Islam is one of the last bastions of genuine God worship, the last major obstacle to a Secular World Religion. The attack on Iraq and the rush to attack Iran are steps in the plan to destroy Islam, monopolize world resources and enslave humanity.In a NY Times essay, Professor of Philosophy Joseph Lawrence observed that in Iraq:
"America is at war not with international terrorism, not with Iraqi insurgents, not with Islamic fundamentalism - but with Islam itself, a world religion rendered problematic by its failure to honor the distinction between church and state, a failure that makes reconciliation with the secular order of modernity impossible... While Bush has consistently maintained that the war on terror is not a war on Islam, it is important to know that many of his most vocal supporters disagree. Central to their viewpoint is the idea that, because Islam never had a "reformation" comparable to the emergence of Protestant Christianity in the16th century, it is necessarily anti-democratic and incapable of functioning in the modern world."
What we call "secular" is in fact a disguise for Luciferianism, a religion of Satan worship. This fact is hidden under a facade of tolerance of all religions. But this tolerance masks an active hostility (Skip) towards genuine religions like Christianity and Islam that assert a supreme moral force in the universe called God.
Luciferians ... I mean "Secular Humanists", assert the supremacy of human reason, which is mostly self-interest with spin. Reason divorced from an objective morality is meaningless.
11 comments:
Thas funny man.
Too bad you don`t know any thing or probably don`t care any thing about history.
You worship Babylon and its structure of civil society that invented the phony concepts that you are saying are 'genuine'.
Ha ha. Genuine bullshit for sure.
If there is such a thing as a satanist, you are a stereotype for it, with all the fake spirituality nonsense. Ha.
And now a short history of Judaism,
which is the brand of bullshit that started these other brands of bullshit, that you favor.
The tribes referred to as the “Apiru” in Egyptian texts, also referred to as the “Shasu” which
translated to “wanderers” were famous for their lawlessness and
their proclivity to make raids; gave rise in Canaanite (and Hebrew)
to the denominative verb sasa(h), “to plunder”.
One recalls the numerous passages in Biblical tradition that depict Yahweh “coming forth from Se’ir” and originating in Edom.
The major component in the later amalgam that constituted Israel,
and the one with whom the worship of Yahweh originated, must be looked for among the Shasu of Edom already at the end of the
fifteenth century B.C.
While the home land of the Shasu must be located in Moab
and Edom, several corridors took these nomads on a seasonal
basis for pasturage and brigandage into other parts of the eastern
Mediterranean. Thus in the sixty year period, from about 1320 to
1260 B.C. the Shasu are chronicled as continuing to foment trouble
in their native habitat of the Steppe and as pressing westward
through the Negeb.
About a generation later an entity called “Israel” with all the
character of a Shasu enclave makes its appearance.
Dominating the primitive concepts of the community was the
notion of a contract between Yahweh, the god of the group and
the human community (Although not the individual.
Apart from the community the individual had no rights, Sovereignty resided with
Yahweh not the community (Jud. 8:23) and while the latter
repeatedly reneged on the contract, Yahweh never did.
The rules he laid down, unilaterally in fact, the human party to the contract had no say in the matter—were Draconian in extreme, and the deity’s will utterly barbaric.
Alien groups whose actions or even
presence were deemed in opposition to Israel are consigned to
genocidal slaughter at the behest of Yahweh (Exod. 17:14; Num.
31; Sam 15:3) even fraternization with foreigners brings the plague
(num. 25:9,18). Anyone who dissents Yahweh burns up (num. 11:1-
3; 16:35). Anyone who complains he strikes with plague (num.
11:33; 14:37; 16:49) or sends poisonous snakes after (num. 21:6).
Aberrant cultic practices, even though indulged in innocently bring
death (Exod. 32:35; num. 15:37-40).
The will of the deity was interpreted and implemented by a
leader chosen on an adhoc basis, often because it is sensed that
the charisma of Yahweh is upon him.
Membership in the clans of the Shasu was not exclusive:
outcasts and ne’er do-wells could gain admittance.
