tMoA

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
tMoA

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~

+19
We Are You
Aquaries1111
magamud
devakas
ceridwen
Beren
malletzky
Sanicle
JesterTerrestrial
firefly
Owlsden
THEeXchanger
Carol
Mercuriel
Floyd
lawlessline
Lionhawk
HigherLove
orthodoxymoron
23 posters

    Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:27 am

    Thank-you once again, A1. I'm tending to think the time might be right to fully reveal what I think might be a very problematic past -- but I still think that a lot of people will go nuts. Science-Fiction might be one of the better ways of getting the true story revealed to the general public (rather than Obama holding a press-conference, or something like that). Beware of those who might wish to destroy the world economy with 'Disclosure', an 'Alien Invasion', and 'The Second-Coming of Christ'. Look at this matter from ALL angles. I'm presently very incapacitated and miserable because of my spending way too much time trying to think about all of this madness. It's become significantly destructiive to me -- but I don't think there's any easy way to face reality. I keep thinking that several posters on the original Project Avalon http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223&highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads -- and The Mists of Avalon -- know the whole story -- and might even be major players behind the scenes. But really, whatever we end-up doing probably won't make people happy. It might do just the opposite. I think there's a lot of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth going on right now -- with a lot more to come in the near future. I think we've been living in a dream-world -- even though it has often seemed like a nightmare. Waking-up might be a very rude-awakening. We definitely need to know the whole truth about Ancient Africa. Regarding governance -- I seem to be gravitating toward a Minimalist-Theocratic United States of the Solar System -- wherein a system of Responsible-Freedom is kept in place by Powerful Forces who do not micromanage -- but who watch from a distance -- to make sure that the proper governance process remains in-place and uncorrupted. Do you see what I mean?? I like the American System -- but it presently seems to be run in a very corrupt and very incompetent manner. We don't have the Truly Best and Brightest at the Pinnacle of Governance -- or so it seems. 'Politics as Usual' often seems to be the 'Epitome of Stupidity'. On the other hand -- I am gaining an appreciation regarding how much of a challenge governance really is. Once again, I am seeking understanding rather than condemnation. But still, justice will have to be applied to past transgressions -- even though I continue to favor some sort of a reasonable-immunity for full-disclosure and full-cooperation. But this doesn't mean getting away with murder -- and keeping ill-gotten gain. I just do not currently favor the death-penalty or the damned-to-hell penalty. Incarceration, Education, and Restitution are integral parts of my approach to Restoring Law and Order to this sector of the galaxy. But then, Completely Ignorant Fools aren't exactly the Best and the Brightest. But why do we often act as if ignorance were a virtue??? Is ignorance really bliss? Is doubt a sin? If I'm as crazy and stupid as I KNOW some of you say I am -- then it should be a simple task to destroy this thread -- point by point. Go ahead! Give it your best shot!! Shout Loud and Proud!!! Make My Day!!!

    I just wish to restate and reinforce that my somewhat deep thinking has taken a HUGE toll on me personally. I don't think I'm crazy. I don't think I'm corrupt. I don't do anything creepy or supernatural. My references to an Ancient Egyptian Deity have been honest descriptions of what actually happened to me (probably as a result of my internet posting -- and who I might be reincarnationally). I don't do hypnosis of any kind (and I never have or will). I don't do OBE's (never have -- never will). I don't belong to any secret societies. I don't attend any church presently. I DO feel VERY tired and fatigued CONSTANTLY. My ears ring loudly all the time. I don't have hallucinations of any kind (and I never have). I feel as if I have been fighting a losing battle my entire life -- to find peace, happiness, and success. I think I was a born genius -- but the fatigue and disillusionment thing has truly turned me into a completely ignorant fool (Guilty as Charged). I seem to be able to visualize complex concepts and plans -- yet I seem to be powerless to do anything of substance with these concepts and plans. There are some VERY interesting aspects to my life which you can identify if you study this entire thread very carefully. I have hinted at a lot of things -- without stating them plainly. I continue to think that this thread is a VERY useful resource regarding the battle that I think we all might be in the middle of. I am presently NOT happy with Humanity or Divinity -- although I wish to have a proper relationship with both. I truly feel like an Odd Man Out. I truly do NOT fit anywhere. I think I probably feel most comfortable around Ivy-League Theologians and Musicians (although they are WAY above me -- and I will never be on their level). I continue to think that my last couple of incarnations might make my hair stand on-end -- but I'm not sure exactly why. I continue to be completely non-hateful and non-hostile. I truly don't think I'm a threat (other than presenting radical and upsetting speculations). I continue to guarantee 'No Surprises' (and I'm not sure I'm capable of mounting any surprises!!). I don't smoke, drink, or take drugs of any kind. I'm a vegetarian -- but I am not particularly health conscious -- although I go for brisk hour-long walks every day. I am not presently married (but I have been) -- and I have never been promiscuous -- although I have had plenty of opportunities. I sometimes use bad-words -- but I NEVER swear at anyone. I feel as if my life has been a complete waste -- and I often feel as if it would've been better if I had never been born.

    Here is another exciting episode of Sherry Shriner! http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/08/21/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner I listen to these podcasts faithfully -- but I am not a true-believer. Sherry simply forces me to think about things which tie-into what I have covered within this thread. I think that Sherry is a disguised individual -- who might be more of an insider than one can imagine. Same goes for Dana and TREEE (see 'Three Interesting Ladies'). http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t1347-three-interesting-ladies?highlight=three+interesting+ladies I often think I could seamlessly fit into 'Secret Government' type meetings and such -- but I think I'm probably WAY too much of an idealist and moralist to ever be 'One of the Boys'. I continue to think that I have HUGE potential (just kidding) for participation in solar system management activites (perhaps in a future incarnation -- but certainly not in this stupid incarnation). I am presently modeling a Ceremonially-Anglican and Conservative-Constitutionalist approach to Solar System Governance. What Would John Shelby Spong Say??? What Would Ron, Rand, and Alex Say??? I'm truly a Nobody with Big-Plans (to make me feel like a somebody). "I Am Somebody!!" BTW -- my posts jump around a lot -- which is partly bad writing -- and partly a conscious effort to present a lot of contrasting thoughts within one particular post. I call this 'Contextual Superimposition'. I think I might be sort of a 'Beautiful Mind' -- but without the genius and delusions shown in the movie (although some might consider my science-fictional writing to be somewhat delusional). I guess I'm sort of a Fool-Savant. The Completely Ignorant Fools Shall Inherit the Earth. Fool Rule. One more thing. The 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' said they were 'Rich'. Nuff said.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Ashera wrote:Then read the bible correctly:

    The Egyptians did not want the LORD crap...

    And who does is an enemy of life.

    Akhnaten = Mosis? Another result of some Rorschach test?

    One must see the whole plot, starting with the Etruscan-Roman subversion politics in North Africa.

    No wonder that historians want to blank that out, or?

    That is the root of "modern" monotheism and the belief in the LORD and in his nowadays liberalized and emancipated forms. That can be taken back anytime if power constellations allow that. Christian fundamentalists are getting off their starting blocks...

    Following Hugo Ball and his "Critique of the German Intelligentsia" all this led via Luther and Bismarck to WWI, and as its consequence to the Hitler fascism.

    Now the repitition in form of a farce seems to happen. Mathematically spoken: a dangerous simulation




     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 164095_165336286843344_2665379_n

    Windowless Monads...
    finally the "discharging mass" as Elias Canetti put it
    Who were the Gods and Godesses of Egypt??? I'm not necessarily asking about Egyptian Mythology. I'm asking about the Deities Behind the Mythologies. What was the Pre-Exodus "Law of God"?? The Law and God revealed in the Pentateuch seem problematic and dysfunctional to me. I desire a solid and pure Ancient Theological Foundation upon which to build in modernity -- but I'm not seeing one. I suspect that it might exist -- but where is it??? When I read the first five books of the Old Testament -- I get the sinking-feeling that we have a "God-Problem". The New-Testament seems to attempt to make this "God-Problem" go away -- but the results are somewhat unsatisfactory and unsatisfying. I like the Teachings Attributed to Jesus -- but something is still wrong -- even within the Gospels. I have suggested the possibility of Responsibility-Based Law as being a proper foundation for Responsible-Politics, Responsible-Religion, and Responsible-Business -- yet I continue to be quite irresponsible and ineffective. I have been considering a Ceremonial-Anglican and Conservative-Constitutional approach to Solar System Governance -- yet I really don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'm just very dissatisfied with the way things are. I like the Theological Idealism of Ellen G. White -- yet there are HUGE problems with this prophetess -- and with the church she founded. I keep wondering if there is a hidden and proper unification of law, politics, and religion -- lurking somewhere in Ancient Babylon and Egypt??!! I like thinking about this while watching the 1963 classic "Cleopatra" (Elizabeth Taylor).
    Here is an example of the sort of thing we should continue to struggle with. Make no mistake about it -- we are in the middle of a spiritual-war -- which could morph into a physical-war of a most startling nature. This is NOT an easy path which I am mapping within this thread. It takes you through Heaven, Hell, Purgatory -- and Who Knows Where Else??!! The Jesuits know what I'm talking about. I don't necessarily like them -- and I'm sure they don't like me -- but I respect their discipline and scholarship. I still think it might be cool to hang-out with the Jesuits on Mt. Graham -- but they'd probably hang me -- in more ways than one. They do that sort of thing, you know.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahi5FRd5geM
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Es9xJutiwo
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9D46yW4ym0
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqhH5RVLW1o
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXg7Hm3Exec&feature=relmfu
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5VDG2nb5h0&feature=related
    7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU2K9HQFxso&feature=relmfu
    8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBjkZ5WzBfc
    9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I765FFw1Rpc&feature=related

    I wish to be theologically and politically idealistic -- but the historical examples of politics and religion are generally a mess. Please -- Please -- Please Keep Struggling with Politics and Religion. Don't just chase Aliens, UFO's, Disasters, and Sensational Speakers. Keep Studying Politics and Religion. I am attempting to retain as much historical material as possible -- but there are No Sacred Cows in my Political and Theological Zoo. 'Heresy' you say?? So Burn Me!! But please allow me to make myself much more 'presentable' before you make me a public-example. One more time, please consider these two documentaries. They aren't high-quality or fast-paced -- but when carefully watched -- I have found them to be most enlightening.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwnWni9HLEY

    Then, please consider rewatching:

    1. 'The Last Temptation of Christ'.
    2. 'A Beautiful Mind'.
    3. 'Day the Earth Stood Still'.
    4. 'Legion'.
    5. 'Stargate Continuum'.
    6. 'Stargate'.
    7. 'Cleopatra'.
    8. The Complete Fifth Series of 'Dr. Who'.
    9. 'The Agony and the Ecstasy'.
    10. 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.
    11. 'Pinky and the Brain'.
    12. 'Dogma'.
    13. 'Oh God!'.
    14. 'Contact'.
    15. 'V' (old and new).
    16. 'Avatar'.
    17. 'Battlestar Galactica'.
    18. '2012'.
    19. 'The Pelican Brief'.
    20. 'Star Wars'.
    21. 'East of Eden'.
    22. 'Brides of Christ'.
    23. 'Independence Day'.

    -- all in the context of 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' -- in the context of 'Project Avalon' and 'The Mists of Avalon' -- in the context of a hypothetical 'Orion-Sirius-Aldebaran-Atlantean-Babylonian-Egyptian-Grecian-Roman-British-American Empire'. Finally, take a very close look at Viktor Schauberger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wl-Temag9E and Pope Pius XII. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXRVn_nFHB0 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=V8lDNtrgGYA I have very mixed-feelings about Pope Pius XII -- as I continue to wonder who REALLY directs Pontiffs, Queens, and Presidents?! His silence during WWII was deafening -- but who and what did Pacelli REALLY have to deal with behind the scenes??!! To one and all -- good and bad -- human and otherwise -- make sure that you do NOT throw out the baby with the bathwater. I continue to wish to change as much as possible -- for the betterment of all-concerned -- while changing as little as possible -- so as NOT to destroy the fragile civilization in this solar system. I am NOT representing this thread as being 'The Truth'. It is merely a literary-device designed to prepare all of our minds for 'The Truth'. I could say a helluva lot more -- but I choose not to -- for a variety of reasons. BTW -- try to find a couple of old TV miniseries titled 'Blood Feud' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Feud_(1983_film) and 'The Word'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Word_(novel) I thought they were both quite good -- and quite revealing. How many 'Christians' over the past 2,000 years have actually followed the Teachings Attributed to Jesus?? Perhaps there have been very few genuine Christians. Perhaps there are very few genuine Christians presently. I seem to have identified a problem -- yet I seem to not be living up to what Jesus taught. Not even close. I think I might be in huge trouble because of this -- and because of a lot of reincarnational bad-karma aka karmic-debt. The track-records of politics and religion (of all varieties) have not been very good throughout the centuries. Political and Religious Imperialism Sucks.

    True or False -- I still think that a devotional and academic study of the Bible is an excellent mental and spiritual exercise. IMHO -- the theologies and mythologies throughout history are mixtures of truth and error -- fact and fiction -- good and evil. However, I think that it is very necessary for people to think about politics and religion on a daily basis -- so as to not be led as lambs to the slaughter. Consider "The Gospel Blimp". 1. http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Modern-Parables-Joseph-Series/dp/0781409357 2. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312733/plotsummary "George and Ethel are concerned about the salvation of their next-door neighbors, but don't know how to reach them with the good news of Jesus Christ. During an evening get-together of George and Ethel's Christian friends, everyone is captivated by the sight of a blimp flying overhead. Then Herm gets a bright idea: why not use a blimp to proclaim the Christian message to the unchurched citizens of Middletown? The group incorporates, buys a used blimp, hires a pilot, then commences to evangelize their hometown by towing Bible-verse banners, 'firebombing' folks below with gospel tracts, and broadcasting Christian music and programs over loudspeakers. But a series of misadventures puts the blimp ministry in jeopardy. And George becomes increasingly uneasy about the methods and business practices of International Gospel Blimps Incorporated and its "Commander", Herm. Do the personal sacrifices made by the group's members justify the results? And will George and Ethel's next-door neighbors ever receive the gospel message?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4zCUXpU1Tc
    In the Gospels, Jesus is both friend and foe of the church. I feel as if I am both friend and foe of the church. My thoughts about church and state -- over the past five years -- have been rather upsetting to me. I have tried to formulate solutions -- but the solutions scare me almost as much as the problems. I don't think there are any clean, neat, and happy solutions to the mess we're in. If the bad guys and gals are in charge -- we're in trouble. If the good guys and gals take over -- we'll still be in trouble -- and possibly in even more trouble. It's sort of like an inoperable brain tumor. One can see the damn thing on the CAT Scan -- but still be unable to do a damn thing about it. How do we remove the problems -- without destroying our civilization??? As I have said so many times, I have a very bad feeling about both Divinity and Humanity -- and I certainly don't see things improving anytime soon. Cleaning-up the solar system might make things worse (at least in the short-term) -- and the Human Race might not survive (by accident or design). I feel as if I need to think about something else. I seem to be digging a deeper and deeper grave for myself. One has to know when to stop -- and I think I drove right through the last dozen stop-signs. As I continue to attempt to sort things out -- with the best of intentions -- I mostly just wish to cry and cry and cry. It's too much to properly take-in -- and to then render a just verdict. How many people are REALLY struggling with all of this??

    A while ago, I suggested some population figures (Two-Billion Surface, Two-Billion Sub-Surface on Earth -- and Four-Billion Throughout the Rest of the Solar System). This was intended as a place of beginning -- to facilitate discussion -- but no one seemed to be interested. Anyway -- I am NOT dogmatic about those particular numbers -- but I certainly think we have plenty of people on Earth presently. Also -- Solar System Colonization and Sub-Surface Living Should be Voluntary -- with appropriate incentives. I obviously don't have this all figured-out. I am really just exploring various options -- and questioning what I was taught as a youth. Really -- I am questioning everything -- in a mostly respectful manner. However -- I have used some rather brash language, imagery, and links to make my points -- and make all of us think. I am NOT Anti-God -- but I think that we need to be VERY careful who we trust and obey. I will be going through this thread at the pace of one page per day -- and I will be doing very minor editing while I attempt to achieve a PhD-Level understanding of "Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System". The jokes are over folks. Now I get Sirius. I've been playing Softball. Now I play Hardball.

    I have ammended the following portion of the Constitution of the United States of the Solar System (removing the bold-print sentence):

    We the People of the United States of the Solar System, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of the Solar System.

    Article 1.

    Section 1
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States of the Solar System, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. All Elected Representatives of We the People of the United States of the Solar System shall vote according to the Will of the People as Recorded Daily by Internet Voting.

    While I wish to involve the General Public in Solar System Governance -- this particular sentence seemed to be too open-ended. I had repeatedly requested input regarding this matter -- with no response whatsoever. 10,000 U.S.S.S. Representatives should provide a satisfactory interface with the Public. I am open to alternatives -- but I'm pretty much ending my current efforts to discuss this thread. My efforts are morphing into a very-private and very-intense personal-war.

    I have also stated that I thought the Teachings Attributed to Jesus should trump Canon Law -- but that a Responsibility-Based System of International, Interplanetary (and even Intergalactic) Law -- in a Canon Law Format -- might be optimal. I realize this is meddling -- and I apologize. The 'Cathedral Thing' is probably a sore-spot as well. What is it they say about 'asking for forgiveness -- rather than begging for permission'??!! I have kept this tempest in a teapot VERY low key -- and I intend to continue to do so -- until such time as the Benevolent PTB might decide otherwise.


    As you know, I have been thinking WAY outside of the box, to attempt to deal with the madness. I get the impression that the vast majority of humanity don't have a clue about what they are in the middle of. The more I learn -- the more I know that I don't have a clue -- and that I'm destroying myself by thinking about various radical and upsetting possibilities. What if we will be judged by our internet activities?? What if the Internet is at the core of the Investigative-Judgment??? I'm going to keep reviewing the territory already covered in this thread -- but the Eureka Phenomenon might be Most Shocking -- and I hesitate to say much more than I've already said. Thank-you for bearing with me -- and going the extra mile. What if there is already a United States of the Solar System somewhere else in the galaxy??? What if this thread is complete nonsense??? What if I really am delusional and insane??? Whatever the case may be, please keep looking at everything from all angles -- all the time. A shake-up at the top won't necessarily create Peace on Earth. The general-public may have to be shaken (not stirred), as well. We might not like the Road to Utopia one little bit. An idealistic solar system government might have to be somewhat harsh -- in a good way -- as Latter-Day Tough-Love. We might not like what's best for us. Again, I think we need to look very carefully at a Responsibility-Based Legal-System. Should Responsible-Politics and Responsible-Religion be solidly based upon Responsible-Law?? What about Responsibility-Based International, Interplanetary, and Intergalactic Law??? Placing Responsibility at the Center of Everything might be more difficult than we can imagine. I Might Be a Completely Ignorant Fool -- But That Doesn't Mean That I'm Wrong. I have tried to make all of us think -- including (and especially) myself -- but this thread just slightly scratches the surface of the matter -- and I know it. I am NOT a Know It All. I'm really not. I just wanted to talk -- and say an "Eschatological Namaste and Godspeed" to all of you. This is sad. It's hard to say "Good-Bye". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzU9OrZlKb8



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


    Posts : 1394
    Join date : 2012-06-02
    Age : 55
    Location : In the Suns

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  Aquaries1111 Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:06 pm

    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Ashera wrote:Then read the bible correctly:

    The Egyptians did not want the LORD crap...

    And who does is an enemy of life.

    Akhnaten = Mosis? Another result of some Rorschach test?

    One must see the whole plot, starting with the Etruscan-Roman subversion politics in North Africa.

    No wonder that historians want to blank that out, or?

    That is the root of "modern" monotheism and the belief in the LORD and in his nowadays liberalized and emancipated forms. That can be taken back anytime if power constellations allow that. Christian fundamentalists are getting off their starting blocks...

    Following Hugo Ball and his "Critique of the German Intelligentsia" all this led via Luther and Bismarck to WWI, and as its consequence to the Hitler fascism.

