaos, rather like Pan. In this aspect, that of chaos, then yes, there is an element of the Satan you see, and also the Satan of Christianity. It would be wrong of me to say that Set has none of the attributes of Satan, for that is why he has beeen hijacked into that mythical creature along with other gods. You confuse these foreigners I mention. It is not the Hyksos, as Edfu was built in the Ptolemaic period, so the foreigners were Greeks. The Hyksos were expelled from Egypt more than a thousand years earlier. They had identified Set with Baal, and it is likely that this identification with foreign rule, despite popularity with the Ramessids some hundreds of years later, led to his complete fall and thus the images we see at Edfu in a time of foreign occupation. I believe any "bad" elements of Set are from this later identification with foreigners, not from his original personality and purpose, to stand in the bow of the solar barque and repel Apophis. The story of the Contendings of Set and Horus, are, to me, an analogy of early Egyptian pre-history. If the differences between Set and Horus were so great, then why would Set have been, for a time, seen as equal to Horus, why the statue of Ramesses III being crowned by Horus and Set as equals..

Your contention that a family of "Setian" priests from Tanis came to power is wrong. I presume you mean the Ramessids. They certainly came from the Delta, but not Tanis, as that city was not built until Ramesses III became Pharaoh. The first Ramessid, Ramesses I was not a priest, he was a general, an old comrade of Horemheb. There is much more, but time is against me. In this affair an element is missed out, mostly because it is not understood. It is the second shrine of Tutankhamun dealing with the afterlife. It is not part of the Am-Duat as anybody understands it. It needs understanding before any modern person can say what AE really believes regards death and what may come after, and perhaps even the nature of gods.

My understanding is that unlike most rulers, when Alexander the Great took over a land he always allowed the original religions to remain, there is much history behind the cohabiting of Egyptian and Greek culture, I don't think Greece demonized any Egyptian deity.

Ramsesses IX was the last king to be buried in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes. His successors moved to a new city at Tanis in the Delta, which became the country's capital and main royal residence. Sety I., the second king of the nineteenth dynasty, the shepherd kings, derives his name from the god Seta sign of the high honor in which he was held among the shepherd kings; and indeed we are informed that they regarded Set, or Sutech, as the only true God, the sole deity, who alone was worthy of receiving divine honors.

I am certainly not an Egyptologist or historian, Egyptian history can be almost as confusing as Egyptian religion.

That all said, the point of the matter here is that the original Set / Har War personified principles that those of us on the Left Hand Path can relate to because we do not see the Prince of Darkness as the evil Beast 666 come to take your soul and destroy mankind or the archenemy of the Abrahamic god.

The monotheism of the Hyksos is probably the root of Moses's religion, what food for thought lies in the fact that the same awe of a fearful power that confronts us in life, changes among the Egyptians into the demonology of Set, and among the Israelites into the cult of Yahveh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tutankhaten-pasheri

what food for thought lies in the fact that the same awe of a fearful power that confronts us in life, changes among the Egyptians into the demonology of Set, and among the Israelites into the cult of Yahveh!

This I agree with completely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Yes, to ruke nature. God gave us dominum(spch) over the beast, to do as we wished to do to them. I think this was taken down a notc. or two after the flood. When god put the fear of man into them.

.I see it differently than you do. I do not ,in no way see nature as something we are to rule over.I do not understand anyone that claims that the source from the beginning told people to do whatever they wish to do with nature, to rule it. We are all nature,all is nature, and we are to live in harmony with nature...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Etu Malku

.I see it differently than you do. I do not ,in no way see nature as something we are to rule over.I do not understand anyone that claims that the source from the beginning told people to do whatever they wish to do with nature, to rule it. We are all nature,all is nature, and we are to live in harmony with nature...

Well . . . this I do agree with you on and if I may add . . . If only Mankind 'could' be as fierce as Nature! Nature is the 'Cause & Affect' of the Laws of the Universe - Physics as we know it . . . most people attach an external God to this, and this is incorrect.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Hi Etu Malku

Yes, we both agree on that. I've come across something , something new to me. I was watching something where the Vatican actually sang in Latin an invocation to Lucifer.They actually sang of him, calling him the father of Christ.

Afterwards I came across this man named Zen Garcia who has compiled numerous amounts of literature that are old which clearly suggest that Lucifer was actually known as the father of all , the one who impregnated Adams wife in the beginning.

Other literature this man has found reads the same in context to Mary, as Joesph suggests that the same has happened to him that has happened to Adam , both wives were virgins according to the old text.

Whether or not these stories are true or are just myths the fact is that they existed but were totally taken out from the biblical texts. What puzzles me is that the catholic church acknowledged it openly during Easter Vigil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikko-kun

Well . . . this I do agree with you on and if I may add . . . If only Mankind 'could' be as fierce as Nature! Nature is the 'Cause & Affect' of the Laws of the Universe - Physics as we know it . . . most people attach an external God to this, and this is incorrect.

Well, if you'd be asked are bacterias inside us external from us or parts of us, I'd be in a bit of a loss, because they're basically regularly habiting us. You'd think it might be more like that? Because I've heard from very different sources about this god that's everywhere, but we still seem to be entities of our own in a sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Well . . . this I do agree with you on and if I may add . . . If only Mankind 'could' be as fierce as Nature! Nature is the 'Cause & Affect' of the Laws of the Universe - Physics as we know it . . . most people attach an external God to this, and this is incorrect.

But we are completely of Natural Nature .I see our participation in cause and effect all of the time , as thoughts and emotions have karma attachments , there's no escaping karma, and i do think all nature is effected in someway over time by what has been taken for granted and misunderstood for far too long.

I understand nature as a mystery , something more than just material to sight . I do understand and relate a spirit within all of nature , within the entire the universe, unseen in ways ,but able to relate and be known, but will always a mystery..I don't understand the entirety of it's being, other than it is and that all nature are all connected because of it.

As to how fierce of an impact we can achieve, I do think that if we can achieve the very best , but we have to come to the realization of something....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Sadly we will never know. Because different sources mentioned all kind of different things.

This is true but they all seem to come from an earlier religion. The hebrew bible/old testiment(genises) seems to point to n earlier religion which judiusm came from. At least abraham was only worshipping one god before he moved to the wilderness. The only one who still worshipped one god. It also talks about the society before the flood in which many humans protraded themselves to be a god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ellapenella

This is true but they all seem to come from an earlier religion. The hebrew bible/old testiment(genises) seems to point to n earlier religion which judiusm came from. At least abraham was only worshipping one god before he moved to the wilderness. The only one who still worshipped one god. It also talks about the society before the flood in which many humans protraded themselves to be a god.

People have been conformed ,as always by means of force, and subjected to live in accordance to the law of a system created by people under the guise of religious righteous order to control and rule over people.When will people finally wake up !

You talk of Abraham as though he was not pagan at all. The man worshiped the moon, remember? What do you think he was doing when he was going to sacrifice his son on that alter? Do you really believe that it was a test from the source by which all nature exists ? I don't believe that story at all, at least not by the way Christians expect you to believe it, or by the way they were taught to believe in it..

Edited by Reann

Share this post


Link to post
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.