Their proclivity for internecine strife drew expressions of contempt from Egypt.
Their conflict with Pharaoh and, to a lesser extent, the latter’s
surrogates within the Canaanite principalities arose not out of
objections to taxation or the draft—Egypt was little able and less interested in so dominating them-, but in their well-deserved
reputation as robbers and brigands whose code of conduct admitted little mercy on their victims. They lived in tents, in mountainous districts, remote from towns where woods and predators made travel risky.
Their principal source of wealth was their cattle, but their life seemed to the Egyptians so spartan that they contemptuously referred to them as “Living like wild game.”
The Shasu settled in the Palestinian highlands, or nascent Israel as we, should undoubtedly call it led a life of rustic simplicity later adopting styles and standards of the lowland Canaanite towns.
Economic patterns discernible in the transition to sedentary life
were also copied from Canaanite prototypes.
After the defeat at the hands of Ramesses’ forces and the
appearance after 1200 B.C. of the sea peoples over whelming the
coast, the Canaanites as a political force were dead and “Israel”
is firmly attested.
Egypt then entered a period of decline, it was the end of the New Kingdom.
Israel as a political entity post-dated the Ramesside age and took place in an upland remote from
Egyptian imperial control.
Because of the nomadic past of these peoples we can now
call “Israelis” kinship tended to dominate as the underlying criterion of communal and political identity; and the former god of the tribe gravitated to supreme national deity, sometimes to the exclusion of others.
Since their formative stage had witnessed an economy
of pastoralism, boundaries meant less to this new group who
suddenly had iron age technology and they exhibited a disquieting
proclivity for expansion by uprooting neighboring populations and dispossessing them of their former lands.
Only along the coast north of modern Haifa did the original
Canaanite population maintain itself, these coastal Canaanites
now known by the description “Phoenician”, occupied Tyre, Sidon,
Beirut, Byblos, and Arvad.
It is ironic that the “Exodus” and an array of other “stories”, to
which the Hebrews fell heir upon their settlement of the land, and
which, lacking traditions of their own, they appropriated.
One batch of “tales” centered upon an “ancestor” called Abram.
Another revolved around the figure of a Canaanite leader Jacob.
Another irony lies in the curious use to which the exodus
narrative is put in modern religion, as a symbolic tale of freedom from tyranny.
An honest reading of the account of exodus and numbers cannot help but reveal that the tyranny Israel was “freed” from, namely that of Pharaoh was mild indeed in comparison to the tyranny of Yahweh to which they were about to submit
themselves.
As a story of freedom the Exodus is distasteful in the extreme—and in “our” age when “thinking” men are prepared to shape their prejudice on the basis of 3,000 year old “precedent”, it is highly dangerous.
As the sojourn and exodus narratives is an adaptation by Israel of an earlier Canaanite tradition, so the Joseph story is the Hebrew exemplar of a widespread story line much in use in Egypt and the Levant at the time the Pentatuch was being committed to writing.
There is no reason to believe it has any basis in fact – the absence
of the story from the earlier tradition in the “prophets” speaks
against such a belief – and to read it as history is quite wrong-
headed.
So, this group originally called the “Apiru” lay slightly beyond
the fringe of “polite” Canaanite society of the late bronze age.
These were a collection of antisocial renegades, cast-offs from society, who maintained a semi-independent community in the
rural districts of the Canaanite states though often in the service
of these states the Apiru generally guarded their independence
and freedom of movement.
Much has been written in speculation on the adverse social conditions within Canaanite society that must have given rise to such a group; and it is not unlikely that a combination of mismanagement and economic straits may have
combined as in the Roman Empire in the third century A.D. to produce a “flight from the land” on the part of a disenfranchised element of the population.
Whatever the reason, the Apiru as their name suggest (“dust makers,” i.e. people who vacate the premises
with speed) display a gypsy like quality and proved difficult for the state authorities to bring under effective control.
Their heterogeneous nature is vividly illustrated by census lists from Alalakh, wherein one Apiru band includes an armed thief, two
charioteers, two beggars, and even a priest of Istar.