    Now the repitition in form of a farce seems to happen. Mathematically spoken: a dangerous simulation




     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 164095_165336286843344_2665379_n

    Windowless Monads...
    finally the "discharging mass" as Elias Canetti put it
    Who were the Gods and Godesses of Egypt??? I'm not necessarily asking about Egyptian Mythology. I'm asking about the Deities Behind the Mythologies. What was the Pre-Exodus "Law of God"?? The Law and God revealed in the Pentateuch seem problematic and dysfunctional to me. I desire a solid and pure Ancient Theological Foundation upon which to build in modernity -- but I'm not seeing one. I suspect that it might exist -- but where is it??? When I read the first five books of the Old Testament -- I get the sinking-feeling that we have a "God-Problem". The New-Testament seems to attempt to make this "God-Problem" go away -- but the results are somewhat unsatisfactory and unsatisfying. I like the Teachings Attributed to Jesus -- but something is still wrong -- even within the Gospels. I have suggested the possibility of Responsibility-Based Law as being a proper foundation for Responsible-Politics, Responsible-Religion, and Responsible-Business -- yet I continue to be quite irresponsible and ineffective. I have been considering a Ceremonial-Anglican and Conservative-Constitutional approach to Solar System Governance -- yet I really don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'm just very dissatisfied with the way things are. I like the Theological Idealism of Ellen G. White -- yet there are HUGE problems with this prophetess -- and with the church she founded. I keep wondering if there is a hidden and proper unification of law, politics, and religion -- lurking somewhere in Ancient Babylon and Egypt??!! I like thinking about this while watching the 1963 classic "Cleopatra" (Elizabeth Taylor).

    I think the main problem is the "Meme" problem... Beliefs about God being Good and the Devil being Bad.. and all these other archangels still looking to be worshipped to one degree or another.. I heard an expression once that went like this: "We are what we are"... I am Spirit in a Body and my name is Debra.. Do the Gods even care who or what I am? Should I care who or what they are? Meet me in the Dreamstate.. there I can easily be found and known. Ah yes and that Cleopatra movie is worth another watch.. I'd say...




    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:20 am

    Thank-you A1. I guess I'll continue thinking about an Ancient Theocratic and Traditional Reptilian Universe -- in conflict with a Recent Freedom-Seeking Human-Populated Earth -- complete with a 'Reptilian God' and a 'Human God' -- wherein one race's 'God' would be the other's 'Satan'. Interdimensional-Reptilian Souls might be common to both races. We might be 'relatives'. I have no idea if this is true -- but I'm attempting to live with this hypothesis for a few months or years -- to see if there is any validity to it. It's bothering me a lot -- because it seems absurd -- yet somehow true. Who knows, this Reptilian and Grey stuff might just be an Alphabet-Agency Mind-Control Experiment -- or something equally insane.

    BTW -- what did you think about the last link in my last post?? I thought it was sort of creepy -- especially the last part. Was that an actual shapeshifting entity -- or just advanced special effects?? Has there been anything prophetic in my last few posts?? Remember that I don't necessarily approve of the links in my posts.

    I think I'll rewatch 'Cleopatra'. I like the combination of Egypt and Rome -- in English. I like thinking about this thread while watching it -- but I have a somewhat vested interest in doing so. This thread is really scaring me. I have no idea what I'm really dealing with -- who I am -- or what the stakes might be. I keep feeling oppressed, tricked, trapped, defeated, etc, etc, etc -- and it feels horrible.

    I'm trying to think in terms of Humanity governing Humanity within this Solar System for a very long time. I'd love to have God solve everything by taking all of us to Heaven -- but what if this involved becoming Draconian Reptilians who are Absolutely Obedient to a Theocratic Reptilian Queen??? I'm thinking about things which are highly disruptive and upsetting -- and I don't wish this sort of thing on anyone.

    I don't have a 'need' for anything in this thread to be 'true' or 'right'. This is just an unconventional experiment. I'ts just a strange manner of thinking -- which might yield something of value to someone. I'd actually prefer that most of this thread be shown to be absolutely false.
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Cleopatra_03000240


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


    Posts : 1394
    Join date : 2012-06-02
    Age : 55
    Location : In the Suns

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  Aquaries1111 Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:48 am

    Oxy says: Someone walked around the side of my house, and looked in my window at me today -- and I told them I was calling the police. If this was anyone who might be reading this thread -- please knock next time. I've been told that I have been observed while showering and while walking my dog. I'm aware of the existence of VERY covert means of observing and terminating people -- so I'm a bit on-edge.

    I think a little paranoia might be setting in Oxy... Just like your last downed internet issue.. Common sense told me then it was probably something "technical".. There are many out there, Kerry Cassidy, etc.. who think the ptb can kill them off. I think people give far too much power to the ptb's.. as if they have nothing better to do than "bop people off".. You said you haven't had OBE's and never will.. it seems you are "setting yourself up" for less experiences than you could possibly have with that kind of mindset.. Anyhow, your last link which you asked me to comment on was some music video.. which I could only watch 10 seconds of and then had to turn it off.. held no interest for me at all.. if you can post the link I'll be more than happy to look at it.. shapeshifting video links are usually "manipulated".. so I wouldn't spend too much time speculating on the "creepy" that they create deliberately in them videos..

    This was your last link "in this thread". https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=aRlXxpQjML0&feature=endscreen


    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:07 pm

    Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to get me. The 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' said "I'm tired of keeping you alive!" and "I could snap my fingers, and you'd be dead!" They also described observing me throughout my hour-long walks with my dog -- and someone on the internet told me that I was observed while showering. I am aware of 'remote-viewing' and also the ability (through technology?) of some to stand in someone's house -- completely invisible -- or so they say. I have been threatened on the internet with being "Punished by God" and also told that "I would be hiding under the rocks" at the 'end of the world'. I have been called "Satan". I have been told that women and children deserved to be eaten-alive by wild-animals in the Roman Colosseum. There's more. A lot more. Even without any direct hostility and threats -- the Book of Revelation is quite enough to cause one (with even a casual belief in the Bible) to become rather paranoid -- and worry about being a "Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God". I had a computer fried by viruses after calling the occupants of the Moon and Phobos "Bastards". I'm not OK with someone walking around the side of my house, and looking in the window at me. And really, there is an openness in society and on the internet presently -- which hasn't always existed -- and the subjects I have been discussing were once MUCH more forbidden than they are now -- but that doesn't mean that no one is angered by my speculations and observations. I seem to remember hearing something about that last music video -- regarding an actual 'entity' being shown -- but I can't remember for certain. Some think that between now and the end of the year -- things will significantly go to hell.

    I have represented most of my internet work as being 'Political and Theological Science-Fiction' -- but I didn't make-up the contents of this post. Now I'm going to try to cheer myself up by reading the first five books of the Old Testament. How many people are presently living in complete obedience to the Pentateuch?? I guess I give a rather low-key theological twist to the ranting and raving of people such as Alex Jones and David Icke. My Apocalyptic-Imagination is more vivid and detailed than I can ever describe on the internet. I sometimes imagine that I am attempting to negotiate an 'Alternative to Armageddon'. I don't doubt that there are VERY Serious and Ancient Unresolved Solar System Issues -- but I'm not presently promoting an 'Utter-Destruction Final-Solution'. Have I gone soft??? Being nice and reasonable doesn't seem to work. Should I get tough? No more 'Mr. Nice-Guy'? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWc1kTmjjl0&feature=related I truly feel as if I am in conflict with both Divinity and Humanity -- for a variety of reasons. Mankind seems to be HIGHLY Problematic -- but the Divine Handling of This Grave Situation seems to be just as problematic. What the hell is going-on here??? Do I really wish to know???
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Jews_with_torah


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:55 pm; edited 4 times in total
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


    Posts : 1394
    Join date : 2012-06-02
    Age : 55
    Location : In the Suns

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  Aquaries1111 Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:04 pm

    Oxy,

    I think if you see this "Egyptian Diety" again.. you need to laugh in its face.. Oxy seriously, any great teacher will teach you self empowerment.. not to grovel at Diety's feet because it says it is keeping you alive.. See through this and stop letting your emotions being played with..

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:17 pm

    I was very neutral with the 'Ancient Egyptian Deity'. I was friendly -- but I kept asking hard questions -- most of which went unanswered. A common response was "You know I can't tell you that". I continued posting on 'The Mists' throughout our 'contact period' -- and I used some of the information gleaned from these encounters to enhance my internet posting -- even though I was very tactful and indirect. I made no 'non-disclosure agreement' with them -- although they did not want me to be too direct and too revealing. If I encountered them today, I would continue to be mostly neutral and questioning. I often felt a bit like Chad Dekker questioning Anna in 'V'. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoSCEMzJYE 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5z5PJQ-qtg 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=fIyRImhQkHg&NR=1 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb5pLp-FcRg&feature=related You don't suppose??!! The subject of this thread "Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System" is my attempt to communicate a somewhat more sophisticated version of the stereotypical 'Alien Invasion' scenario.

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 EgyptGods Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 1117.1388.image.eng Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Coat_of_arms_of_england-with-queens-motto


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:00 pm; edited 5 times in total
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


    Posts : 1394
    Join date : 2012-06-02
    Age : 55
    Location : In the Suns

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  Aquaries1111 Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:15 pm

    orthodoxymoron wrote:I was very neutral with the 'Ancient Egyptian Deity'. I was friendly -- but I kept asking hard questions -- most of which went unanswered. A common response was "You know I can't tell you that". I continued posting on 'The Mists' throughout our 'contact period' -- and I used some of the information gleaned from these encounters to enhance my internet posting -- even though I was very tactful and indirect. I made no 'non-disclosure agreement' with them -- although they did not want me to be too direct and too revealing. If I encountered them today, I would continue to be mostly neutral and questioning. I often felt a bit like Chad Dekker questioning Anna in 'V'. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoSCEMzJYE 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5z5PJQ-qtg 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=fIyRImhQkHg&NR=1 You don't suppose??!! The subject of this thread "Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System" is my attempt to communicate a somewhat more sophisticated version of the stereotypical 'Alien Invasion' scenario.


    It amazes me how people spout out that they used to be King Tut in a past life, or an Ancient Egyptian Diety, or a very important King or Queen.. and then initiate others into thinking they too have importance from past lives and such.. This could be related to some kind of "Messiah Syndrome".. You know how many other beings would like to "take our place, now".. and can't because they do not have a "body"? I think we humans underestimate ourselves and put too much power onto others thinking they are wiser, more powerful, godlike.. We forget it is us humans that currently hold "the wildcard".. We are the "current" now.. we are the change.. we call the shots.. we steward this planet.. we are the kings and queens now... and what of all the secrets people hold dear to their hearts because they have been told not to share.. and so they build up this energy around themselves when they walk and talk and in their own imagination secretly telling themselves.. "I know something you don't know".. Secrets are over.. We forget that we do not, nor cannot "own thought".. we cannot lock it up in a box and tell ourselves we are the only one who knows.. and I'm keeping it secret.. There are no more secrets anymore, despite what one believes. God sees everything.. "everything". Once we can see ourselves on "equal footing" as everyone else then who has the power? We all do of course.. why would we want more power over our very own. Consciousness merges with other consciousness upon "agreement".. Anyone, diety or otherwise who tells you to keep secrets and that they cannot share information with you for whatever reason.. put up your guard and see the red flag.. I'd run a mile from that being.. it's obvious they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes..

    A little comedy to lighten up the air... take your pick.


    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:10 am

    I don't know who the 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' really was -- but they seemed to be VERY intelligent -- yet sometimes their logic and comments seemed to be decidedly lacking. I am merely considering various possibilities -- without latching on to any one of them. I am leaning toward the contents of this thread -- but I simply do not have the resources to properly test that which I have conceptualized. When I refer to 'Said Deity' I am merely reporting on a very small and select portion of what happened to me in connection with whoever this being was. They were quite exceptional -- whoever they were. Once again, I am beginning a review of the territory I've already covered -- and I intend to be much more serious and scholarly. One more thing. I applied for an FOIA -- and now my mail service has stopped. That gave me a warm-fuzzy feeling. I could really feel the love. And you wonder why I'm a bit paranoid.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Floyd wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Something really big and really bad seems to have been in control of Earth for many thousands of years.

    Yes its called the Church. Maybe only a couple of thousand of years though.
    Religious monopoly is big business sunshine and great for controlling masses in fear of Hell etc. Also for great for their mocking condescension towards ancient religious and philosophical traditions.

    Im sure Christ is turning in his grave after witnessing what those clowns have done to other great civilisations and traditions in the name of the white mans burden over the centuries. Always working in cahoots with the relevent PTB at each moment.

    Utterly criminal.
    I tend to think that it goes way, way back in history -- and way, way beyond this little world. I am very interested in where the Teachings Attributed to Jesus REALLY originated. As you know, I have done a lot of Archangelic-Speculation -- and I suspect Archangels in Conflict -- with these teachings representing at least part of One Archangelic Perspective. The Historical Jesus might be a mixture of fact and fiction -- but the 'Christian Church' certainly has not reflected what Jesus taught in the Gospels. I am more distressed about all of this than you can imagine.
    That video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xfuDSTtLJc&feature=player_embedded was funny -- but I feel as if I'm part of an effort to save humanity -- which frankly seems to be running out of steam -- and I am VERY upset about what I think MIGHT be going on in this solar system. Should I be thinking in terms of a 'Good Reincarnational Cleopatra' v 'Bad Reincarnational Cleopatra' or at least a 'Pro-Humanity Cleopatra' v 'Anti-Humanity Cleopatra'? Or what about a 'Draconian-Reptilian Cleopatra' v 'Human Cleopatra'?? 'Good and Bad' -- 'Human and Reptilian' -- might be somewhat blurred and overlapping terms. Who knows??? My avatar might be quite representative of a very real behind the scenes struggle. What if Reptilians and Humans BOTH have Interdimensional-Reptilian Souls?? Once again -- this thread is HIGHLY speculative and science-fictional in nature. I am simply exploring several possibilities in a rather strange form of Political and Theological Science-Fiction. Would you meet with Reptilians in their Underground Bases?? Would you travel with them in their Unconventional Spacecraft?? What if Humanity is Fundamentally Reptilian in Nature and History?? Imagine combining 'V', 'Stargate Continuum', the 'Cold Blood' episode of 'Dr. Who', 'Cleopatra', and my very own 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' -- in past, present, and future contexts. My version of science-fiction makes us work!!! It might even make us crazy!!! I'm already crazy -- don't you know??!! Researchers Beware!!! How many people are thinking about this sort of thing?? Probably not very many. What if my speculations were a significant part of 'Disclosure'?? Would people run in the streets?? If the excrement really contacted the fan -- would there be any place to hide?? Is Humanity SOL???



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:40 pm; edited 3 times in total
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:47 pm

    Raven wrote:
    Raven wrote:
    The 13th Planet Dark Moon Lilith as the 'Hidden Nemesis of Wormwood Nibiru'
    and other NABS misidentifications

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Collier01

    http://darkstarastrology.com/triple-moon-goddess-lilith-astrology/
    A Deeper Look: Astrology Beyond the Traditional Planets

    Lilith - The Dark Moon


    http://www.angelfire.com/az/zodiacenterprises/LILART.html

    (published in The Second Road newsletter, October 1998.)

    by Catt Foy

    copyright 1998, Catt Foy

    She is reputedly Adam's first wife, before Eve. She is known as a demoness, the killer of infants in their cradles. She is the original woman, who refused to be subjugated to a man's desires. Consort to both the devil and God himself, she is the enigmatic and mysterious Lilith.

    A little-known element in astrology charts, Lilith is known as the "dark Moon" and, as such, represents our "dark" or hidden emotional selves. According to Lois Daton, author of "Lilith, The Planet of the Doodler," the physical existence of Lilith was confirmed by the United States Weather Bureau in 1879. Lilith is the name used for two different celestial bodies - one is located in the asteroid belt and is not our subject here, the other is an invisible body orbiting the earth approximately three times farther away than the Moon, Luna. It is this Lilith which is of interest here.

    Lilith's placement in the chart is especially important to women, and represents the power of the original woman. In a man's chart, Lilith's placement will reveal the hidden power struggles or other issues he may have, resolved or unresolved, with the women in his life.

    Lilith was known to the Chaldean astrologers; the Egyptians called her Nephthys. The name Lilith is derived from the old Semitic word for night, "lel" or "lelath", in Arabic "laylah," which also means "ghost" or "spectre" in Hebrew. She is associated with the Death card in Tarot and with the goddesses Persephone, Hecate, Athena, Minerva. She is associated with the Owl, representing secrecy and wisdom, and she is frequently connected with cats.



     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Lilith2
    http://darkstarastrology.com/triple-moon-goddess-lilith-astrology/


    In Lilith astrology one can use three Lilith Moon’s. Black Moon Lilith, Asteroid Lilith and the lesser known Dark Moon Lilith. Together they work as a Triple Moon Goddess, which describes a process of transformation. The three Lilith’s are also useful in pinpointing which brand of Lilith energy is strongest in your chart and at which stage you may have the most issues with. After studying Eris in detail it is apparent to me that she is the higher octave of Lilith. Eris is the Uber-Dark Goddess and by combining her with the outer planets we can see how each corresponds quite neatly with three phases of the moon.

    To see the Lilith archetype in terms as a triple goddess makes total sense to me. After I wrote this post I discovered Demetria George had come up with a similar concept about Lilith. Comparing it to the bible story she says: ” The Asteroid Lilith describes the first stage in the mythical journey where she is suppressed, humiliated and flees in a fiery rage to the desolate wilderness. The Dark Moon Lilith depicts the pain of her exile where she plots and executes revenge. The Black Moon Lilith shows how she transmutes her distorted image back into its natural healthy expression” [1]




    Ishtara Raven: people all over the place on FB, and various forums are posting the most absurd crap, NIBIRU, annunaki…evil ET invasions, the whole gambit.

    Totanubis: Yep

    Totanubis: Last days of prophecy Raven; it is necessary and to be expected

    Totanubis: The 'great falling away from the cosmic truth' it is called

    Totanubis: Look at the new earth chart

    Totanubis: I added the 15 days as 4 corners

    Totanubis: So August 9th - August 23rd 2012 is the third of the legislature and the fourth is September 27th - October 2012 of the executive function

    Ishtara Raven: are we in a WOC?

    Ishtara Raven: why am I so insensed at the blindness?

    Totanubis: This becomes the 'death of the antichrist' in law and then manifested from September 27 - October 11

    Totanubis: No deeper

    Totanubis: The 'judgement was written'

    Totanubis: August 23rd was the final day of the Zion imaged from the AntiZion

    Ishtara Raven: my dream last night was these two serpent snake hearts entwining, I was trying to help them entwine, but they were sort of fighting it and each had a side to tell me, I was downloaded with so much stuff, but all of what I mostly brought to my conscious mind is primal anger in a way. They finally merged into colors but i was struggling with them, arguing all night it seemed. I don’t know what it means.

    *** Totanubis: sent NewEarth.jpg ***

    Totanubis: Yes because of August 23rd

    Ishtara Raven: ok that makes sense it seems

    Ishtara Raven: it was like something was finalized

    Totanubis: Before the judgements can be executed they have to be legislated

    Ishtara Raven: but man i seriously became like the mediator of the century in this dream

    Totanubis: This legislation is 15 days a twin Woc mirrored in a 'Day of the Lord'

    Totanubis: Of course the witnesses' testimony see

    Totanubis: The 2 serpents are the lovehearts in the chart

    Ishtara Raven: yes i realised this

    Totanubis: Conception to Birth of antichrist blended with Anticonception to Antibirth of this same antiLogos energy

    Ishtara Raven: and in a weird way Tony, I felt I was helping them somehow and it is related to you and DD and us all, i was like a defender stating my case and listening to both sides

    Totanubis: The chart is clear to the days, even though they can’t read it

    Ishtara Raven: funny all day i thought of Oct 11th

    Totanubis: Just like the so called 2nd Sun or Nemesis, often associated with Nibiru and Wormwood, asteroids and comets, relates to the empty focus of the earth's orbit about the sun

    Totanubis: But generally, I now understand how to fully implement this Nibiru-2nd Sun NABS (New Age Bullshit)

    Totanubis: It has been always there lol

    Totanubis: It never left see, this Dark Moon or extra sun energy

    Totanubis: Both Nemesis as the 'hidden sun' and as Nibiru as the hidden moon

    Totanubis: It is the 4th generation spoken of in the bible….here are some quotes

    Genesis 15:15-17
    King James Version (KJV)
    15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
    16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
    17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

    Hebrews 3:10
    Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.