These early “Jews” were viewed as unkept in their carriage and indifferent to civilized ways, their society harbored criminal
elements and the down and out; nice people simply did not fraternize with them.
An Egyptian text notes this description. “The band of thieves was come into the camp and the horses were loosed in the night, and your clothes were stolen.
Your groom was awakened and when he realized what he had done, he took the rest, now he has wholly gone over to a life of evil: he mixes with the tribes of the Shasu having adopted the guise of an Asiatic.
The Canaanites by the way would be assigned the scapegoat role that ancient Israel fabricated to justify its ingress.
All the iniquity of the ages is heaped upon the Canaanites who thereby became the most maligned group of people in history.
Oddly it is a commonly accepted view in our contemporary
world to view ancient Israel as having perceived history as gods
judgment on mankind leading inexorably to universal salvation
through god’s guidance of Israel.
Sadly, these tendencies reflect
neither scientific thought nor basic intellectual honesty.
What is needed rather is a view of ancient Israel within its true near eastern context, and one that will neither exaggerate nor denigrate Israel’s actual place within that setting.
I hope this writing has disabused those people who hold vague
sentimental regard for a certain group of people who have a long
history of being famous con-artists to themselves and others.
Perhaps some of you have had a change of heart in your
approach to the concepts of religion and belief
- Denmark you are working the fake spiritual plantation for the man.
Why ?
Brainwashed.
You know just enough bullshit to mislead yourself and others, and if you are at all interested in any thing real you should stop blowing smoke, and read a little history.
Although that may not work, as it appears for the time being that your brain may be hooked up upside down and backwards.
Well said, DV! Amen!
Please define objective morality?
Objective morality, that is to say a morality based on reality, (instead of desires, whims, popularity contests or manufactured consent), is usually claimed to be the province of God / Nature.
The secularists, on the other hand, wish to reserve the right to determine what is moral and what is not moral to man - or in most cases to "certain" men.
Under the guise of protecting us from religion, they impose their personal subjective and inconsistent morality upon us all.
Consequently we end up with situations like Michael Vick put in prison for "fighting dogs" while people like Paul Wolfowitz who fight and kill humans are made chairman of The World Bank.
"And now a short history of Judaism,
which is the brand of bullshit that started these other brands of bullshit, that you favor. "
Skip, you are a victim of a poor education system.
You've been taught you have no soul, and you are stupid enough to believe them.
The "Judaism" to which you refer is not the origin of Christianity.
The "history" to which you refer has been as fabricated as the lie of WMD's.
Look at the photos in this post Skip. Those aren't "Secular Humanists" bound, gagged and hooded.
Those men are Muslims who have been bound, gagged and hooded by Satanic Secular dupes like you.
My first encounter with the term objective morality came in Gurdjieff's Meetings with Remarkable Men;
When he was in Kars, still only a candidate for the priesthood, Bogachevsky had very original views on morality. He then said and taught me that on earth there are two moralities: one objective, established by life in the course of thousands of years, and the other subjective, pertaining to individuals as well as to whole nations, kingdoms, families, groups of people and so forth. 'Objective morality,' he said, 'is established by life and by the commandments given us by the Lord God Himself through His prophets, and it gradually becomes the basis for the formation in man of what is called conscience. And it is by this conscience that objective morality, in its turn, is maintained. Objective morality never changes, it can only broaden in the course of time. As for subjective morality, it is invented by man and is therefore a relative conception, differing for different people and different places and depending upon the particular understanding of good and evil prevailing in the given period. 'For example, here in Transcaucasia,' said Bogachevsky, 'if a woman does not cover her face and if she speaks with a guest, everyone will regard her as immoral, spoiled and badly brought up. But in Russia, on the contrary, if a woman does cover her face and if she does not welcome a guest and entertain him with conversation, everyone will consider her badly brought up, rude, disagreeable and so forth.
People stuff their children, while the future man is still being formed in them, with all sorts of conventions, and so prevent Nature herself from developing in them that conscience which has taken form over thousands of years of struggle by our ancestors against just such conventions.' Bogachevsky often urged me not to adopt any conventions, either those of my immediate circle or those of any other people. He said: 'From the conventions with which one is stuffed subjective morality is formed, but for real life objective morality is needed, which comes only from conscience. 'Conscience is everywhere the same. As it is here, so it is in St. Petersburg, America, Kamchatka, and in the Solomon Islands. Today you happen to be here, but tomorrow you may be in America; if you have a real conscience and live according to it, it will always be well with you wherever you may be. 'You are still quite young; you have not yet begun life. Everybody here may now call you badly brought up; you may not know how to bow correctly, or to say the right thing in the proper manner, but this does not matter if only when you grow up and begin to live you have in yourself a real conscience, that is, the foundation of objective morality. 'Subjective morality is a relative conception, and if you are filled with relative conceptions, then when you are grown up you will always and everywhere act and judge other people according to the conventional views and notions you have acquired. You must learn not what people round you consider good or bad, but to act in life as your conscience bids you.
An untrammelled conscience will always know more than all the books and teachers put together. But for the present, until your own conscience is formed, live according to the commandment of our Teacher Jesus Christ: "Do not do to others what you would not wish them to do to you." '
I cite it to underscore my belief that even among adherents of the great organized religions - the occurrence of objective morality is an exceedingly rare phenomenon.
So objective morality comes from Mr. Jesus you think ?
That dude was a Jew.
He had no intention of starting another Religion. Paul cooked that up.
I’d like to tell you a story that a certain G. I. Gurdjieff used to
tell. Once there was a Shepherd with a problem.
He was losing sheep.
Some wandered away on their own, or in small groups.
When they were separated from the flock, they were an easy target
for other Shepherds or people who were just hungry.
Also wolves and other predators are always hunting as is their nature.
The Shepherd knew a magician who for a fee could hypnotize
his flock into thinking that they were lions and tigers.
The Shepherd then had no further problem with stock loss.
In fact, even as the sheep were being led to slaughter, they were proud and confident as they believed themselves lions and tigers.
This story presents, in some ways a dim view of society.
Unfortunately it is also accurate.
As wanderers grouped together some of their kings thought that a religious doctrine which played upon the weaknesses in the
psyches of their subjects was needed.
Certain points struck fear into the populace such as themselves being “watched”, the information collected, and reported to a certain “Mister God” who
would later “weigh” their actions on the “Day-of-Judgment”.
Further, there was no way to conceal this from Mr. God, either
any of their doings or any of their thoughts.
In this ingenious “religious doctrine” of the king, it was said
that Mr. God had intentionally attached to our “souls”, the organs
and limbs we have to enable us efficiently and profitably to serve
both himself personally; (God) and the great king.
Further it was stated that if a soul has idled or discharged its
duties indolently and negligently, that has in short, existed for the
gratification of the desires of the parts attached to it or finally, that it has not kept certain “commandments”, such a soul would be sent to a place called “Hell”. The rivers of this place being of burning pitch; the air stinking like a skunk at bay. All the furniture, carpets, beds, and so on were made of fine needles with their points sticking
out.
“Paradise” on the other hand where you went if you obeyed was very different.
It was a land of milk and honey, nobody needed to toil or work there, everything necessary for a happy, carefree, and blissful existence was there because everything requisite was
supplied there in super abundance.
This paradise was full of young
and lovely women and each of them belonged for the asking to
the “soul” that desired them.
Public squares of that beautiful “heaven” were filled with
delectable foods and any “soul” might take as much as they please
any time of the day or night.
There are no diseases there and, of course, none of those
mosquitoes or flies that give us no peace here.
Long after the “ingenious” inventor of this “religious doctrine”
had passed away, owing once again to the strangeness of the
psyche, the suggestibility that humans exhibit, there were hardly
any of the inhabitants in said district, that doubted the truth of
these peculiar tenets.
It is interesting to remark here that the information that serves
to say that a certain place is a “holy” place, is usually due to certain beings called liars.