    Totanubis:
    1 Peter 2:9
    But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;


    Totanubis:
    Colossians 1:26
    Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

    Matthew 24:34
    Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


    Totanubis: He means the 3rd

    Totanubis:
    Matthew 16:4
    A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

    Matthew 23:33
    Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


    Totanubis:
    Matthew 23:36
    Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.


    Totanubis: Obvious that this relates to the second coming see

    Totanubis: All in John's gospel as the 'sending of the holy ghost' aka 'the comforter'

    Colossians 1:26
    Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:


    This is the one lol

    Totanubis: Not to be found by the navel gazers

    16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

    4th generation here means that the duality will be harmonised in 'brotherhood' mirrored in 'sisterhood'

    Totanubis: So all Old Adams and Eves are to 'play' Osiris-Set' and 'Isis-Nephthys' twinships to manifest the MI-IM or JCCJ cosmic twinship

    Totanubis: The name Amorites etc all relate to something called the 'battle of the kings'

    Totanubis: Abraham as a forerunner to Jacob 'wrestling' with the 'angeldemon' and such stuff

    Totanubis: To be RENAMED

    Totanubis: New World New Generation

    Totanubis: Abram Sarai become Abraham and Sarah

    Totanubis: Jacob becomes Israel

    Totanubis: I am using it as the New Planet, the 13th

    Ishtara Raven: yeah i saw this and it feels right to me

    Ishtara Raven: well it would be a good idea to address it

    Totanubis: It fits all of us very well, well when you take the extended astro definitions into account as the dynamic 13th and 14th star signs

    Totanubis: The feminine elders as the goddesses returning

    Ishtara Raven: yes i saw this feminine energy in the descriptions

    Totanubis: Lilith is often VERY much associated with the fundamentalist religions

    Totanubis: Why it is so potent as a transformation archetype and office

    Totanubis: Lilith is of course our Lucifera the sexchanged Satan himherself

    Totanubis: Succubi, Mother of all demons and so on

    Totanubis: Ok I give an overview

    Totanubis: It has to do with the seasons

    Totanubis: You know that 30 degrees define 1 sign as a month and as 30°

    Ishtara Raven: right

    Totanubis: The Lilith Moon is just like the 'Nemesis' Sun

    Totanubis: Aka this Nibiru-Annunaki-Giants BS

    Ishtara Raven: ah ok, unseen but still influencing

    Totanubis: Lilith takes 40 degrees to travel a sign

    Ishtara Raven: yes they don’t understand what it is

    Totanubis: Yes

    Ishtara Raven: instinctively they all know, but attach something 3-D to it like a
    planet, dark star ect, when its higher dimensional really

    Totanubis: So one year for 12x30=360 becomes 9 Lilith 'months' or cycles for 9x40=360

    Totanubis: It is the 'Little Season' of 90 days in 2014

    Ishtara Raven: wow that’s interesting

    Totanubis: Fully calibrated cosmically

    Totanubis: Indeed

    Ishtara Raven: also 9 months is a gestational period too

    Totanubis: The 40 degrees are well known and you can get the degrees from any more detailed ephemerides

    Totanubis: Exactly

    Totanubis: You got it

    Ishtara Raven: well I got that first, when you said 9 Lilith months

    Totanubis: The entire birth-antibirth cycle of the Rebirth is defined by seasons

    Totanubis: Now enter the ancients the record keepers

    Totanubis: Druids, Indians and adepts, alchemists

    Totanubis: Its the 'old wicca' as the modern Dragon omni-scientists

    Ishtara Raven: hehe

    Totanubis: If you search the web on Lilith Dark Moon you will find much confusion

    Totanubis: About what Lilith is. Many try to blend the science with the astrology and so on

    Ishtara Raven: well the one link you provided seemed pretty accurate

    Totanubis: Its much simpler than tha

    fates---: is Satan evil?

    Totanubis: No

    Totanubis: EVIL=LIVE

    Totanubis: And part of the duality necessary to create the Monadic Dyad from the Dyadic Monad

    Ishtara Raven: the false perception of oneself is what is evil in the sense of the word fates

    Totanubis: Yes Raven can explain the duality required to EXIST, but NOT necessary to become EXPRESSED

    Ishtara Raven: humanity has a great self esteem problem

    Totanubis: In the New World fates, in the places of the 'sanctum', the sanctuaries say

    fates---: is Lilith = Satan something to break free from?

    Ishtara Raven: no its something to realize and remember, the Goddess realized.

    Totanubis: Violence as you see it now will still exist, BUT become 'boxed' in, say in computer games or cyber space

    Totanubis: Then it will no longer be necessary, for people to carry guns to kill and shoot and protect things

    Totanubis: Something like that, think about it

    Totanubis: What is BAD and EVIL today will still exist in a 'parallel cyberspace' say

    Ishtara Raven: the shaitain or satan your referring to is the fake, the image that causes mankind to fail to see the face of god and vs versa, because humans cannot see the divinity, they cannot see their own in each other. And Abba cannot see his goddess.

    Totanubis: No fates you are to LOVE Lilith

    Totanubis: As your core and as part of yourself

    fates---: who is the enemy?

    Totanubis: What is considered evil today will all CONVERGE into a New form of starhuman sexuality

    Totanubis: Yourself, your ignorance your vanity your refusal to surrender to your higher disincarnate nature

    fates---: Yaldabaoth?

    THE13THBRIDGE: most peoples greatest enemy is themselves

    THE13THBRIDGE: and; then the doors they leave open; esp; when they sleep at night

    Totanubis: REFUSAL=LASUFER

    Totanubis: Is the 'Original sin'

    THE13THBRIDGE: all kinds of things - fly in; and; fly through; and; out

    THE13THBRIDGE: and;it is so simple to block that

    Totanubis: Yes, but Yaldabaoth is simply a mental construct embodied AS the duality in all things

    THE13THBRIDGE: and, allow only those things; that are in alignment

    Ishtara Raven: yes the false perceptions of the self

    Totanubis: Yes, but Yalda is simply a mental construct embodied AS the duality in all things


    [2:10:49 PM] Thubanis: Any competent astrologer can then READ this chart Fates
    [2:11:02 PM] Thubanis: You can write your own book from the symbols
    [2:11:26 PM] Thubanis: AND for everyone, there are many online descriptions for the basics
    [2:11:40 PM] Thubanis: Like Jupiter in the 4th house Jupiter in Taurus
    [2:11:54 PM] Thubanis: Jupiter trine Uranus and square Mercury etc etc
    [2:12:05 PM] Thubanis: I can do this of course but many others can too
    [2:12:30 PM] fates---: hmm alright, ill see what i can find
    [2:12:38 PM] Ishtara Raven: well no one but you knows the Thuban interpretation as well though Tony, I am trying but I am not well versed in astrology as you
    [2:12:51 PM] Thubanis: Yes Raven and this I have emphasised many times
    [2:13:07 PM] Thubanis: Libra is linked to the New Moon and the Dragon Nodes
    [2:13:24 PM] Thubanis: Thuban uses EQUAL houses not Koch or Placidus
    [2:13:56 PM] Thubanis: Thuban returns the entire structure of the constellations to its origins and the birth of the astrology
    [2:13:58 PM] Ishtara Raven: right all that i realise, its the interpretations that are somewhat different as you have a deeper understanding of the symbols and such
    [2:14:44 PM] Thubanis: The major problem with the online stuff is House 6, as fates found out
    [2:15:06 PM] Thubanis: Everything else is very good if the analysis is competent
    [2:15:08 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah some of the interpretations are out there
    [2:15:19 PM] Thubanis: They are actully often overcomplicating things
    [2:15:29 PM] Thubanis: I dont use sextiles and quartiles etc, as these are all finetunings
    [2:16:05 PM] Thubanis: And as the elementary structure is being reconfigured, the finetunings get worse and worse
    [2:16:22 PM] Thubanis: The emphasis in any chart are always Conjunctions and Oppositions

    [2:16:39 PM] Thubanis: Even Trines ands squares are becoming less potent
    [2:16:42 PM] fates---: like the placement of my black moon
    [2:16:53 PM] fates---: in the opposite house of my dragon node
    [2:16:55 PM] Ishtara Raven: right the major aspects
    [2:17:21 PM] Thubanis: So the old astrology raves on about the trines and the squares, as benevolent and malevolent respectively
    [2:17:29 PM] Thubanis: It is no longer so
    [2:17:46 PM] Thubanis: Squares can be VERY beneficial challenges
    [2:18:01 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes why i never read the Tarot in reverse
    [2:18:19 PM] Thubanis: BUT the Conjunctions are always valid as the eclipses see
    [2:18:26 PM] Thubanis: And fates' chart is full of them
    [2:18:29 PM] Ishtara Raven: i always thought reversal interpretation silly
    [2:18:39 PM] Thubanis: His chart is dominated by conjunctions and oppositions
    [2:18:56 PM] Ishtara Raven: lol sounds like mine
    [2:19:05 PM] Thubanis: Yes like Satan's reverse speech; total NABS humbug
    [2:19:22 PM] fates---: reverse speech?
    [2:19:28 PM] Thubanis: The pentagon is BOTH up and down in rotation in the DYNAMIC interpretations see?
    [2:20:07 PM] Thubanis: This 13th sign has made the hitherto static charts dynamic
    [2:20:10 PM] Ishtara Raven: well each Tarot card is an archetype, containing both light and dark aspects, i just always let the archtype speak and if i felt a negative influence i would say so, no need to reverse interpret
    [2:20:46 PM] fates---: interesting
    [2:20:54 PM] Ishtara Raven: i dont know i read Tarot very differently then most, i travel through the landscape of the symbols
    [2:20:58 PM] Ishtara Raven: and i feel things
    [2:21:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: so i guess i approach Astrology similarly, by feeling it out
    [2:22:06 PM] Thubanis: But here too I will put Lilith into it so there will be a later version
    [2:22:22 PM] fates---: can you send all the charts tony?
    [2:22:37 PM] fates---: it would be nice to see what everyone looks like
    [2:22:50 PM] Ishtara Raven: i can send you mine and james core chart if you like fates
    [2:22:56 PM] fates---: ok
    [2:23:03 PM] Michael: what celestial body corresponds to "lillith"
    [2:23:34 PM] Thubanis: The empty focus of the moons orbit around the earth Michael
    [2:24:07 PM] *** Ishtara Raven sent RavJamCore.jpg ***
    [2:24:53 PM] Thubanis: Just like the socalled 2nd Sun or Nemesis, often associated with Nibiru and Wormwood, asteroids and comets, relates to the empty focus of the earth's orbit about the sun
    [2:25:51 PM] fates---: wow very cool, thanks raven
    [2:26:00 PM] fates---: your signs are in almost the same place
    [2:26:05 PM] Thubanis: I will send the corecharts fates, after I have added Lilith to them
    [2:26:20 PM] Michael: the empty focus? could you elaborate?
    [2:26:44 PM] Thubanis: Simple geometry
    [2:26:53 PM] Thubanis: A circle has only 1 center as a focus
    [2:27:42 PM] Thubanis: Squash the circle, you get an ellipse with this center becoming two focal points say as defined in physical optics and the mathematical definition of conic sections, of what an ellipse is
    [2:28:39 PM] Ishtara Raven: hah susan your first house is in gemini, the twins, interesting
    [2:28:41 PM] Thubanis: Susan you gotta press save on this send if you want your chart as it is now
    [2:28:57 PM] Thubanis: Yes and Raven this is Thuban
    [2:29:09 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i realise that
    [2:29:18 PM] Ishtara Raven: aquarius midhaven
    [2:29:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: download it Susan
    [2:31:18 PM] Thubanis: In Placidus Susan's ascendant would be Gemini , but in Thuban it is Taurus and then CONJUNCT her Lilith as 12th house
    [2:31:48 PM] Thubanis: It is not much of a change, all the degrees stay the same of course
    [2:32:03 PM] Thubanis: But the houses change in the angles
    [2:32:16 PM] Thubanis: Because the houses are made EQUAL
    [2:32:29 PM] Ishtara Raven: she has a stellum in her 8th house too
    [2:32:33 PM] Ishtara Raven: doesnt surprise me
    [2:32:57 PM] Thubanis: So Thuban form puts Lilith in Susan's 12th house of the dreamers
    [2:33:32 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i read that yesterday, very cool
    [2:33:56 PM] Thubanis: This is still the same in Placidus on a rough check lol
    [2:34:01 PM] Ishtara Raven: explains a lot of her abilities there too in house 12 as an astral walker
    [2:34:16 PM] Thubanis: So the old charts are close, very close in most cases
    [2:34:36 PM] Thubanis: I think someone born at the poles would see differences in the systems
    [2:34:55 PM] Thubanis: There the houses are very skewed
    [2:35:36 PM] Thubanis: But Raven, Susan and me have the same Lilith House but under different signs
    [2:35:58 PM] Ishtara Raven: Uranus retrograde in her 3rd house seems to reflect her prolific nature of communication and why she says people fear her energy, totally uranian infused with leo manamity....raven interpretation on the fly lol
    [2:36:00 PM] Thubanis: Mine is Pisces dreamer see and Susan's is in the dreamer house
    [2:36:29 PM] Thubanis: But the Tubans seem to be opposites in the Lilith definitions
    [2:36:43 PM] Thubanis: Aries and Libra and Leo and Aquarius
    [2:36:50 PM] Ishtara Raven: i thought my lilith was in 8th house?
    [2:36:54 PM] Thubanis: I commented on this before
    [2:37:24 PM] fates---: raven and rok = 8
    tony and susan = 12
    sui and fates = 6
    [2:37:26 PM] Thubanis: No you are in the 4th of the family in Aries; Rok as Aries is in the 8th
    [2:37:59 PM] Thubanis: In Aries you oppose now (in complementarity) Xeia's Lilith in Libra and Fates' Lilith in Libra
    [2:38:01 PM] Ishtara Raven: i dont know how you find it
    [2:38:09 PM] Thubanis: What?
    [2:38:15 PM] Thubanis: Ephemerides
    [2:38:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: the lilith in my chart
    [2:38:22 PM] Thubanis: Its a simple calculus
    [2:38:59 PM] fates---: oppose eh?
    [2:39:01 PM] Ishtara Raven: so its like behind the sun but the houses have rotated why its in aries 8th house?
    [2:39:04 PM] Thubanis: every 40 days Lilith travels 40 degrees so it takes a month and 10 days to go thriough one sign
    [2:39:38 PM] Thubanis: Yes, as siad it is the change in the sun per sign
    [2:39:50 PM] Thubanis: the elliptical center of gravity say
    [2:40:06 PM] Thubanis: I find a pic hang on
    [2:42:26 PM] *** Thubanis sent Lilith darkMoon.jpg
    [2:43:15 PM] Thubanis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwDPLoq--iQ
    [2:43:54 PM] Thubanis: http://www.angelfire.com/az/zodiacenterprises/LILART.html
    [2:45:33 PM] Thubanis: http://astrologybykingsley.com/2008/04/14/black-moon-and-liliths-dark-side/
    [2:46:10 PM] Michael: you saying the midspace of the earth's shadow?
    [2:46:16 PM] Thubanis: http://www.halexandria.org/dward382.htm
    [2:46:25 PM] Thubanis: No simple, simple geometry
    [2:46:37 PM] Thubanis: Definition of how a circle changes into an ellipse
    [2:46:59 PM] Thubanis: This underpins celestial mechanics from Copernicus to Kepler to Newton
    [2:47:35 PM] Ishtara Raven: ok so its like midway between earth and the moons apogee
    [2:48:01 PM] Thubanis: Those refs are all incomplete Raven, most emphasize the 'dark' aspects of Lilith as a Demon Mother symbolically
    [2:48:32 PM] Thubanis: But adding The Mother of all as in Revelation.12 HARMONISES ALL THIS AS YOU SHOULD KNOW
    [2:48:50 PM] fates---: that video is awesome :)
    [2:48:56 PM] Thubanis: This diagram is not to scale Raven
    [2:49:17 PM] Thubanis: Yes and as you can see in your chart Lilith is YOUR Descendant Fates
    [2:49:30 PM] Thubanis: I better finish it, instead of chatting here
    [2:50:02 PM] Thubanis: Like the center of gravity between Sun and Earth is WITHIN the Sun and not in a place in between Raven
    [2:50:11 PM] Ishtara Raven: right i see there are two versions, the actual dark moon called lilith and the empty focus moon which is a place and not an actual satellite which is called black moon lilith
    [2:50:42 PM] Thubanis: Not as bad with this empty focus of course as the Moon is not that much 'lighter' than the earth but still the foci are closer together
    [2:50:45 PM] fates---: make sense being what am i
    [2:51:07 PM] Thubanis: But it is THIS which changes the 30 degree month to 40 degrees ok?
    [2:51:19 PM] Thubanis: Yes this is the 'mixup'
    [2:51:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: wow
    [2:51:24 PM] Thubanis: There are 3 actually
    [2:51:27 PM] Thubanis: 3 lilith's
    [2:51:27 PM] Ishtara Raven: this is facinating
    [3:02:35 PM] Thubanis: It's from there that lilith derives as the oldest feminine of all even BEFORE the physical universe emerged from its metaphysical cocoon
    [3:02:59 PM] fates---: Apep is a snake see:
    http://173.201.176.135/Anubus%20Dark%20Desire/Anubis%20Dark%20Desire%204/Anubis_Dark_Desire-08.jpg
    [3:03:15 PM] Thubanis: Lilith = GODDESS = Barbelo, Raven
    [3:03:23 PM] Thubanis: Yes fates
    [3:03:45 PM] Thubanis: Rah-Apep became labelled as God-Satan and Osiris-Set etc
    [3:03:50 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i know tony
    [3:04:16 PM] Thubanis: I gotta go and do fates chart I don't want to waste my time arguing
    [3:04:17 PM] fates---: Set fights Apep
    [3:04:23 PM] Ishtara Raven: i was trying to make a point about it to michael since he seems so perturbed on the names
    [3:04:40 PM] fates---: it is his job
    [3:04:46 PM] fates---: i think Ra did also
    [3:04:50 PM] fates---: on the other end
    [3:04:51 PM] Michael: what do you feel kundalini is exactly
    [3:05:08 PM] Thubanis: Anubis fights Set as Son of Apep fates indeed; so you see your higherD association with Anubis here
    [3:05:59 PM] fates---: makes sense, Anubis dosnt "agree" entirely with Set
    [3:06:08 PM] Michael: because to ascribe goddess qualities to it is rather making it out to be something more important than it is
    [3:06:26 PM] Thubanis: Anubis is then 'the sondaughter' of Uraeus the Egyptian symbol of the Kundalini
    [3:06:33 PM] Thubanis: The Serpent of Serpents and the symbol of the pharoah's power
    [3:06:54 PM] fates---: http://173.201.176.135/Anubus%20Dark%20Desire/Anubis%20Dark%20Desire%204/Anubis_Dark_Desire-28.jpg
    [3:07:16 PM] Thubanis: Anubis is the son of Set and Nephthys but also inseminated by Osiris
    [3:07:28 PM] Thubanis: So Anubis becomes Isis 'stepson'
    [3:07:45 PM] THE13THBRIDGE: remind me to tell you another time
    [3:07:51 PM] Thubanis: He is the duality harmonised say as Hermaphroditus
    [3:08:04 PM] fates---: Bi sexual
    [3:08:14 PM] Thubanis: So then you can retell all this as the story of Aphrodite and Hermes and Hephaestus
    [3:08:32 PM] Thubanis: YES
    [3:08:45 PM] Thubanis: BOTH 6 and 9 are bisexual 'unclean'
    [3:08:49 PM] fates---: Set is bisexual too
    [3:08:54 PM] Thubanis: Hathor's Miror and Anubis
    [3:09:10 PM] Thubanis: Set is sexchanged
    [3:09:26 PM] Thubanis: From Lucifer to Lucifera or Satan to Satania
    [3:09:43 PM] Thubanis: There is NO sexchange for the 'Devil' as this is the fake
    [3:09:57 PM] Thubanis: The only true evil is the DEVIL=LIVED
    [3:10:06 PM] fates---: http://173.201.176.135/Anubus%20Dark%20Desire/Anubis%20Dark%20Desire%204/Anubis_Dark_Desire-29.jpg
    [3:10:19 PM] fates---: is that unclean?
    [3:10:26 PM] Thubanis: The DESIRE of LILITH is the sexdrive cosmic
    [3:10:51 PM] Thubanis: It is demonic UNTIL Lilith becomes a manyness in New Eves
    [3:11:12 PM] Thubanis: Nono unclean means 'middle path' in the tree of life
    [3:11:25 PM] Ishtara Raven: [3:04 PM] Michael:
    <<< what do you feel kundalini is exactly

    it is the primordial divine energy, that created all things Michael and is the mother and father of all things. This is the same energy that transformed the body of Jesus. It is eternal and life giving and highly sexual at its deepest levels. It is the urge to procreate.

    [3:11:29 PM] fates---: So Set, Anubis, Horus, Ra?
    [3:11:41 PM] Thubanis: The right path is even numbers as females and the left path is male numbers as odd
    [3:11:55 PM] Michael: kundalini is not the primordial divine energy that created all things
    [3:12:05 PM] Thubanis: No the clean male path is 1-3-5-8
    [3:12:14 PM] Michael: its just a tool of that energy
    [3:12:15 PM] Thubanis: Osiris-Horus-Thoth-Ptah
    [3:12:32 PM] fates---: Horus is Daath?
    [3:12:35 PM] Thubanis: The clean female path is 2-4-7
    [3:12:51 PM] Thubanis: Isis-Bastet-Nephthys
    [3:13:03 PM] Thubanis: Daath=11 is the 'hidden' path
    [3:13:13 PM] Thubanis: Daath is 6-9-11
    [3:13:15 PM] Michael: Ive really gotta break this down for you guys...
    [3:13:31 PM] Thubanis: Hathor-Anubis-Daath=Lilith say
    [3:13:53 PM] Thubanis: Set=10
    [3:14:06 PM] fates---: Kingdom is Set
    [3:14:22 PM] Thubanis: An even number by definition but faking Dragquen as 10=1+0=1 as Osiris' 'brother'
    [3:14:43 PM] Thubanis: Malkuth is root = 10 and Kether=Crown=1
    [3:14:53 PM] fates---: yes, 10 is root
    [3:14:59 PM] fates---: Kether is Ra
    [3:15:13 PM] fates---: middle path
    [3:15:14 PM] Thubanis: As an OLDER generation yes
    [3:15:19 PM] Thubanis: There are 4 gens
    [3:15:48 PM] Thubanis: Ra becomes Shu becomes Geb becomes Osiris-Set brotherhood
    [3:16:20 PM] Thubanis: This is named differently by historical cultures, but all share the same story
    [3:16:36 PM] fates---: Hmm ok, then we are thinking of the same construct
    [3:16:44 PM] Thubanis: Middle path is 1-11-6-9-10 yes
    [3:16:45 PM] fates---: 1 = male? not so sure
    [3:16:50 PM] fates---: yes
    [3:16:58 PM] Thubanis: Odd numbers are male even are female
    [3:17:10 PM] fates---: [8/24/12 10:12:10 PM] Wyzard: No the clean male path is 1-3-5-8
    [3:17:15 PM] Thubanis: The exception is the BRIDGE 7-8 Nephthys-Ptah
    [3:17:24 PM] fates---: The clean female path is 2-4-7-10
    [3:17:42 PM] Thubanis: They allow the sexchange via the 'unclean' bisexes 6 and 9
    [3:18:34 PM] Thubanis: Yes, Set is cosmically original Femme
    [3:18:48 PM] Thubanis: The Wife of God in waiting
    [3:18:55 PM] fates---: 1 = Ra 11 = Horus 9=Anubis 10=Set
    [3:18:59 PM] fates---: what is 6?
    [3:19:10 PM] Thubanis: No
    [3:19:15 PM] Thubanis: Hathor=6
    [3:19:25 PM] Thubanis: 3=Horus
    [3:19:35 PM] Michael: kundalini is really very simple... and I understand that you get it associated with sex and creative energy because it primarily resides around the lower chakras associated with survival procreation and whatnot.. energy collects and coils up in those areas when one focuses too much on the material/physical plane it doesnt matter if your focusing on sex or looking at a rock on the ground some energy is going to accumulate in the lower chakras that associate with the material world
    [3:19:51 PM] Thubanis: The Old interpretations
    [3:20:04 PM] Thubanis: Without the Daath=11 actually
    [3:20:23 PM] Thubanis: 'No old humans are allowed' to enter the 'forbidden pathways'
    [3:21:12 PM] Thubanis: You might find Devakas on MOA more akin your cosmology and ideas Michael
    [3:28:54 PM] Ishtara Raven: well its as Jesus said, very few would be given or shown the truth, i am so frustrated with the whole lot of them these days. its sickening that no one can seem to see the true meaning of the GOT, its so beautiful
    [3:29:10 PM] Thubanis: Yes as am I
    [3:29:18 PM] Thubanis: Why I dont say much see
    [3:29:24 PM] Thubanis: Pointless
    [3:29:33 PM] Ishtara Raven: i am seriously ready to go on a full throttle rant on FB
    [3:29:43 PM] Thubanis: Egomania rules their psyches
    [3:29:48 PM] Ishtara Raven: likely piss them all off, so sick of it
    [3:29:51 PM] Thubanis: Why not
    [3:30:05 PM] Ishtara Raven: you have people posting the most absurd XXXX
    [3:30:13 PM] Thubanis: Yep
    [3:30:32 PM] Thubanis: Last days of prophecy Raven; it is necessary and to be expected
    [3:30:33 PM] Ishtara Raven: i can see why Crowley was so hateful of the human race lol, he took it to extremes of course
    [3:30:49 PM] Thubanis: The 'great falling away from the cosmic truth' it is called
    [3:31:16 PM] Thubanis: Yes he understood that sexuality is the salvation and nothing else
    [3:31:23 PM] Thubanis: But he could not take it further in his abuse of substances and his megalomania too
    [3:31:30 PM] Ishtara Raven: my blood is boiling, its like i dont know how much longer i can hold my tongue, and yet if i do speak, what then?
    [3:31:40 PM] Thubanis: All ok
    [3:31:50 PM] Thubanis: Look at the new earth chart
    [3:31:59 PM] Thubanis: I added the 15 days as 4 corners
    [3:32:18 PM] Thubanis: So August 9th - August 23rd
    [3:32:21 PM] Ishtara Raven: are we in a WOC?
    [3:32:33 PM] Ishtara Raven: why am i so pisssed
    [3:32:50 PM] Thubanis: Becomes the 'death of the antichrist' in law and then manifested from September 27 - October 11
    [3:32:58 PM] Thubanis: No deeper
    [3:33:07 PM] Thubanis: The 'judgement was written'
    [3:33:20 PM] Thubanis: August 23rd was the final day
    [3:34:32 PM] Ishtara Raven: my dream last night was these two serpent snake hearts entwining, i was trying to help them entwine, but they were sort of fighting it and each had a side to tell me, i was downloaded with so much stuff, but all of what i mostly brought to my conscious mind is primal anger in a way. They finally merged into colors but i was struggling with them, arguing all night it seemed. i dont know what it means
    [3:34:44 PM] *** Thubanis sent NewEarth.jpg ***
    [3:35:04 PM] Thubanis: Yes because of August 23rd
    [3:35:14 PM] Ishtara Raven: ok that makes sense it seems
    [3:35:23 PM] Ishtara Raven: it was like something was finalized
    [3:35:34 PM] Thubanis: Before the judgements can be executed they have to be legislated
    [3:35:37 PM] Ishtara Raven: but man i seriously became like the mediator of the century in this dream
    [3:36:00 PM] Thubanis: This legislation is 15 days a twin-Woc mirrored in a 'Day of the Lord'
    [3:36:27 PM] Thubanis: Of course the witnesses testimony see
    [3:36:48 PM] Thubanis: The 2 serpents are the lovehearts in the chart
    [3:36:55 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i realised this
    [3:37:42 PM] Thubanis: Conception to Birth of antichrist blended with Anticonception to Antibirth of this same antiLogos energy
    [3:37:45 PM] Ishtara Raven: and in a weird way Tony, I felt I was helping them somehow and it is related to you and DD and us all, i was like a defender stating my case and listening to both sides
    [3:38:00 PM] Thubanis: The chart is clear to the days, even though they cant read it
    [3:38:17 PM] Ishtara Raven: funny all day i thought of Oct 11th
    [3:38:59 PM] fates---: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8YgaH2i8tM&t=10s
    [3:39:01 PM] Thubanis: Should be shared with Xeia and Rok Raven
    [3:39:47 PM] Thubanis: October 11th is an important nexus yes
    [3:40:34 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah likely you should send the chart in here
    [3:40:39 PM] Ishtara Raven: the update
    [3:40:59 PM] Thubanis: I meant the info about August 23rd and the 4 blocks of twin wocs
    [3:41:23 PM] Thubanis: It is best looked at at MOA, where you can magnify it
    [3:41:28 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i know, but as reference i meant, i can see it on the chart
    [3:41:53 PM] Thubanis: Yes, but since Xeia had those dreams as well I decided to say something about it
    [3:42:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: well i think its significant, both our dreams
    [3:42:41 PM] Ishtara Raven: she pegged the fear right on
    [3:43:06 PM] Thubanis: Yes and regarding the Judas Gospel
    [3:43:14 PM] Thubanis: I should say something
    [3:43:30 PM] Thubanis: Judas becomes Judith
    [3:43:43 PM] Thubanis: 'This is why he is called the 'Son of Perdition'
    [3:43:57 PM] Thubanis: So fates, Judas in the bible is like Set
    [3:44:19 PM] Thubanis: This is the key to understanding the Nag Hammadi stuff about Judas Iscariot
    [3:44:43 PM] Thubanis: Much of the Nag Hammadi stuff is of a far lesser quality than the GOT
    [3:45:14 PM] Thubanis: GOT rules supreme as the Logos words of the transfigured cosmic Jesus as a universal waveform
    [3:45:19 PM] fates---: hmm, interesting, Judas is like Set
    [3:45:27 PM] Thubanis: Yes, or anyone in the duality
    [3:45:34 PM] Ishtara Raven: oh my spider must be ok, i checked the Roses this morning and it was gone, so maybe you were right Susan, 'she' was building an egg nest of sorts. I didnt know what was going on last night so i became concerned when it seemed she was getting caught in her web and exhausted.
    [3:45:41 PM] Thubanis: Everyone is Judas becoming Judith
    [3:45:46 PM] fates---: brb
    [3:45:59 PM] Thubanis: August 23rd Raven
    [3:46:21 PM] Thubanis: This date is so potent as the Transit of the Sun from Leo into Virgo
    [3:46:32 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah the cusp, i had forgot about it
    [3:46:36 PM] Thubanis: Your spider is losing its virginity lol
    [3:46:42 PM] Ishtara Raven: the Spider was trying to tell me lol
    [3:46:57 PM] Thubanis: Yes, the Dragon Dates became empowered exactly 1 month ago
    [3:47:20 PM] Thubanis: MM-Day of the Ingressing Leo Sun from Cancer with the Mother-Father symbol of the ancients
    [3:48:40 PM] Ishtara Raven: well maybe i will post all this stuff about the black Lilith moons on FB,
    [3:48:44 PM] Thubanis: Recall Every Day from July 4th, 2011 to December 21st, 2012 is part of the Barbelo-Yalda creation preceding the Big Bang
    [3:48:53 PM] Thubanis: Sure
    [3:49:08 PM] Thubanis: I might put relevant parts of this convo on the forums
    [3:49:16 PM] Thubanis: As Susan wanted
    [3:49:20 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah
    [3:49:30 PM] Ishtara Raven: a whole Lilith expose
    [3:49:36 PM] Thubanis: Indeed
    [3:49:47 PM] Thubanis: This is a nice video too
    [3:49:54 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i was watching it
    [3:49:55 PM] Thubanis: Lilith
    [3:50:03 PM] Ishtara Raven: great immagry
    [3:50:33 PM] Thubanis: Yes Kali is awakened
    [3:50:41 PM] Thubanis: Ask Sui too
    [3:50:53 PM] Thubanis: Kali awakening date was July 22nd
    [3:51:00 PM] Ishtara Raven: i got all excited today and i think i will get myself a new computer and take some classes on photo manipulation and illustration. i have all these ideas fermenting.
    [3:51:26 PM] Thubanis: I do the chart now or fates will haunt me
    [3:51:32 PM] Ishtara Raven: lol go go
    [3:51:36 PM] Thubanis: Gracias
    [5:31:36 PM] fates---: im back
    [6:07:45 PM] fates---: (coffee) Asleepy
    [6:09:29 PM] fates---: [8/24/12 10:51:30 PM] Wyzard: I do the chart now or fates will haunt me
    [6:10:06 PM] fates---: (chuckle)
    [6:11:28 PM] fates---: |-) Well, im going to get some sleep i think. I'll be online tomorrow
    [6:40:09 PM] *** Thubanis sent fates.gif ***
    [6:40:38 PM] Thubanis: I hope this is without errors
    [6:40:55 PM] Thubanis: I leave it up until further notice
    [6:51:09 PM] fates---: Hey Tony, im still awake
    [6:52:50 PM] Thubanis: Sure, some of this data will be shared on the forums
    [6:52:50 PM] fates---: are you sure thats the right one?
    [6:53:05 PM] Thubanis: yes
    [6:53:23 PM] Thubanis: This is your chart with the astromath describing your natal chart
    [6:53:51 PM] fates---: i think you sent the old one
    [6:54:08 PM] *** fates--- sent Fates (incomplete) .gif ***
    [6:54:23 PM] Thubanis: No you see Lilith on in descriptions in green?
    [6:54:47 PM] fates---: nope
    [6:55:46 PM] *** Thubanis sent FatesSwanson.jpeg ***
    [6:56:26 PM] Thubanis: Sorry, yes, you were correct
    [6:56:38 PM] fates---: a ha! AWESOME!
    [6:57:00 PM] fates---: dark moon is right between libara and virgo
    [6:57:08 PM] Thubanis: Yours is the first and only Thuban chart with Lilith in it for now
    [6:57:09 PM] fates---: Thanks soo much!
    [6:57:13 PM] Thubanis: Np
    [6:57:22 PM] fates---: wow
    [6:57:24 PM] Thubanis: Yes Descendant
    [6:57:47 PM] Thubanis: Is the line between Libra and Virgo
    [6:57:59 PM] fates---: what does that mean?
    [6:58:19 PM] Thubanis: Just definition on the partitioning of the zodiak
    [6:58:53 PM] fates---: What does the major aspect mean? :)
    [6:59:56 PM] Thubanis: Dominant astroaspects
    [7:00:23 PM] Thubanis: All of your planets are basically in conjunctions
    [7:00:35 PM] Thubanis: Why you have empty houses
    [7:00:42 PM] fates---: Ruler of the MidHeaven = Noon and Decendent = Dusk
    [7:00:51 PM] Thubanis: but this you can analyse yourself using your books
    [7:01:16 PM] Thubanis: No your midheaven is the triple conjunction why it is dominant
    [7:01:34 PM] Thubanis: The mathcodes say this in shorthand
    [7:01:52 PM] fates---: ah i see
    [7:02:11 PM] Thubanis: Yes there are many more codes like sextiles and stuff
    [7:02:22 PM] Thubanis: As said I dont place much importance on those
    [7:02:43 PM] Thubanis: But many older astrodescriptions are ok there
    [7:02:59 PM] Thubanis: It is that I concentrate on the most powerful things
    [7:03:35 PM] Ishtara Raven: hello
    [7:03:43 PM] Ishtara Raven: can anyone see this
    [7:03:50 PM] fates---: hmm, so overall in the Thuban context, what can you scry from this?
    [7:04:22 PM] Thubanis: You are to reinvent yourself
    [7:05:11 PM] fates---: interesting, so what i was previously destoned to be is now different
    [7:06:20 PM] fates---: if my soul didnt scribe the nero pathways of this body/brain, and i didnt not make the choices i did, this body would have been someone fated far differerently
    [7:06:44 PM] Thubanis: No I dont see this. I see it as a astrocross
    [7:06:59 PM] Thubanis: Look at midheaven you are across houses 9 and 10
    [7:07:04 PM] Thubanis: In the Fatherhood
    [7:07:19 PM] Thubanis: But the Motherhood is only 3 and not 4 and 4 is vacant
    [7:07:33 PM] Thubanis: So the imbalance is to redesign your 4th house
    [7:07:45 PM] fates---: Family
    [7:07:57 PM] Thubanis: This then activates the cross with the Ascendant and the Descendant
    [7:08:07 PM] fates---: thats an oxy moron for me, i dont desire to have a family
    [7:08:21 PM] fates---: i already have one outside of this realm
    [7:08:47 PM] Thubanis: What I mean cosmic communication replacing old human one
    [7:09:00 PM] Thubanis: Cosmic family for the human one this on all levels

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Fatesswan
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Ravenjamesc

    [2:52:07 PM - Saturday, August 25th, 2012]
    Thubanis: http://darkstarastrology.com/triple-moon-goddess-lilith-astrology/
    [2:52:43 PM] Thubanis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYZCbvGOx4c


     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Lilith_darkmoon

    [2:53:05 PM] Thubanis:

    The Astronomical Lilith

    The Moon travels along an elliptical path around the Earth. An ellipse has two focal points, and the other focal point, not occupied by the Earth has been called the Dark Moon, the Black Moon or Lilith. This is a slightly simplified definition, since, actually, the Moon and the Earth both move around their common centre of gravity, and the path of the Moon is not a neat el...lipse, but a rather wobbly affair. One must distinguish between the mean orbit of the Moon, which is a slowly elongating ellipse, and the actual orbit, which vaccilates around the mean path, due to interference of various kinds. Just as there a "mean" and a "true" Lunar Node, so there is a "mean" and a "true" ellipse and a "mean" and a "true" Lilith. I write "true" in inverted commas, because the Moon's Node is only "true" about twice per month, when the Moon is actually on it, for the rest of the time, it is as "untrue" as the mean Node. In fact, when working with a point so close to the Earth, one should also take the great parallax into consideration, i.e. consider, from which point on the Earth one is actually looking at a point in the heavens. Astrology observes the planets geocentrically, as if from the Earth's centre, and not topocentrically, from the actual place of the observer.

    Black Moon Lilith is the ultimate archetype in Dark Goddess Astrology. Her myth comes from Lilith, Adams first wife who refused to lay beneath him during the sexual act and otherwise.

    She chose to be exiled from paradise rather to submit to God. She is also the serpent who tempted Eve with the forbidden fruit (enlightenment/sex), which then banished both Adam & Eve from paradise also.

    There are many full versions of this myth on the net She can be said she represents the Witch archetype. Magic, the kundalini, occult knowledge, the taboo, owning your sovereignty, the shadow, dreams, psychic ability, goddess power and creativity that is not just about making babies.

    With Black Moon Lilith there are two points that you can place in the chart. The Mean and the True (or Osculating.) I used to think the True wasn't important until I saw it rising in the chart of Marilyn Monroe and then decided to look it up and see if it was relevant. Bear in mind you really need an accurate birthtime to use True Lilith as it wavers so much. Mean Lilith is best to use without a time. I like what Juan Antonio Revilla says about it here:

    "The Mean Apogee or Black Moon... It's movement is actually as round and regular as the hands of a clock and it is very easy to calculate. This roundness of its motion is not a good representative of the nocturnal and magic demoness Lilith; "he goes onto say. "The Osculating Apogee,... Some people reject it because it doesn't make any sense to them to have it swing as much as 30 degrees from the mean position and have abrupt and irregular changes of velocity and direction, but I think it is precisely this erratic behavior what makes it the best representative of the irrational, instinctive, and primal symbolism of Lilith."


    [2:54:54 PM] Thubanis: As you can see, the manifesto of the REAL LILITH will be that embodied by ANY DQBee
    [2:55:07 PM] Thubanis: I am doing fates chart now
    [2:57:29 PM] Thubanis: Interestingly, September 12th, 2011 was the actual Conception of the Antichrist, manifesting in the 'loss of true core love' as some of us recall. This is emphasized on the New Earth chart
    [7:06:18 PM] Ishtara Raven:

    (22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom."
    They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?"
    Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."