Liars lie consciously and unconsciously. They
consciously lie when they can obtain some personal material
advantage. They unconsciously lie, when they themselves have been told so many lies which they view as being the Gospel truth, that they are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.
With this latter group particularly, if someone does not share
their views or agree to do, as they do, or criticizes their
manifestations, they are very indignant and offended, and if they
have the power, would order whoever dared not to do as they did
or criticized their conduct to be eliminated permanently, or locked
up in an out of the way place possibly for their lives. This for them, was referred to as vengeance and later assumed a more flowery
term: justice.
There was a long list of do`s and do not`s usually revolving around
the practice of how to worship their particular God.
How to insure the ownership of property, how to punish certain offences with fines of “money”, and what punishments were in order for
disobedience to any number of things, most being directly or
indirectly connected with a concept called “property”. These rules
changed dramatically if you belonged to an upper as opposed to
lower caste.
So, who is in charge these days? There is an old saying, “divide
and conquer”. The many religious and belief systems from one
end of the earth to the other compete and co-operate to remain
dominate.
As has been pointed out, most of the participants called
“Leaders of Religion” and “Leaders of Belief Systems” realize that
in an age of information, it is increasingly difficult to keep people in the dark, however they do their best.
Why?
It’s almost as if after
century and millennia, we, like those hypnotized sheep and the so
called “Leaders”, have become so bred to act mechanically that
many have had their spirits broken, as for such a long time, the
sad reality; i.e. hypocrisy, putting on many false faces, and turning one’s will over to false “gods”, with false ideals, has crippled our ability to perceive reality.
Well, now I will mention to you a great open secret–the power
that controls the beautiful and confused world. It is you, the
individual. You do not have to be one of the tormentors or the
victims.
This sadly is easier said than done as many will clutch their deadly beliefs thinking that “they” are intrinsically “in” them
which they are not.
The term objective morality is used by religious dissemblers to sell blue sky and songs to the moon.
I cite it to underscore my belief that even among adherents of the great organized religions - the occurrence of objective morality is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. CNu
Thoughtful post CNu. I enjoyed that.
Among the adherents of the great organized religions, has their been a perfect practice of 'objective morality'?
No.
Just like the adherents of yoga don't all perform the 'warrior pose' perfectly, practitioners of Islam or Buddhism or Christianity don't all practice "objective morality" perfectly.
And ... just as an imperfect 'Sun Salutation' does not invalidate Kundalini yoga, an imperfect act by a Catholic does not invalidate Christianity.
The secularists (Skip) wish to invalidate the morality so eloquently noted by Gurdjieff as "established by life in the course of thousands of years," with a subjective morality invented on the fly by arrogantly ignorant robotrons suffering from spiritual atrophy.
Inevitably all "morality" is either Christ or anti-Christ.
Pick.
Just like the adherents of yoga don't all perform the 'warrior pose' perfectly, practitioners of Islam or Buddhism or Christianity don't all practice "objective morality" perfectly.
which takes us to the meat of the problem DV. just as yoga is a collection of techniques subserving quite definite psychophysiological aims, a system of development as it were, so also there are psychological exercises required in order to cultivate the cognitive faculty of conscience.
Gurdjieff describes conscience "feeling all of what one is capable of feeling in a moment concerning a thing".
This is an extraordinarily ambitious and difficult thing to do for people whose ordinary waking state is largely drained of real emotional content and comprised of little more than mere "thinking" in pictures and words, and of that, more of the latter than the former.
Recall our exchange from several days ago about having the "eyes to see and ears to hear" - a very difficult feat of psychological or cognitive yoga for which most people have no baseline awareness, and if they do, little or no access to either an instruction manual or genuine culture of competency.
as an every Sunday church going Christian, i can tell you the attack started long ago. From the inside.
THE ACCIDENT
I rear-ended another car this morning.
I tell you, I knew right then and there that it was going to be a REALLY bad day!
The driver got out of the other car, and wouldn't you know it! He was a DWARF!!
He looked up at me and said "I am NOT Happy!"
So I said, "OK, then, which one ARE you?"
And that's how the fight started...
Post a Comment