     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Laetoliafar Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Lilith-snake-seductress-succubus




    The Testimony of the World Logos from Thuban

    Regarding your Temple of Solomon link and the '15 cubits'

    [8:15:44 PM-Monday, August 27th, 2012 (+10UCT)]
    Thubanis:
    Genesis.6.15-18:
    15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
    16A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
    17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
    18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

    Genesis.7.17-20:
    17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
    18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
    19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

    The Dimensions of the Ark relate to the 15 Cubits as the 15 days of the WOC Offset and the timewarp - see below. 300x50x30=450,000=15x30,000 in the ratio 30:5:3 and LengthxArea=300x1500 in ratio 1:5 in the height of the Ark of 30 cubits being covered in 15 cubits of water that is halfway as 30+15=45. The total 'Height' of the Flood, to 'cover the mountains', so is 150% the Height of the Ark. The 'StarHuman Merkabah' is defined in a wavelength of √15=2πR=πD for 3D/2=3√15/2π=1.849...

    The ratio 5:3=1.666.. approximates the Golden Mean (Y=1.618033...) in the Fibonacci Series: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21...in adjacent numbers and so the decoding for the 'Ancient Span' or 'Foot' as 3 'Handbreadths' becomes 0.308 centimeters or about 12 'inches' with 24 inches or 2 'Spans' defining the 'Ancient Cubit' (6 Cubit/4 Cubit=108/72=3/2) as the Inverse of the Golden Mean as 1/Y=X=0.618033...~0.616...and for 6 'foot' or 6 'spans' of 72 'inches' being the 'Height of a StarMan' as approximately 6 'foot' or 4 'cubits' or 18 'handbreadths' of so 185 cm - again in the 3/2 or 150% ratio.

    The 'Ancient Cubit' then becomes the 'Measurement Unit'.

    The 15 day Offset of the warptime and the Dimensions of the Arkian Merkabah - see above and related messages.

    [8:17:19 PM] Thubanis: [3:33:40 PM] Thubanis: Oh ok, yes I was looking at your Solomon link
    [3:33:57 PM] Thubanis: Yes he has figured that the temple is the starhuman merkabah
    [3:34:32 PM] Thubanis: Yes August 22nd, was when Sun ingressed Virgo
    [3:34:35 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah i found that link following the crop circle links on the descriptions
    [3:34:44 PM] Thubanis: This is a month of the Lion see
    [3:35:04 PM] Thubanis: MM=CJ entwining JC
    [3:35:06 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah i think Dawns birthday is the 31st of August.
    [3:35:10 PM] Thubanis: Leo-Virgo
    [3:35:49 PM] Thubanis: Unicorn is Virgo, why the royals have this as the ultimate 'secret sign' in Britain
    [3:35:59 PM] Ishtara Raven: we never really have stayed in touch much, she has always been sort of a pompous one, until recently
    [3:36:04 PM] Thubanis: In their emblems of the ptb
    [3:36:14 PM] Ishtara Raven: oh i wondered
    [3:36:32 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i noticed a lot of unicorns in their sygils
    [3:37:26 PM] Ishtara Raven: but i found it interesting this guy seemed to realise the temple is the human body, i had not seen anyone besides us decode this before
    [3:37:35 PM] Thubanis: Yes as we know for years
    [3:37:56 PM] Ishtara Raven: his name is Tony too lol
    [3:37:56 PM] Thubanis: His 120 cubit is our 144 cubit of Revelation too
    [3:38:33 PM] Thubanis: Your last or third last post was even named after 144 cubits
    [3:38:47 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah i read through his descriptions and such and his take on the big bull basin
    [3:39:11 PM] Thubanis: The magic 15 of Noah's ark fits into the 120
    [3:39:31 PM] Thubanis: This is another key
    [3:39:42 PM] Thubanis: Noone really never made any sense of this
    [3:39:43 PM] Thubanis: wait
    [3:40:28 PM] Ishtara Raven: well it astounds me how many people have visited his site, our stuff is so much more comprehensive though, detailed.
    [3:40:52 PM] Thubanis: Now take this literally
    [3:41:08 PM] Ishtara Raven: you cant it makes no sense
    [3:41:17 PM] Ishtara Raven: 15 cubits would not cover a mountain lol
    [3:41:39 PM] Thubanis:

    Genesis 7:16-24
    16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
    17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
    18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
    19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
    21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
    23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
    24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

    [3:41:46 PM] Thubanis: Indeed
    [3:42:09 PM] Thubanis: 1 cubit is 18 inches or so 45 cm
    [3:42:28 PM] Thubanis: 150=120+30 etc
    [3:42:28 PM] Ishtara Raven: wow no one has realised this yet i bet lol
    [3:43:09 PM] Thubanis: Mathematically it relates to sqrt(15) as the size of the Vitruvius egg

    [3:43:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: weird enough we all watched the prince of egypt tonight, annimation about Moses and Carla loved it, but she did not understand why God had to kill those Egyptian babies
    [3:43:41 PM] Ishtara Raven: the first born
    [3:44:18 PM] Thubanis: Because as wavelength this becomes a very good approximatrion of the Golden Mean and on this the 'dimensions' of the ark are stated
    [3:44:38 PM] Thubanis: Its symbolic tell her this NEVER happened
    [3:44:48 PM] Ishtara Raven: and then the sand surrounded Moses and she told me she had a scarry dream about sand englufing Seattle, a huge sand storm.
    [3:44:57 PM] Thubanis: It is the same as Abraham 'sacrificing' Isaac
    [3:45:09 PM] Ishtara Raven: yeah i told her
    [3:45:25 PM] Thubanis: Then an 'angel' says to 'sacrifice' a Ram instead
    [3:45:33 PM] Thubanis: The Ram is the firstborn get it?
    [3:45:35 PM] Thubanis: As Aries
    [3:45:40 PM] Thubanis: Reuben
    [3:45:45 PM] Ishtara Raven: she has been reading too much crap on the internet about the rapture, asks me daily about it and i tell her what it means, not the nabs BS you know
    [3:45:53 PM] Ishtara Raven: oh wow yeah
    [3:46:00 PM] Thubanis: It MEANS changing the Inheritance
    [3:46:11 PM] Thubanis: From the firstborn to the nextborn
    [3:46:22 PM] Thubanis: Jesus lineage was NOT first see
    [3:46:26 PM] Thubanis: It was the fourth in Judah after Reuben Aries, Simeon Taurus and Levi Gemini
    [3:46:31 PM] Ishtara Raven: true
    [3:47:00 PM] Thubanis: This then is made clear in Reuben-Aries-Ishmael-Pharez-Mannaseh-Esau-Cain ...
    [3:47:04 PM] Ishtara Raven: well i will try to make sense of it for her, somehow. between her dad and internet crap she is confused a bit, but its ok she is so young
    [3:47:06 PM] Thubanis: Losing their birthright as firstborns to the secondborns, often encoded as twins
    [3:47:36 PM] Thubanis: Well I consider it VERY important, you telling the true story amidst the crapola
    [3:48:10 PM] Thubanis: It is not hard use the bible codes and interpret them correctly
    [3:48:12 PM] Ishtara Raven: well i try, i am not so hot at conveying things to her though, i have to non-complicate it for her somehow
    [3:48:42 PM] Thubanis: Ram=1st and Pisces=12
    [3:48:53 PM] Thubanis: So alpha omega ourobos
    [3:49:07 PM] Thubanis: Head becomes Tail and vice versa
    [3:49:23 PM] Thubanis: Jesus said it: "The first will be last and the last first'
    [3:49:41 PM] Thubanis: This means many other things though as well
    [3:49:57 PM] Ishtara Raven: right
    [3:50:49 PM] Thubanis: If Carla watches a movie where 'babies' are slaughtered, then this is only a story to exemplify something deeper for people who cant read or write
    [3:51:25 PM] Thubanis: So I would make it very clear to her, that this is human MISUNDERSTANDING of the deeper story
    [3:51:28 PM] Ishtara Raven: well i had not seen it before and i didnt know until it came up
    [3:51:34 PM] Ishtara Raven: i was a bit horrified
    [3:51:52 PM] Thubanis: I know of it. It relates to Herod's slaughter after Bethlehem recall?
    [3:52:01 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes
    [3:52:07 PM] Thubanis: Same archetype
    [3:52:09 PM] Ishtara Raven: he also killed all the first born
    [3:52:22 PM] Thubanis: Yes it is the Passover symbol
    [3:52:44 PM] Thubanis: Try to tell Carla, this has become Easter Eggs and rebirth now
    [3:52:51 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes because God instructed Moses to paint all the doors with lambs blood, this has deeper meaning as well
    [3:53:07 PM] Thubanis: Resurrection also meaning Winter is followed by Spring and new fertility
    [3:53:16 PM] Thubanis: Sunshine after the nights
    [3:53:27 PM] Thubanis: Yes same thing
    [3:53:34 PM] Ishtara Raven: well she is really taken by all this rapture stuff
    [3:53:42 PM] Thubanis: The Lambs are the Rams of Reuben
    [3:54:00 PM] Thubanis: Rapture?
    [3:54:09 PM] Thubanis: Not fundamentalist religion
    [3:54:35 PM] Thubanis: Tell her that Moses is an OFFICE he never existed as a singular person
    [3:54:51 PM] Thubanis: The Dead Sea never parted in 3D
    [3:55:01 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes all that stuff on the internet about God whisking away his chosen. she says its on dec 21st lol. i hugged her today and kissed her and i said the rapture was this, our moment now loveing each other and being together as a family.
    [3:55:15 PM] Thubanis: There was an historical exodus, but this was 1450 BC
    [3:55:30 PM] Thubanis: Oh dear
    [3:55:32 PM] Thubanis: Yes
    [3:55:55 PM] Ishtara Raven: so in a way she is excited but afraid too of being separated from me and such
    [3:56:06 PM] Thubanis: There will be NO difference in 3d perception between December 21st and December 22nd
    [3:56:22 PM] Thubanis: The earth will look rather the same
    [3:56:32 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i tell her these things
    [3:56:38 PM] Thubanis: What will have changed is the data matrix of the cosmos
    [3:56:59 PM] Thubanis: The outer space Will be able to contact and physicalise
    [3:57:04 PM] Ishtara Raven: i try very hard to separate her fictional impressions from reality and speak truthfully to her
    [3:57:12 PM] Thubanis: This is all in an immediate 3D sense
    [3:57:26 PM] Thubanis: The metaphysics however will be forever changed
    [3:57:34 PM] Ishtara Raven: yes i have told her about contact and telling her that she will be teaching me lol
    [3:58:07 PM] Thubanis: Yes dreams will be more intensive getting more and more 'real' in blending the higherD with the 3D
    [3:58:23 PM] Thubanis: So all this will and is already happening
    [3:58:41 PM] Thubanis: For us it is the Breaking of the Coccon though
    [3:58:51 PM] Thubanis: Contact will manifest sometime after this
    [3:59:22 PM] Ishtara Raven: what do you make of her sandstorm dream, i guess this was a few days ago or so, after we built the sand castles she told me tonight of this dream. She said she was on the beach and a huge sand storm came up and buried all of Seattle and she was afraid.
    [3:59:23 PM] Thubanis: Hopefully earlier than later
    [3:59:43 PM] Thubanis: It is the incoming wave
    [4:00:04 PM] Thubanis: Now only 4 lightmonths away
    [4:00:13 PM] Ishtara Raven: the scene in the movie of Moses being caught and buried in a sandstorm is what triggered her memory
    [4:00:23 PM] Thubanis: Sandstorms and tsunamis whatever, same symbol
    [4:00:50 PM] Ishtara Raven: hmmm interesting, yeah i felt similar about it, that she is picking up on the true exodus
    [4:00:59 PM] Thubanis: Of course
    [4:01:00 PM] Ishtara Raven: the real metaphysical flood
    [4:01:06 PM] Thubanis: yes
    [4:01:21 PM] Thubanis: Its a mental war between truth and falsehood
    [4:01:35 PM] Thubanis: Cosmic Logos versus antilogi
    [4:01:45 PM] Thubanis: Outer space versus Inner space

    <<< http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2012/hackpenhill3/comments.html
    http://cube-it.webs.com/
    http://www.templesecrets.info/

    Thought this was interesting, crop circle reported on the 26th
    http://www.templesecrets.info/sexsymb.html

    Check this out, all his stuff is heavily copywritten. I just discovered this site while looking through the links on this latest crop circle. He has some interesting diagrams of the temple of Solomon being related to the human body
    It might be asked: Why would the Temple involve sex? – and the short answer is 1) because it displays a definite Edenic theme in its decorations and architecture and 2) Eden itself was a place of fertility, displaying the Creator’s powers to produce all manner of life in abundance and 3) the land of Israel, the Promised Land, is biblically presented as the new Eden. And finally and more importantly, 4) the Divine plan for mankind’s spiritual redemp-tion is portrayed through the human birthing process, and since this process involves sex, the Temple portrays spiritual redemption in human sexual terms.


    Raven LionHeart 45  Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Icon_study Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 543611 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 139717
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:20 am

    Here is another exciting episode of 'Sherry Shriner'! http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/08/28/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner I continue to think that it's important to consider a cross-section of perspectives -- without getting imprisoned by one particular cult, religion, organization, show, or leader. I also continue to support a 'low-octane' approach to 'alien invasions', 'the end of the world', 'conspiracy-theories', 'the supernatural', and 'esoteric-research'. Save the Drama for Your Mamma. I continue to include things in this thread which I don't necessarily approve of. This is a multidisciplinary mental and spiritual exercise. It's sort of like the 'Empathy Test' in 'V'. It's a 'Galactic Boot-Camp'. It's supposed to prepare you for the 'Really Strange World'. I am NOT on trial in this thread. At least I'm not supposed to be -- but who knows what evil lurks in underground bases and unconventional spacecraft?? Some people are teachers. Some people are auto-mechanics. Some people are conspiracy-theorists. Some people are completely ignorant fools. It takes all kinds -- but why?? I have observed psychokinesis (or something like that) at close range -- but I avoid that sort of thing. I avoid anything magical or creepy. Check this out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk7t8DU1cEs&feature=relmfu
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Criss-angel-ae13
    "Prove to Me That You're No Fool!! Walk Across My Swimming Pool!!"
    I continue to suspect that the True and Complete Solar System History is extremely sad and violent -- and that my reincarnational activities were probably reprehensible to the nth degree. I'm basically attempting to communicate some potentially productive concepts to whoever is interested -- before the Galactic PTB pull the plug on me -- and shut me down -- once and for all. That's what it feels like to me. I REALLY worry about ancient wars, treaties, agreements, covenants, verdicts, and sentences -- which might be constrictively-binding in some very counter-intuitive and non-productive ways. I support Reasonable and Responsible Continuity -- but I do NOT support Unthinking and Unquestioning Traditionalism. Notice that I have been neither friendly or unfriendly toward ET and the PTB. I simply have not had enough accurate and verifiable information -- and I still don't. Expect me to remain mostly polite, neutral, and questioning -- going forward -- for a very long time.

    Did you notice the 'Three Liliths' line in the previous quoted post?? 'Three Liliths'??? Think about THAT in light of what I've been hinting-at in this thread. I mostly hint -- because I'm mostly unsure regarding just about everything. I realize that doesn't make one rich, famous, and powerful -- or get one laid -- but some of us have to stumble around in the dark -- and attempt to make sense out of nonsense. I'd sort of like to be an 'Indiana Jones' type character -- who is a university professor (teaching the contents of this thread) -- but who moonlights as an explorer/adventurer!! 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLFuGLMJuAI 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyTXWaQkCuE I think I'll try to prepare a 'University-Level Solar System Governance Class' -- just in case! Then, I'll keep hoping that I get an 'Unlimited-Access Badge' and a 'Strategically-Located Apartment with a Cray'!! I like to dream -- because that's about all I have left. Are you confused by my internet posting?? I'm sorry -- but what is a Completely Ignorant Fool to do?? Watch everyone fight with each other?? Will the best man, woman, or extraterrestrial win?? Will there be a God-Off?? That would be God-Awful -- wouldn't it??!! I am extremely apprehensive regarding the future. I think it might be extremely bad -- no matter who is in power -- and no matter what we do. But please know that I will attempt to be as idealistic as possible -- while I continue to be as realistic as possible.

    I feel as if I am NOT in harmony with either Divinity or Humanity -- and that I am pretty much on my own. I seem to be ignored by both Divinity and Humanity -- and I am feeling absolutely no love from either. I feel as if I am in the middle of a Spiritual Cold War. I suspect that if I were to visit Gizeh Intelligence -- we would get into a very nasty argument rather quickly -- but on the other hand I had mostly cordial conversations with the 'Ancient Egyptian Deity'. I simply think that there is a realm of political and theological conversation which is being completely missed or purposely avoided -- and I think I know why. I can visualize what's going on here -- and it's NOT a pretty picture. Can you even begin to imagine two Archangelic Queens of Heaven arguing with each other in an empty cathedral??? Think about it. I'm a bit different -- aren't I???

    BTW -- after not getting my mail for three or four days -- I got it today. It just seemed strange that I applied for an FOIA -- and a couple of days later, I stopped receiving my mail. Now, I can't get 'The Mists of Avalon' with the Public Wi-Fi -- but I can with another Wi-Fi source. Interesting. I continue to assume that everything I say and do is somehow recorded -- and I assume that I have absolutely no privacy. I continue to have very mixed feelings about security and surveillance. What are reasonable limits -- in a very dangerous world?? I like technology and spirituality -- yet we seem to have boxed ourselves in -- and made things much more complex, dangerous, and creepy. I fear that when people really find out what the true state of affairs are -- that they will not be able to handle it. I'm trying to deal with the madness -- without hating anyone -- and without doing anything stupid. But, as I have said previously, I am seriously trying to limit this quest to the relative privacy of my own mind. But who knows how private my mind really is?? Perhaps the time has arrived for me to clean-up my act -- go underground -- and become a completely incognito fool. Namaste and Godspeed.

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 IndianaJones_BG_Medium Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Beautiful_Sunset_by_BradyV


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:27 pm; edited 6 times in total
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


    Posts : 1394
    Join date : 2012-06-02
    Age : 55
    Location : In the Suns

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Through These Godless Eyes (MIRROR)

    Post  Aquaries1111 Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:01 pm


    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:35 am

    Thank-you for your contributions, A1. I'm attempting, once again, to go into read-only mode, and to not post for a while. I will be viewing your material, but I probably won't be posting. I also need to look more closely at Carol's, Brook's, Raven's, Mudra's, and the eXchanger's posts and threads. There are others, as well. You all have helped me to conceptualize the 'Queen-Theme' in various ways. I have purposely placed myself in an environment which is somewhat foreign to my way of thinking -- so as to challenge myself to think outside of the box -- rather than just reinforcing what I already think. Unfortunately, I feel as if I have gotten myself into a helluva lot of trouble with various individuals, groups, and agencies (human and otherwise) -- including God and the Angels. Thank-you for that EXCELLENT video, A1. I don't necessarily agree with all of the editorial-content -- but I found it to be very thought-provoking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeA-rltZ6vM&feature=player_embedded

    When I have said 'Thou Shalt Have No Gods' I meant that in the 'Religion as Usual' sense. I'm not saying that 'God Does Not Exist' or that there shouldn't be 'Someone in Charge'. I guess I'm really saying that many of us might've been serving a 'Bad God' for thousands of years. On the other hand, what if this 'Bad God' had to deal with a 'Really Bad God'?? Humanity might have a helluva lot of karmic debt to deal with, as well. This thing might be EXTREMELY complex and ugly. I simply don't have enough reliable and verifiable information at this point -- which is why I was mostly neutral and questioning toward the 'Ancient Egyptian Deity'. What if we have been dealing with an 'Angry Osiris' -- 'Renegade Isis' -- and 'Opportunistic Ra'??!! Consider purchasing the First Season of 'V' (2009) and then watching the first four episodes straight through -- without a break. Then, REALLY think about it. The very last scene of the fourth episode is chilling. What is even more chilling is the fact that very few will converse with me regarding the most important topics imaginable.

    I wonder how binding the 'Old Covenant' was between 'God' and 'Ancient Israel'?? What if they made a deal with a rather harsh 'God' which is still in effect??!! Perhaps Israel never really had the option of embracing the 'New Covenant'. There might be a lot of people in the Mafia (for example) who would like to 'get out' but know that they'll never 'get out' alive. I think a lot of our troubles might go back to Ancient Egypt -- to wars, treaties, covenants, etc. Was the 'Old Covenant' a 'Ra Deal' with the Hebrews?? Was the 'New Covenant' a 'Ra Deal' with most everyone else?? Did the Original and Authentic Teachings of Michael-Isis-Jesus predate and trump the Old and New Covenants?? (or is this simply wishful thinking??)

    Consider imagining Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor) reciting the 1788 'Federalist Papers', the 1898 'Desire of Ages', and the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' -- with Gregorian-Chant background music -- in an Egyptian Palace -- aboard the New York Mother-Ship!! You all REALLY hate me -- don't you??!! Has even ONE person taken this thread seriously -- and used it as a study-guide -- for a significant length of time?? Perhaps this will have been a study-guide for me alone. Perhaps I am a Secret Society of ONE -- as a Neo Law of One Society!!
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Carol wrote:I've come to think more recently that the Bible is the play book that they follow. Who is to say that time travelers didn't have something to do with writing parts of the Bible from the onset? In fact, that time travel does occur it makes me wonder just how much is manipulated. With elitiest Geroge Bush Sr. involved with the time travel program since the sixties - that just chills my bones.

    I mean - how much wealth and how much power does one need, crave or desire? For some, they appear to be a bottomless pit and they are to be pitied.

    Dance with the devil and the devil will take his own.
    What if the world has been exactly the way God has wanted it to be -- for thousands of years -- right up to this very day?? What if the Bible is a combination of verdict, sentence, script, IQ-Test, etc?? I've come to the conclusion that Theology and the Bible are NOT fun subjects -- but that they are VERY necessary subjects for us to study -- if we wish to have a fighting-chance of extricating ourselves from what often seems to be a hopeless situation (when one thinks VERY deeply about what's REALLY been going on in this Solar System). But most people don't have a clue -- and don't give a damn -- so why should we agonize about the Fate of Humanity -- especially when THAT makes us a threat. My public wi-fi access to this site has been blocked for several weeks now. I'm pretty much done with my little tempest in a teapot on this site. This doesn't mean that I'm going to stop thinking -- but I think I'm going to do a lot less talking -- and a lot more listening and watching. BTW -- I was told by someone who should know -- that the Bush-Clan sold-out VERY quickly. Nuff Said.
    The Fruit of Responsibility is Love, Freedom, Fame, Fortune, Power, Pleasure, Positive-Thinking, and Self-Esteem.
    Responsibility is the Root. Love, Freedom, Fame, Fortune, Power, Pleasure, Positive-Thinking, and Self-Esteem are the Fruit.
    This Must NEVER be Forgotten.
    What if 2,000 United States of the Solar System Representatives processed in and out of each session (at St. Mary's Cathedral?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EidpPRBgwg&feature=related wearing academic-robes (with a classical music prelude, processional, recessional, and postlude)? 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hax5bVLrHUg&feature=related 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=KILEbm_8Kwk 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYbkU310qfg&feature=relmfu 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29bUV4s0X4w&feature=relmfu 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VjExL52QOs&feature=relmfu What Would Angela and Kimo Say?? Siriusly. Talk to them. What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say?? He's probably having a drink with Corrado Balducci. What if each session were basically a courtroom scene -- with the King and Queen of the United States of the Solar System serving as 'Co-Judges'?? (with a royal-judging//representative-voting homeostasis) What if the remaining 8,000 Representatives participated via InterPlaNet from throughout the Solar System?? What if all Representatives rotated in and out of the St. Mary's location?? But really, the location could be most anywhere. I have NO idea what locations might be available. This is all just a 'mind-game'. I simply thought that St. Mary's is a very cool contemporary cathedral -- which really doesn't look like a church -- in a very traditional religion -- and that the Catholics and Episcopalians might get along nicely at the very traditional Grace Cathedral. The St. Mary's seating-arrangement seems ideal for a hypothetical U.S.S.S. Please don't crucify me for thinking along these lines. Perhaps some other lines -- but NOT these.

    What if the Representatives were Law-Interpreters and Law-Appliers rather than Law-Makers?? I still like the idea of Responsibility-Based International, Interplanetary, and Intergalactic Law -- basically contained within One Large Volume -- which would mostly remain unchanged -- decade after decade. Responsibility and Continuity should probably be the Foundation of Freedom. Do you understand my desire for a Ceremonially Dignified Environment for U.S.S.S. Sessions?? Remember -- this thread is a conceptual experiment -- and not a line in the sand. What if the Barriers to Entry were so high -- that there might be very few contenders for U.S.S.S. Representative Positions? What if U.S.S.S Representative campaigns and elections were completely Internet and InterPlaNet Based -- so as to avoid a circus-atmosphere (as seen in many U.S. elections)?? What if the King, Queen, and Representative positions were all ten-year terms?? I simply desire proper and competent representation for all concerned -- in a dignified and orderly manner. How radical a concept is THAT??!!

    I continue to devotionally study the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' -- but I continue to be puzzled by the repeated use of "...through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." Think about it. I am also puzzled by the Easter-Table in the 1928 BCP beginning on April 16, 1786 -- and ending on March 31, 2013. And what about the selection of printed Bible-Texts in the 1928 BCP? Was someone trying to tell us something? Both the new Episcopal Prayer Book -- and the Catholic Novus Ordo Mass -- seemed to be steps in the wrong direction. I'm not saying they didn't need revised prayer books and liturgies -- but why the seemingly botched jobs? Continue to look beneath the surface of most everything -- but don't expect this to make you happy and peaceful. I continue to have very mixed-feelings about how things REALLY work in this solar system -- and I worry about throwing out the baby with the bathwater during various attempted reforms and revisions. I continue to wish to change everything for the better for all-concerned -- without seeming to change anything. Think 'Continuity and Evolutionary-Change'.

    I am not opposed to the basic principles and concepts contained in the Decalogue -- but I have problems with the specific wording -- and with the context (namely the Pentateuch). I continue to suspect an Ancient Law of God -- which might be quite different than the contents of the Torah. I am NOT a Lawless and Godless Renegade. Just the opposite. Here is a video which is critical of both the SDA Church and the Roman Catholic Church. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm7qm7aMpu8&feature=g-vrec I'm not endorsing this video -- but I think that it's important to wrestle with theological issues. I am both supportive and critical of both the SDA Church and the Roman Catholic Church -- but I am NOT very articulate in doing so. I am so burned-out and miserable, that I have a difficult time thinking. Period. That's the ugly truth. I am amazed that I can be as articulate as I am within this thread. I'm trying to be open and objective toward just about everyone -- and this seems to be destroying me. I am literally destroying myself -- and saving you the trouble.

    Continue to think about the Law of God -- in the context of Pre-Humanity, the Birth of Humanity, Ancient Babylon, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient Israel. I think we might have a Legal Problem -- Right from the Beginning. Continue to consider Law and Responsibility -- in every conceivable context -- past, present, and future. I think this might be EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. At this point, I don't support Righteousness by Ritual -- or Righteousness by Faith. I support Righteousness by Righteousness. Note the high view of the Law of God in the works of both Desmond Ford and Ellen White. I support a high view of the Law of God -- but I do not support Forensic-Only Justification -- or Legalistic Perfectionism. I suppose I might be a Human-Potential Movement Perfectionist -- wherein Humanity takes Character Development VERY seriously -- aided by both Inspiration and Perspiration. SDA's have been close to the mark in this area -- yet they have often butchered some very profound ideas with clumsy and even stupid applications.

    Try doing an extensive side by side study of Deuteronomy and Matthew (with an emphasis on Psychology, Ethics, Law, Governance, Responsibility, Freedom, Love, the Moral-Law, and the Ceremonial-Law). Do this study even if you don't believe in God. Legal Epistemology might be one of the most important studies imaginable. I think we might all need to become legal experts. I continue to think that Law is at the Center of Everything -- especially Solar System Governance. I might not be a lot of help in this area -- but I think that I at least have enough sense to point some of you in the right direction. Try creating your own legal system -- based upon Responsibility. Unfortunately, I seem to be too screwed-up and burned-out to really be Responsible. It seems as if I am being left by just about everyone -- to twist slowly, slowly in the wind. I really can't feel the love. I'm leaving this quest a bit bitter and disillusioned. Making Money seems to gain a helluva lot more attention and respect -- than does Making Sense. I have attempted to 'help' -- but you all don't seem to want my 'help'. I have sensed this since I was a child -- and the past few years have provided abundant confirmation. I sincerely hope that you all have made wise choices -- for this life -- and for all eternity.

    Teachings of Archangelic Queen of Heaven Michael = Teachings of Isis = Teachings of Jesus = Religion of Responsibility = Law of God = Kingdom of God(?????!!!!!)
    It seems as if this world has always been corrupt and violent -- but the last 100 years seem to be much more corrupt and violent -- and increasingly out of control. I'm hoping that we can drastically reduce the corruption, violence, and insanity. I keep hearing about a 'regime-change' -- but we need to be exceedingly careful that we don't jump out of the frying-pan and into the fire. This thing could get a lot worse -- before it gets better -- if it gets better. We should be prepared for just about anything. In the couple of weeks since I applied for an FOIA -- my mail was stopped for three or four days -- my public wi-fi access to www.themistsofavalon.net has been blocked -- and I received a visit from the Sheriff regarding a broken window on MY house (including some unnecessary and derogatory comments). I have a feeling this is only the beginning. But Siriusly -- Walk -- Do Not Run -- In the Streets!! BTW, there is absolutely no hostility in this post. I am merely reporting on my sad and stupid life. Perhaps Sherry Shriner can cheer me up, and set me on the right path!! I'd like to know the full story regarding who she really is. She seems to know a helluva lot -- but I don't necessarily agree with her Biblical interpretations and editorial slants. Listener discretion advised. Some of what she 'reveals' is horrific in nature. I simply think that serious researchers should include this sort of podcast in their research activities. I am attempting to prepare myself and a few others -- to be ready for just about anything. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/09/04/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner

    If this Solar System is a subsidiary of a HUGE Galactic Business Empire -- why can't it be a Non-Violent, Highly-Ethical, and Very-Happy Big-Business???
    Read 'No Man Knows My History' by Fawn Brodie -- for a somewhat non-complimentary look at the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'. I need to reread this book -- and take a closer look at Mormon Egyptology and Organization -- as well as LDS temples and rituals. There seem to be a lot of secrets in Utah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9djYmyumHKs&feature=player_embedded Is it just my imagination -- or are there small 'orbs' at 25:30 in the documentary? What I keep worrying about is alleged Satanic Blood-Rituals in (or under) temples and cathedrals -- or at places like Bohemian Grove. I continue to be VERY apprehensive regarding who or what is at the top of the pyramid in this solar system. I worry about who or what Popes, Presidents, Queens, CEO's, et al MIGHT have to kneel before -- and take orders from. I continue to think that humanity MIGHT be owned and operated by something dark and sinister -- but this should NOT be interpreted as hostility toward any particular groups or individuals. What Would Saint Germaine Say?? I continue to think that all religions should be studied -- even by those who don't attend church -- or don't even believe in God. IMHO, politics and religion are two sides of the same coin. I attended a glass-church -- so I really do not wish to throw stones. Politics and Religion should probably be reformed -- worldwide -- but I'm not sure how this might be accomplished. If one removes something -- there had better be something better to take its place. It's a lot easier to tear-down than it is to build-up. I've recently been thinking in terms of reforming Solar System Governance by the creation of the United States of the Solar System -- and SLOWLY reforming terrestrial churches and states. Wait a minute -- I was going to stop talking. Sometimes, the less-said the better. Most of the time, actually.

    What if the existing religions and governments of the world remained pretty much 'as is' -- with the United States of the Solar System being an 'add-on' -- which would mostly deal with international, interplanetary, intergalactic, extraterrestrial, and other exotic issues and problems (such as Unconventional WMD's, Unconventional Spacecraft, and Reptilian Theocracies)?? It doesn't pay to play with how people pray. It just doesn't pay. Should a U.S.S.S. replace the U.N.?? What if the United Nations became part of the United States of the Solar System?? My thoughts should not be interpreted as a 'take-over' modality or mentality. I simply do not wish for us to exterminate ourselves -- or to be exterminated by ET or the PTB. I desire that this solar system be a genuine paradise. I am NOT stand-offish in this matter. I'm simply attempting to conceptualize 'What a Solar System Should Be'. I think I might apply 'Positive-Reinforcement' to this thread -- resulting in some Positive Science-Fiction. Sometimes one must grapple with Purgatory and Hell -- prior to ascending into Heaven. I wish to pursue a VERY idealistic variety of Political and Theological Science-Fiction -- with a decidedly High-View Law of God -- based solidly upon the concept of Responsibility. The Wise Man Built His House Upon the Rock of Responsibility. The Completely Ignorant Fool Built His House Upon the Mists of Avalon.
    Aquaries1111 wrote:Oxy, I respect that we all do need our space at times but please do not be a stranger. I have reserved a special place for you to meet me in the dream state should you intend to travel "off planet". Should I find you there, I will offer you a "Tulip"... and show you around the place.. maybe you have a thing or two you can show me... Perhaps that special back room entry you have been looking for "full of sacred knowledge" is in some secret space in the Galaxy reserved only for you.. never say never..

    August 17th to August 31st 1987 in Ibiza is where I spent the Harmonic Convergence.. Something past of mine, to share with you now... May all your dreams come true...

    Oooyeah 1 Oooyeah 1 Oooyeah 1 Oooyeah 1 Oooyeah 1 Oooyeah 1 Oooyeah 1  Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 V-serie-tv-02-g Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 V3 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Morena-Baccarin-003-1600x1200
    "This Thread is Only the Beginning. I Am of Peace. Always."
    http://www.thenazareneway.com/Lucifer%20Satan%20or%20Goddess.htm
    http://www.thenazareneway.com/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FFQ15fo75E
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP41a1eyWkU&feature=fvwrel

    The Goddess of America's Founding Fathers
    http://www.thenazareneway.com/Goddess%20of%20Founding%20Fathers.htm

    (I am neither supporting or condemning this article)

    The signs are everywhere to be found. The resurrection of the Goddess was intended to take place in the United States of America.

    And if ancient prophesy can be trusted, the New Golden Age of Enlightenment will begin with the Winter Solstice, 2012!

    It is well documented that many of the men involved in writing and signing the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U. S. Constitution were Deists and Freemasons, and the philosophy of both can be associated with the Divine Feminine as a co-participant in the process of Creation.

    Deism as understood by our Founding Fathers is best defined by one of the most important participants in the American Revolution, Thomas Paine. He compared Deism to Christianity in his masterpiece, The Age of Reason:

    True Theology and That of Superstition

    As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism – a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of “Manism” with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.

    “That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in His works, and is the True Theology.” Note Paine’s two-fold characterization of God: Power and Wisdom.

    “As of the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God Himself in the works that He has made, but in the works or writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition.”

    Natural Philosophy or Natural Religion, as well as science, recognize that both masculine and feminine forces are necessary for the Creation of the physical Universe, whether visible or invisible to our senses. Science refers to these two forces as “Light” and “Energy”; ancient and natural religions refer to them as “God and Goddess.” The two can be seen as parts of a Single Whole, which is Creative Energy – Power and Wisdom – aka, God.

    The underlying philosophy of Freemasonry is a bit more difficult to pin down. It is, after all, a “Secret Society.” Now public, however, are their symbols and ceremonies, most of which are easily decoded with a little knowledge of mythology and ancient history.

    We also know that that some of the best known participants in the American Revolution were Freemasons: Ethan Allen, Edmund Burke, John Claypool, William Dawes, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, Robert Livingston, Paul Revere, Colonel Benjamin Tupper, and George Washington. Of the fifty-six signers of The Declaration of Independence, eight were known Masons and seven others exhibited strong evidence of Masonic membership. Of the forty signers of the Constitution, nine were known Masons, thirteen exhibited evidence of Masonic membership, and six more later became Masons.

    The French General Lafayette, without whose aid the war could not have been won, was a Freemason. The majority of the commanders of the Continental Army were Freemasons and members of "Army Lodges." Most of George Washington's generals were Freemasons. The Boston Tea Party was planned at the Green Dragon Tavern, also known as the "Freemasons' Arms" and "the Headquarters of the Revolution." George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States by Robert Livingston, Grand Master of New York's Masonic lodge, and the Bible on which he took his oath was from his own Masonic lodge. The Cornerstone of the Capital Building was laid by the Grand Lodge of Maryland.

    In fact, Freemasons consecrated the cornerstones of a number of major public and private buildings in the early days of our Nation, as well as the most famous statue in America. A vessel called Bay Ridge carried about a hundred Freemasons to Bedloe’s Island for the consecration ceremony of the cornerstone for the Statue of Liberty. Several items were held in a copper box within the cornerstone: a copy of the United States Constitution; George Washington’s Farewell Address; twenty bronze medals of U.S. Presidents including Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, Johnson, Garfield, and Arthur (all of whom were Freemasons); copies of New York City newspapers; a portrait of Bartholdi; a copy of ‘Poem on Liberty’ By E.R. Johnes; and a list of the Grand Lodge officers.

    The principal address was delivered by the Deputy Grand Master Freemason who observed, “Massive as this statue is, its physical proportions sink into comparative obscurity when contrasted with the nobility of its concept. Liberty Enlightening the World! How lofty the thought! To be free, is the first, the noblest aspiration of the human breast. And it is now a universally admitted truth that only in proportion as men become possessed of Liberty do they become civilized, enlightened, and useful.”

    The cornerstone was “found square, level and plumb,” the Grand Master applied mortar, and the stone was lowered into place. He struck the stone three times, declaring it duly laid. Then the “Elements of Consecration” were presented: corn, wine, and oil.

    The “Most Worshipful” Grand Master noted: “No institution has done more to promote Liberty and to free men from the trammels and chains of ignorance and tyranny than has Freemasonry.”

    The statue was conceived by Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi. His biographer wrote, “…he caught a vision of a magnificent Goddess holding aloft a torch in one hand and welcoming all visitors to the land of freedom and opportunity.”

    And so, the Statue of Liberty – Lady Liberty – was intended to represent the Goddess who brings light – Astarte, aka Venus, The Morning Star – the precursor of the rising Sun, the “Light Bearer.”

    The Church and others opposed to the resurrection of the Divine Feminine demonized the Goddess by associating her with Satan. Luc means light; ferre means bringer. Associating Lucifer with Satan was the Church’s attempt to demonize The Bright Morning Star – Venus – in spite of her importance to some early Christian sects:

    2 Peter 1:19: “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts.”

    Revelation 22:16: “It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I AM the root, the descendant of David, and the Bright Morning Star.”

    Revelation 22:17: “The Spirit AND THE BRIDE say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.”

    Although a Jew, perhaps Emma Lazarus was inspired by this invitation in Revelation when she wrote her famous words now engraved on a tablet within the pedestal on which Lady Liberty Stands. She titled it THE NEW COLOSSUS:

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

    Mother of Exiles.

    From her beacon-hand

    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

    "Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

    With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    “The Golden Door” is reminiscent of the Golden Age of Rome, a time of relative peace and prosperity for even the lowest level of Roman citizen. Freedmen during the reign of Emperor Claudius were reviled by some in the Senate for wielding too much power over the Emperor’s decisions. The former slave Pallas was honored with statues and honorary plaques, gracefully accepted, and the offer of immense wealth, which was politely turned down. Pallas and Claudius reigned with wisdom rather than might; Roman citizens were provided with resources that enabled them to care for their families without fear of famine or oppressive taxes. The Pax Romana, Roman Peace, was the by-product of a sense of security shared by all loyal Romans.

    America’s “New Colossus,” the "Mother of Exiles," invited other lands to send their unwanted and hungry to the United States, giving the Statue of Liberty special meaning for immigrants coming from other oppressive lands. “The Golden Door” promised a New Golden Age for the oppressed. Lady Liberty promised the freedom to prosper.

    The "Old Colossus" was the “Colossus of Rhodes,” an ancient statue built to thank Helios, the sun god, for protecting Rhodes from invaders. "The New Colossus" points out that the American statue is one welcoming foreigners rather than fighting them off.

    Congress accepted Lady Liberty as a gift from the French people on Washington’s birthday, 1877. However, it wasn’t finished until May 21, 1884. It was presented to Ambassador Levi Morton on July 4, 1884, by Ferdinand de Lesseps. On October 28, 1886, President Grover Cleveland oversaw the dedication of Lady Liberty. The main address was given by Freemason Chauncey M. Depew, a United States Senator.

    A great deal of controversy exists over the Freemasons’ influence in the founding of our country. And in spite of the well-publicized fact that George Washington was an avowed and proud Freemason, their influence is generally depicted as being negative and Freemasonry as something to be feared. The reasons are clear: Freemasonry was and is perceived as the enemy of fundamental and orthodox Christianity. Whether passed to them from the Knights Templar or through some other source, Freemasons seemed to know that the authentic religion of Jesus had been hijacked and replaced with the Jewish superstition of vicarious atonement. The Freemason Founding Fathers may have possessed ancient secrets that led them to that authentic religion, reason enough for the Orthodoxy and Fundamentalists to attempt to build a case for the Freemason’s association with Satanic worship.

    But some who have investigated the symbolism of Freemasonry are beginning to suspect something else, something Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism fear almost as much as they fear Satan: The Goddess in Judaism and Christianity!

    The following is excerpted from an article by William Bond’s, Goddess Symbolism Within Freemasonry, an article worth reading in its entirety: http://www.womanthouartgod.com/wmbondfreemasonry.php.

    "It is of interest that Christianity came back to Egypt where it grew into a strong religion until Christianity became the Roman state religion. Then the Roman Christians had all the Egyptian Christians slaughtered who didn't follow the Roman version of Christianity. Destroying also all the Egyptian Christian texts, of which only a small amount have survived today. The result is that the Roman version of Christianity became more like a Jewish religion, as they put more emphasis on the Old Testament than on the teachings of Jesus. So the compassionate Goddess teachings of Jesus became largely ignored by the Christian Church until modern times.

    “When archaeologists excavated Ancient Palestine and the area around it, the Canadian archaeologist John Holiday claims that, "…biblical descriptions do not match what is found in the dirt." What became clear from archaeological evidence is that the Hebrew Bible was a very biased and heavily censored version of Jewish History.

    “The evidence unearthed shows that Goddess worship was commonplace in Israel right up to early Christian times. With large numbers of Goddess statues discovered in the homes of common people. Archaeologists have shown that the Hebrews worshipped the Goddesses Asherah and Astarte as much as the countries around Israel. So is this what this Freemason symbol is trying to tell us? That within the Bible is a hidden Goddess?”

    Bond is onto something, and others are beginning to see the same signs. Just as The Bright Morning Star was associated with Lucifer, which simply means, the Light Bearer, so, too, is Freemasonry associated with Lucifer. And although there is nothing in the Bible to associate The Bright Morning Star with Satan, the fear-mongers, nevertheless, make the association and the ignorant masses accept the false claim as fact.

    The Bright Morning Star was Venus, aka Astarte – The Goddess. During his brief appearance, Jesus attempted to resurrect the Divine Feminine, a vital component of Creation. He called her “The Bright Morning Star.” Moses attempted to do the same when he identified the “God of the Mountain” as Asherah – the Goddess. “I am that I am,” in Hebrew, is “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh.”

    Lady Liberty holds the torch of enlightenment high over America, reminding those with ears to hear of Jesus’ last recorded words in Revelation:

    "The Spirit and The Bride say, Come. All who thirst for freedom and knowledge are invited to drink freely from the Waters of Life.”

    The Spirit of God – Knowledge – and his Goddess-wife – Wisdom – hold the key to Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all men and women. Yes, the Goddess can be found throughout the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments. The Keys to uncovering this Ancient Wisdom hidden in scripture are held by Philo of Alexandria.

    May the Goddess Bless America and the World with the Wisdom to reject irrational, manmade fear that leads to war, and turn instead to the Source that reveals all Knowledge and Truth.

    Pax Amo Lux


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:27 am; edited 5 times in total
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


    Posts : 1394
    Join date : 2012-06-02
    Age : 55
    Location : In the Suns

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  Aquaries1111 Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:01 am

    The Seven Laws Governing Human Life - The Septenaries - Manly P. Hall

    The number 7 and laws governing human life.



    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:43 pm

    Thank-you A1. There's something I like about Manly Hall, Helena Blavatsky, Gerald Massey, et al -- yet I am very wary of getting 'sucked-into' that sort of thing. I tend to sample it -- and then run for my life!! I'm tending to settle upon Astronomy, Egyptology, Jesus-Studies, and Sacred Classical Music. I just wish that I had done Jesus-Studies at Claremont -- while remaining in the music program at the Crystal Cathedral. Things probably would've turned out a lot better for me. I would've loved to have been part of the Christian Bioethics Center at the Loma Linda University Medical Center http://www.llu.edu/central/bioethics/index.page -- although I continue to be an Ellen White Leaning Preventive Medicine Proponent (EWLPMP) -- which would've probably gotten me fired!! You MUST read 'John Harvey Kellogg, MD' by Richard Schwarz!! http://www.amazon.com/John-Harvey-Kellogg-Richard-Schwarz/dp/0828019398/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347394547&sr=1-3&keywords=john+harvey+kellogg I'd still like to know the whole story regarding the Proton Accelerator at LLUMC!! What Would James Slater Say?? Think about the 'Healing Centers' in 'V'!! Nuff Said.

    What might be the proper relationship between the United Nations and the United States of the Solar System?? What Would David Rockefeller Say?? I tend to think that a Completely-Purified and Non-Corrupt Version of the United Nations might be a VERY useful branch of the United States of the Solar System!! Should the UN Representatives be part of the 10,000 USSS Representatives -- with Dual Voting Privileges?? Who knows?? I continue to think that people should study the 'Federalist Papers' in a devotional and scholarly manner. I continue to attempt to be a United Nations Constitutionalist -- rather than a Shotgun and Constitution in My Truck Constitutionalist. I continue to fear that basically good people can be riled-up and herded into doing just about anything. Just take a look at history. I continue to brainstorm -- and I am NOT being fed things to post. I have no one to blame but myself!! The Devil did NOT make me do it -- and neither did the Ancient Egyptian Deity!! What if the Devil is the Ancient Egyptian Deity?? What if our 'Close Encounters' were the 'Last Temptation of Satan'?? I once joked with them about bringing my Bible -- and shouting at them!! As we watched 'smoke' rise from dry-ice and water ('Smoke on the Water') -- I joked about the 'Bottomless Pit'!! Discussing the last chapter of 'The Great Controversy' made them shudder!! Once again, I tried to be polite, neutral, and questioning. Remember how Jesus conducted himself in the desert?? Think about it. Fighting with them -- or doing business with them -- would've probably been a BIG mistake. I probably screwed-up -- but I think it could've been a helluva lot worse. They talked a lot about their 'Mother' -- but I never met her -- not formally anyway. I'm trying NOT to think about this -- and there's a lot that I will NEVER talk about. Nuff Said.

    More Sherry Shriner!! http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/09/11/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner Try watching the first four episodes of 'V' (2009) -- without a break -- and then immediately watching 'Battlestar Galactica: The Plan' -- repeatedly -- while thinking about 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System'. This is NOT a lightweight and fun study -- but I think that it is VERY necessary for SOME of you to do this. I think that top-level Masons, Jesuits, and Alphabet-Agents know exactly what I'm talking about -- and I'd love to be a fly on the wall during some of their secret meetings. But really, I don't think these meetings would make me happy -- to say the least. I keep thinking that the Dark Solar System Secrets are VERY Dark. The Horror. Still, I think I'd like to at least try to be a 'Palmer Joss -- Rachael Constantine -- Orthodoxymoron' composite-character in 'Real-Life' -- having a 'Room with a Cray' and an 'Unlimited-Access Badge'!!! Heh heh It might be interesting to see how long THAT might last!!! I might end-up in a 'Room with a View' at Madigan!!! Then I might write my autobiography -- titled 'Going Mad at Madigan'. There might be a helluva lot of truth to what I just said. I know NOT what I ask -- so I should probably be a lot more careful regarding what I ask for. I keep having a vision of viewing Earth from the Moon -- and weeping and weeping and weeping -- and I'm NOT joking. I keep thinking that Earth Humanity was a Renegade-Innovation that turned into a Damn-Profitable Business. Righteous-Anger might've morphed into Reprehensible-Corruption. Just a thought. Nuff Said.

    I keep wondering and worrying about subsurface-bases, unconventional-spacecraft, unconventional-weaponry, and unregulated-laboratories -- throughout the solar system. I don't know that all of this exists -- but I suspect that it does. If it does indeed exist -- it might all be necessary and legitimate -- but I tend to be a Doubting-Thomas. Follow the Money -- Terrestrially and Extraterrestrially. On the other hand -- do we REALLY wish to open these Boxes of Pandora??? Perhaps we should just 'Leave Everything in the Lord's Hands'. I continue to worry that this solar system might crucify a Kind and Loving God. Does this solar system really need to be ruled by 'Malevolent-Regressives'?? I have tried to be idealistic regarding Solar System Governance -- but I keep getting kicked where it counts -- by a Brutal Gang of Dracs. My limited exposure to Alpha Draconis and Council of Thuban Representatives have caused me to think in some rather unconventional ways -- regarding what the universe MIGHT be like. It might be stranger than we CAN think. However, I am very wary of becoming deeply involved in that sort of thing. I like the intellectualistic Thuban style -- but I keep thinking 'why clutter things up with seemingly non-sensical dragonian mumbo-jumbo??' I like the imagery of meeting with other-than-human beings -- and discussing various topics -- in a spaceship, base, asteroid, other planet, etc. -- but I still can't get into ThubanSpeak. I keep thinking that there might be a way of doing the 'Thuban-Thing' which mostly involves Astronomy, Egyptology, Jesus-Studies, and Sacred Classical Music -- in the context of a Draconian Queen-Ship!!! Do you see my point??? I didn't think so. I'm attempting to be open and honest -- yet this approach does not seem to be working. Perhaps I'm not vibrating fast enough -- or perhaps I'm just too ignorant and fearful. Perhaps I have become a backslidden and apostate Christian -- and God does not love me anymore. Perhaps giving people what they want -- and telling them what they wish to hear -- is really the way to go. Why try to swim upstream?? You must understand that a lot of what I post is experimental and theatrical. Don't take any of it too seriously (not that that's a problem). Nuff Said.

    It might be interesting to do an extensive critical review of both the original Project Avalon and the current Mists of Avalon forums. Who knows the most about these two forums?? We might be surprised!! I have often felt as if this sort of research is a dangerous waste of time -- yet I think that it might be important for some of us to keep challenging each other with new and strange information -- which the vast majority of the general public is not even aware of. Here are some of my 'Thuban Thoughts' from the original Project Avalon Forum. http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20379&highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads "I'm beginning a journey through the abraxasinas thread http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18900 ...and I'm having a difficult time getting started. I've been reading bits and pieces...and I've even asked a few questions...but I've found it difficult to spend the many hours necessary to make a proper and fair analysis. So...this thread is intended to make me read the whole thread...and make observations along the way. This is sort of a public journal...and I have absolutely no agenda. I won't be asking abraxasinas direct questions...and I'll probably mostly be engaging in positive reinforcement and attempted understanding...with emphasis on 'attempted'. I won't be expecting comments from anyone...but feel free to comment. Again...this is just a public journal regarding abraxasinas and the Council of Thuban. Don't expect anything earth-shattering or profound to come of this. Here goes! I've been finding it helpful to listen to some music while reading the Thuban thread. It sort of puts me in the mood...so to speak." In a sense, what I've been doing on 'my' thread is sort of 'my' version of 'Thuban'. I have posted several 'Thuban' posts on 'my' thread -- and used a lot of reptilian and dragon images. I have imagined interacting with various beings from various solar systems -- and I have attempted to be non-judgmental in all of this -- but I have not attempted to be particularly reverent. In 'real-life' I might be quite different. I actually prefer communicating via keyboard -- as I'm pretty much a 'dud' in 'real-life'. I've been trying to think things through -- from both a Human and a Reptilian perspective. Perhaps someday I might have 'Dual-Citizenship' -- traveling throughout 'Reptilian-Sectors' in a 'Reptilian-Body' -- and through 'Human-Sectors' in a 'Human-Body' -- with a Namaste-Based Theological-Understanding. Nuff Said.

    We're probably ALL deluded -- with various conflicting delusions. Trying to think seems to have impaired my ability to think. Is 'Waking-Up' merely trading one delusion for another?? Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 states that the 'Dead Know Not Anything' -- but neither do most of the living. Will Appearances, Wealth, and Respectability be EVERYTHING in the Final-Judgment?? "The TRUTH Shall Set You Free". Don't Believe Lies. Will Ignorance, Apathy, and Sincerity be Legitimate Defenses in the Final-Judgment?? Will "The Devil Made Me Do It" hold-up in Galactic Court?? This thread might be Utter BS -- but know that "The Truth is Out There" -- and that it might be more "Out There" than most of us think. Perhaps if we removed all of the lies and delusions -- we might not have much left -- but I still think there is a spiritual and divine reality behind the mythologies and theologies. I've lately been tending to work outward from central principles and concepts -- and I continue to think that there is much to be gained from the right kind of political and theological science-fiction. This might be the best we can do -- until the veil is lifted. We truly see through a glass darkly. Please read Deuteronomy and Matthew -- side by side -- preferably in one day -- and notice the problems. Then think of Deuteronomy and Matthew -- side by side -- in the context of Ancient Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Greece, and Rome. Might we be dealing with a Great Controversy between Deuteronomy and Matthew?? Then, think of all of the above while watching 'Cleopatra' (1963). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlL_iwxPnxY How about Truth-Seeking and Doing the Right Thing -- regardless of Rewards or Punishments?? I presently don't know if I'm Good or Evil -- Reincarnationally or Presently. This causes my mind to wander. I'm parked next to a nice BMW motorcycle -- and I think I might like to sell what little I have -- buy a BMW -- and just ride and ride and ride -- until I crash or run out of money -- or crash when I run out of money. Back to Reality. I've mentioned several Bible-Study Plans -- and here is a slight variation on that theme.

    1. Deuteronomy
    2. Psalms
    3. Proverbs
    4. Matthew
    5. John
    6. Hebrews

    Three Old Testament Books -- and Three New Testament Books -- which are quite sermon and concept oriented. I continue to think that reading Key Books of the Bible -- straight through -- is a proper research modality. I call it the 'Proof-Book Method' -- as opposed to the 'Proof-Text Method'. Try using Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics -- being careful to exegete -- rather than simply homilitically-applying passages. Just a thought. Consider the Covenants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_covenants It might be interesting to view various secret covenants -- which might be quite ancient -- and constrictively binding. Blest be the ties that bind?? What are the 10 most important covenants and/or treaties -- which are currently in effect within this solar system?? Nuff Said.

    A biblical covenant is an agreement—generally between God and humanity—recorded in the text of the Bible, the common Holy Scriptures of both the Jewish and Christian religions (although the New Testament, which Christians view as specifying the New Covenant, and Deuterocanonicals, are not canonical to Judaism). It is the customary word used to translate the Hebrew word berith.[1] It is used in the Tanakh 264 times[2] (see appended list). All Abrahamic religions consider the biblical covenant important. The equivalent word in the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament is διαθήκη, diatheke.[3]

    In theology and biblical studies, the word "covenant" principally refers to any of a number of solemn agreements made between God and the Children of Israel and their proselytes in the Hebrew Bible, as well as to the New Covenant, which some Christians consider to be the "replacement" or "final fulfilment" of these. Likewise, some Christians use the term Old Covenant to collectively refer to the covenants described in their Old Testament, of which they hold different views.

    The foundation of the Torah is the belief that God chose the Children of Israel and made his covenant with them. This covenant requires the Children of Israel to live their lives guided by the commandments with proselytes having their own commandments while Gentiles are only obligated to observe the Noahide Laws to be assured of a place in the World to Come.

    Conditional and unconditional covenants

    Although covenants in the Ancient Near East could have parity between parties (i.e. such as agreements between Hittites and Egyptians), covenants in the Torah were generally one-sided. However, covenants can either be conditional or unconditional in the Torah. Some appear to have the form of a Suzerainty treaty where there are clear stipulation to be upheld by both parties involved, but other covenants do not have stipulations and represent a divine charter or gift. As an example see Abrahamic covenant below that can involve both conditional and unconditional covenants.

    Noahic covenant

    The Rainbow set as the symbol of the Covenant with Noah after the Deluge of the Bible.
    See also: Noahide Laws and Council of Jerusalem

    The Noahic covenant [Gen 8-9] applies to all of humanity and to all living creatures.[4] In this covenant, God:
    1.blesses[9:1] and commands[9:7][5] Noah and his sons, that they should be fruitful and multiply, and populate the Earth
    2.places all plants and animals under human command[9:2-3]
    3.forbids eating meat with the blood still in it[9:4]
    4.forbids murder[9:5]
    5.Says that violent men will be repaid by violence[9:6]
    6.promises that God will never again destroy all life on earth by flood[9:11]
    7.creates the rainbow as the sign of this "everlasting covenant" for all ages to come[9:12-17]

    On this topic, the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees, used by scholars as a historical source for the beliefs of those who composed it in the period in which it was composed,[6] states:

    And in the twenty-eighth jubilee [1324-1372 A.M.] Noah began to enjoin upon his sons' sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity. For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth ... For whoso sheddeth man's blood, and whoso eateth the blood of any flesh, shall all be destroyed from the earth.

    —Jubilees 7:20–28[7]

    Abrahamic covenant

    The Abrahamic covenant, found in Genesis 12-17, is known as the Brit bein HaBetarim, the "Covenant Between the Parts" in Hebrew, and is a commandment for brit milah in Judaism. The covenant was for Abraham and his seed, or offspring,[8] both of natural birth and adoption Genesis 17:1–13.[9]

    According to the documentary hypothesis, in Genesis 12–17 three covenants can be distinguished based on the differing J, E, P, and D sources.[10] In Gen. 12 and 15, God grants Abram land and descendants but does not place any stipulations (unconditional). By contrast, Gen. 17 contains the covenant of circumcision (conditional).
    To make of Abraham a great nation and to bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him and all peoples on earth would be blessed through Abraham.[Gen 12–3]
    To give Abraham's descendants all the land from the river (or wadi) of Egypt to the Euphrates. [Gen 15–21] Wadi means seasonal river in reference to the Nile Delta which flooded seasonally during those days. Later, this land came to be referred to as the Promised Land or the Land of Israel, however the land specified by the Abrahamic Covenant also includes the modern nations of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, and several other nations within the Middle East Region.
    To make Abraham a father of many nations and of many descendants and the land of Canaan as well as the entire Middle East to his descendant.[Gen 17–9]
    Circumcision is to be the permanent sign of this everlasting covenant with Abraham and his male descendants and is known as the covenant of circumcision.[Gen 17–14]

    Covenant with Isaac

    The Abrahamic Covenant of Isaac did not pass to all the descendants of Isaac, however. From Isaac the Covenant passed to Jacob [Gen 27] and from Jacob the Covenant passed to Joseph [48:3-4]and then to his son Ephraim [48:17-19] so that while it was prophesied that the Messiah would come from Jacob's descendant Judah a.k.a. the Jewish people the birthright of many nations remained with Joseph's son Ephraim. [5:1-2] However the Ephraimites were defeated by the Assyrians in 556 BC and systematically dispersed throughout the Assyrian Empire (which included parts of the modern nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc.) so that their modern day identity has been lost. Many groups have attempted to claim this identity, see Ten Lost Tribes, however, most of these groups in America, Britain and Australia do not correspond to the locations specified in the Abrahamic Covenant.

    Covenant with Jacob

    God appears to Jacob in a dream, and promises:
    To give him and his descendants the land on which he is lying
    That his descendants will be numerous like the dust of the earth
    That all peoples on earth will be blessed through him and his offspring.
    To watch over him wherever he goes.[Gen 28-15]

    Mosaic covenant

    The Mosaic Covenant, beginning in Exodus 19-24, contains the foundations of the Torah. In this covenant, God promises:
    To make the children of Israel His special possession among all people if they obey God and keep his covenant [Exo 19]
    To make the children of Israel a kingdom of priests and a holy nation[Exo 19]
    To give the children of Israel the Sabbath as the permanent sign of this covenant [31:12-17]

    As part of the terms of this covenant, God gives Moses the Ten Commandments. These will later be elaborated in the rest of the Pentateuch. The form of the covenant resembles the suzerainty treaty in the ancient Near East[11] but those are not matching exactly. Like the treaties, the Decalogue begins with Yahweh's identification and his doing for Israel ("who brought you out of the land of Egypt; Ex 20:2) as well as the stipulations commanding absolute loyalty ("You shall not have other gods apart from me"). Yet, unlike the suzerainty treaty, the Decalogue in the book of Exodus does not have any witness nor explicit blessings & curses.[12] The fullest account of the Mosaic covenant is given in the book of Deuteronomy.

    The priestly covenant

    The Hebrew Bible contains two priestly covenants. One with the sons of Aaron, another specific covenant with Phinehas.

    The Israel covenant

    The Israel covenant[Deut. 29-29] [30:1-10] is a conditional covenant between God and the children of Israel. After warning that Israel will be dispersed among the nations, and conditional to Israel's repentance, return to God, and obedience to the Mosaic law. In regard to this covenant Israel and the Jewish people are referenced separately so that when God refers to Israel he is referring the descendants of Ephraim.[Jer 31-10] The Lord also says that he has chosen Israel over Judah i.e. the Jewish people in regard to the return to the land. [Jer 3-14] God promises:
    1.That Israel would lose their identity[Isa 7]
    2.That while Israel (Ephraim) will become many nations between the Nile and the Euphrates, yet only a remnant of the people of Ephraim will return[Isa 10]
    3.That Israel and Judah will be at war with each other, but that the Lord would bring about a peace between Israel and Judah[Zech 9] [11:14] [Jer 30-7]
    4.That Ephraim would return to Lebanon and Gilead, which is located in Western Jordan [Zech 10-10]
    5.That there would be a conflict between Ephraim and many other nations of the World[Deut 33] [Zech 9]
    6.The remnant that will return from Ephraim will be the descendants of those who did not bow to Baal[1 Kings 19:10-18]
    7.That a new nation of Ephraim will form south of Israel in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. A nation the Jewish people will refer to as Sodom[Ezek 16,49]
    8.To regather Israel from its dispersion and unite them with Judah, but that Judah would not recognize them [Ezek 16-63] [Deut 33]
    9.That a people who are called "Not his people" will be called his people[Hos 1]
    10.To bring the Israelites to the land which their fathers possessed (here named Land of Canaan)[Hos 1]
    11.To prosper the Israelites above their fathers.
    12.To restore the Israelites spiritually so that Israel will love the Lord with all their heart and soul
    13.To put all the curses of Israel upon Israel's enemies
    14.That the descendants of Judah, i.e. the Jewish people, would return to where their family "Israel" already was [Deut 33]

    Davidic covenant

    The Davidic covenant[2 Sam 7] establishes David and his descendants as the rightful kings of Israel[Jer 33-21] (including Judah from whom also the Messiah comes[Gen 49]). In Christian theology, the Davidic covenant is an important element of Jesus' as the Messiah (see also Nativity of Jesus). Christian scholar John F. Walvoord maintains that the Davidic covenant deserves an important place in determining the purposes of God and that its exegesis confirms the doctrine of a future reign of Christ on earth.[13] According to Christian theology, the "features" or provisions of the Davidic covenant are found in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. While Jewish theologians have always pointed out that Jesus did not fulfil the political expectations of a messiah (liberation of the Jewish political state), for conservative Christian theologians, the opinion is almost unanimous that Christ fulfills the Davidic Covenant, the provisions of which include the following items:
    1.David is to have a child, yet to be born, who shall succeed him and establish his kingdom.
    2.A son (Solomon) shall build the temple instead of David.
    3.The throne of his kingdom shall be established forever.
    4.The throne will not be taken away from him (Solomon) even though his sins justify chastisement.
    5.David’s house, throne, and kingdom shall be established forever.[13]

    National covenants

    National covenants by the nations of Israel and Judah can be found in texts such as Exodus 19:8, Joshua 24:24, 2 Kings 3:3 (Josiah), 2 Chron. 15:8-15, 23:16, 34:31-32, Nehemiah 10:29 and Jeremiah 50:5. National covenants were often associated with times of spiritual renewal or revival.

    Personal covenants

    Personal covenants or commitments abound in the Scriptures and are prominent in the Psalms. They may be prefaced with expressions such as "I will". One example is: "I will praise thee, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will shew forth all thy marvelous works."[Ps 9] Another is: "I will extol thee, my God, O king; and I will bless thy name for ever and ever. Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever." [Ps 145-2]

    The New Covenant in Christianity

    The writings of the New Testament

    The Gospels: Luke tells of the birth of John the Baptist. His father, Zacharias, prophesied at the time. In his prophecy he says that God has remembered His holy covenant. The events at the beginning of the Christian story are connected to the covenant God made with Abraham.[14] Just before his crucifixion, Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples. All three of the synoptic gospels describe the special attention he gives to the bread and the wine. When he presents the wine to his disciples, he says that it is the blood of the covenant poured out for them.[15] Matthew explains that the pouring out of the blood was done for the forgiveness of sins. Luke calls it the new covenant.

    The Book of Acts: Peter and John heal a crippled man. Peter speaks to the wondering crowd. He says they are the children of the covenant God made with their fathers and quotes the promise to Abraham, "And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Peter tells them that God has sent the resurrected Jesus first to them to bless them and forgive them of their sins. He proclaims Jesus to be the covenant "seed" promised to Abraham.[16]

    Epistle to the Romans: Paul addresses God's covenantal relationship with the Jewish people.[17] He states emphatically that God has not rejected the Jewish people. To drive home his point, he recalls the time when Elijah felt all alone in his service to God. God assured Elijah that he wasn't alone, that there were 7000 that had not bowed the knee to Baal.[18] Paul says that the Jewish people's rejection of Christ was a stumbling but not a falling.[19] He writes that the Jewish rejection has opened the way for the Gentiles to be saved. Paul considers this turn of events to be a great blessing for the Gentiles. He then asks, if this Jewish failure to accept Christ brought such blessings to the world, what greater blessings will come when the Jewish people finally join the fellowship.[20]

    Christian views of the New Covenant

    The Christian New Covenant involves the theological concept of a new relationship between God and humans mediated by Jesus. This new relationship is available to all people,[21] both Jews and Gentiles.

    Christians vary in their view of the New Covenant. Some believe the New Covenant extends the Mosaic Covenant but it seemingly accomplishes new things.[22] Christian laws of faith claim that a New Covenant of the trinitarian God with the Christians and the Christian Church replaces, fulfills or completes God's Mosaic covenant. See also Types of Supersessionism.

    The only reference in the Hebrew Bible that uses the wording "new covenant" is found in the Book of Jeremiah, Chapters 30-33 (God's promise of restoration), Chapter 31, Verses 31-34:

    ³¹Behold, days are coming - the word of HASHEM - when I will seal a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

    This prophet's word refers to the birth of Jesus Christ and his atonement on the cross (Matthew 26:28), as well as the expounding of proper interpretation of the law, based on principle rather than rule (Matthew 5:21-48).

    Covenant in Islam

    As an Abrahamic faith Islam continues the belief of the Covenant with Abraham. Circumcision is still carried out as a symbol of this Covenant. A blood link is not required either. Any person confessing to faith can become a Muslim and partake of this Covenant with God:

    Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We Covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).[Quran 2]

    See also
    Oaths in Jewish tradition
    Covenant theology
    Covenantal nomism
    Covenant (Latter Day Saints)
    Law in Christianity
    Lawsuits against God
    Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh, founder of another Abrahamic religion

    References

    1.^ (ברית Tiberian Hebrew bərîṯ Standard Hebrew bərit)
    2.^ [1]
    3.^ The Blue Letter Bible, Strong's G1242.
    4.^ Jenkins, Everett (2003). The creation: secular, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Muslim perspectives analyzed. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. p. 283. ISBN 0-7864-1042-6.
    5.^ Rashi on Gen. 9:7: "And you, be fruitful and multiply: According to its simple meaning: the first [mention] (verse 1) was a blessing, and this [mention] is a commandment. According to its midrashic interpretation, [it is written here] to compare one who does not engage in propagation to one who sheds . — [from Yev. 63b]"
    6.^ (considered canonical only by the Ethiopian Orthodox: considered to be a 2nd century BC composition, as per Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 2, Book of Jubilees: Introduction and Dating)
    7.^ The Book of Jubilees: Noah offers Sacrifice; the Cursing of Canaan (cf. Gen. ix. 20-28): Noah's Sons and Grandsons (cf. Gen. x.) and their Cities. Noah's Admonitions (vii. 1-39). p. 68 The quote given is by R. H. Charles's superseded 1913 translation from the Koine Greek, but Jubilees is also extant in Geez - which is used extensively in modern critical editions, such as in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha - and multiple texts found at Qumran[citation needed] which are still being examined.
    8.^ "Blue Letter Bible: Dictionary and Word Search for zera` (Strong's 2233)". 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
    9.^ Genesis 17:11–13 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
    10.^ Michael D. Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 62–68
    11.^ Kline, Meredith. "Deuteronomy". The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Deuteronomy_Zondervan_Dictionary.html
    12.^ Michael D. Coogan, "A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament" page 103, Oxford University Press, 2009
    13.^ a b Walvoord, John F. "Eschatological Problems VII: The Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant." Web: 19 Mar 2010. Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant
    14.^ [Luke 1-79]
    15.^ [Matthew 26-28][Mark 14-25] [Luke 22-20]
    16.^ [Acts 3-26]
    17.^ [Romans 11-36]
    18.^ [Romans 11-4]
    19.^ [Romans 11-12]
    20.^ [Romans 11]
    21.^ New Covenant (Ezekiel 47:21–23; Isaiah 2:1–4; 11:10; 56:1-8; Micah 4:1–5)
    22.^ "Unlike Christianity, Judaism does not deny salvation to those outside of its fold, for, according to Jewish law, all non-Jews who observe the Noahide laws will participate in salvation and in the revards of the world to come". H. Revel, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia; Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Inc., New York, 1939-1943, pp. 227-228.

    Further reading
    Paul Fiddes (1985). 'Covenant - Old and New', in P. Fiddes, R. Hayden, R. Kidd, K. Clements, and B. Haymes, Bound to love: the covenant basis of Baptist life and mission, pp. 9-23. London: Baptist Union.
    Truman G. Madsen and Seth Ward (2001). Covenant and Chosenness in Judaism and Mormonism. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 0-8386-3927-5. it was very a raw flim

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 3230619
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 BMW_motorcycle Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 5489422970_029d988182_z Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 CrystalCathedral Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Apollo_lrg
    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered
    thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" -- Matthew 23:37 (KJV)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8VGQTtENSs


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:16 pm; edited 7 times in total
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:26 am

    Consider Epistemology. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ Wed Dec 14, 2005

    Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry. This article will provide a systematic overview of the problems that the questions above raise and focus in some depth on issues relating to the structure and the limits of knowledge and justification.
    •1. What is Knowledge? ◦1.1 Knowledge as Justified True Belief
    ◦1.2 The Gettier Problem

    •2. What is Justification? ◦2.1 Deontological and Non-Deontological justification
    ◦2.2 Evidence vs. Reliability
    ◦2.3 Internal vs. External
    ◦2.4 Why Internalism?
    ◦2.5 Why Externalism?

    •3. The Structure of Knowledge and Justification ◦3.1 Foundationalism
    ◦3.2 Coherentism
    ◦3.3 Why Foundationalism?
    ◦3.4 Why Coherentism?

    •4. Sources of Knowledge and Justification ◦4.1 Perception
    ◦4.2 Introspection
    ◦4.3 Memory
    ◦4.5 Reason
    ◦4.6 Testimony

    •5. The Limits of Knowledge and Justification ◦5.1 The Case for Skepticism
    ◦5.2 Skepticism and Closure
    ◦5.3 Relevant Alternatives and Denying Closure
    ◦5.4 The Moorean Response
    ◦5.5 The Contextualist Response
    ◦5.6 The Ambiguity Response
    ◦5.7 Knowing One Isn't a BIV

    •6. Additional Issues ◦6.1 Virtue Epistemology
    ◦6.2 Naturalistic Epistemology
    ◦6.3 Religious Epistemology
    ◦6.4 Moral Epistemology
    ◦6.5 Social Epistemology
    ◦6.6 Feminist Epistemology

    •Bibliography
    •Other Internet Resources
    •Related Entries

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

    1. What is Knowledge?

    1.1 Knowledge as Justified True Belief

    There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known.[1] Our question will be: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for S to know that p? We may distinguish, broadly, between a traditional and a non-traditional approach to answering this question. We shall refer to them as ‘TK’ and ‘NTK’.

    According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn't even believe can't be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S's being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck.[2] Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.[3]

    Initially, we may say that the role of justification is to ensure that S's belief is not true merely because of luck. On that, TK and NTK are in agreement. They diverge, however, as soon as we proceed to be more specific about exactly how justification is to fulfill this role. According to TK, S's belief that p is true not merely because of luck when it is reasonable or rational, from S's own point of view, to take p to be true. According to evidentialism, what makes a belief justified in this sense is the possession of evidence. The basic idea is that a belief is justified to the degree it fits S's evidence. NTK, on the other hand, conceives of the role of justification differently. Its job is to ensure that S's belief has a high objective probability of truth and therefore, if true, is not true merely because of luck. One prominent idea is that this is accomplished if, and only if, a belief originates in reliable cognitive processes or faculties. This view is known as reliabilism.[4]

    1.2 The Gettier Problem

    The tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB has been shown to be incomplete. There are cases of JTB that do not qualify as cases of knowledge. JTB, therefore, is not sufficient for knowledge. Cases like that — known as Gettier-cases[5]— arise because neither the possession of evidence nor origination in reliable faculties is sufficient for ensuring that a belief is not true merely because of luck. Consider the well-known case of barn-facades: Henry drives through a rural area in which what appear to be barns are, with the exception of just one, mere barn facades. From the road Henry is driving on, these facades look exactly like real barns. Henry happens to be looking at the one and only real barn in the area and believes that there's a barn over there. Henry's belief is justified, according to TK, because Henry's visual experience justifies his belief. According to NTK, his belief is justified because Henry's belief originates in a reliable cognitive process: vision. Yet Henry's belief is plausibly viewed as being true merely because of luck. Had Henry noticed one of the barn-facades instead, he would also have believed that there's a barn over there. There is, therefore, broad agreement among epistemologists that Henry's belief does not qualify as knowledge.[6]

    To state conditions that are jointly sufficient for knowledge, what further element must be added to JTB? This is known as the Gettier problem. According to TK, solving the problem requires a fourth condition. According to some NTK theorists, it calls for refining the concept of reliability. For example, if reliability could suitably be indexed to the subject's environment, reliabilists could say that Henry's belief is not justified because in his environment, vision is not reliable when it comes to discerning barns from barn-facades.[7]

    Some NTK theorists bypass the justification condition altogether. They would say that, if we conceive of knowledge as reliably produced true belief, there is no need for justification. Reliabilism, then, comes in two forms: as a theory of justification or as a theory of knowledge. As the former, it views justification to be an important ingredient of knowledge but, unlike TK, grounds justification solely in reliability. As a theory of knowledge, reliabilism asserts that justification is not necessary for knowledge; rather, reliably produced true belief (provided the notion of reliability is suitably refined to rule out Gettier cases) is sufficient for it.[8]

    2. What is Justification?

    When we discuss the nature of justification, we must distinguish between two different issues: First, what do we mean when we use the word ‘justification’? Second, what makes beliefs justified? It is important to keep these issues apart because a disagreement on how to answer the second question will be a mere verbal dispute, if the disagreeing parties have different concepts of justification in mind. So let us first consider what we might mean by ‘justification’ and then move on to the non-definitional issues.[9]

    2.1 Deontological and Non-Deontological Justification

    How is the term ‘justification’ used in ordinary language? Here is an example: Tom asked Martha a question, and Martha responded with a lie. Was she justified in lying? Jane thinks she was, for Tom's question was an inappropriate one, the answer to which was none of Tom's business. What might Jane mean when she thinks that Martha was justified in responding with a lie? A natural answer is this: She means that Martha was under no obligation to refrain from lying. Due the inappropriateness of Tom's question, it wasn't Martha's duty to tell the truth. This understanding of justification, commonly labeled deontological, may be defined as follows: S is justified in doing x if and only if S is not obliged to refrain from doing x.[10]

    Suppose, when we apply the word justification not to actions but to beliefs, we mean something analogous. In that case, the term ‘justification’ as used in epistemology would have to be defined this way:

    Deontological Justification (DJ)
    S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p while it is not the case that S is obliged to refrain from believing that p.[11]

    What kind of obligations are relevant when we wish to assess whether a belief, rather than an action, is justified or unjustified? Whereas when we evaluate an action, we are interested in assessing the action from either a moral or a prudential point of view, when it comes to beliefs, what matters is the pursuit of truth. The relevant kinds of obligations, then, are those that arise when we aim at having true beliefs. Exactly what, though, must we do in the pursuit of this aim? According to one answer, the one favored by evidentialists, we ought to believe in accord with our evidence. For this answer to be helpful, we need an account of what our evidence consists of. According to another answer, we ought to follow the correct epistemic norms. If this answer is going to help us figure out what obligations the truth-aim imposes on us, we need to be given an account of what the correct epistemic norms are.[12]

    The deontological understanding of the concept of justification is common to the way philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, Moore and Chisholm have thought about justification. Today, however, the dominant view is that the deontological understanding of justification is unsuitable for the purposes of epistemology. Two chief objections have been raised against conceiving of justification deontologically. First, it has been argued that DJ presupposes that we can have a sufficiently high degree of control over our beliefs. But beliefs are akin not to actions but rather things such as digestive processes, sneezes, or involuntary blinkings of the eye. The idea is that beliefs simply arise in or happen to us. Therefore, beliefs are not suitable for deontological evaluation.[13] To this objection, some advocates of DJ have replied that lack of control over our beliefs is no obstacle to using the term ‘justification’ in its deontological sense.[14] Others have argued that it's a mistake to think that we can control our beliefs any less than our actions.[15]

    According to the second objection to DJ, deontological justification does not tend to ‘epistemize’ true beliefs: it does not tend to make them non-accidentally true. This claim is typically supported by describing cases involving either a benighted, culturally isolated society or subjects who are cognitively deficient. Such cases involve beliefs that are claimed to be epistemically defective even though it would not seem that the subjects in these cases are under any obligation to refrain from believing as they do. What makes the beliefs in question epistemically defective is that they are formed using unreliable and intellectually faulty methods. The reason why the subjects, from their own point of view, are not obliged to believe otherwise is that they are either cognitively deficient or live in a benighted and isolated community. DJ says that such beliefs are justified. If they meet the remaining necessary conditions, DJ-theorists would have to count them as knowledge. According to the objection, however, the beliefs in question, even if true, could not possibly qualify as knowledge, due to the epistemically defective way they were formed. Consequently, DJ must be rejected.[16]

    Those who reject DJ use the term ‘justification’ in a technical sense that deviates from how the word is ordinarily used. The technical sense is meant to make the term suitable for the needs of epistemology.[17] But how are we then to conceive of justification? What does it mean for a belief to be justified in a non-deontological sense? Recall that the role assigned to justification is that of ensuring that a true belief isn't true merely by accident. Let us say that this is accomplished when a true belief instantiates the property of proper probabilification. We may, then, define non-deontological justification as follows:

    Non-Deontological Justification (NDJ)
    S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p on a basis that properly probabilifies S's belief that p.

    If we wish to pin down exactly what probabilification amounts to, we will have to deal with a variety of tricky issues.[18] For now, let us just focus on the main point. Those who prefer NDJ to DJ would say that probabilification and deontological justification can diverge: it's possible for a belief to be deontologically justified without being properly probabilified. This is just what cases involving benighted cultures or cognitively deficient subjects are supposed to show.[19]

    2.2 Evidence vs. Reliability

    What makes justified beliefs justified? According to evidentialists, it is the possession of evidence. What is it, though, to possess evidence for believing that p? Some evidentialists would say it is to be in a mental state that represents p as being true. For example, if the coffee in your cup tastes sweet to you, then you have evidence for believing that the coffee is sweet. If you feel a throbbing pain in your head, you have evidence for believing that you have a headache. If you have a memory of having had cereal for breakfast, then you have evidence for a belief about the past: a belief about what you ate when you had breakfast. And when you clearly "see" or "intuit" that the proposition "If Jack had more than four cups of coffee, then Jack had more than three cups of coffee" is true, then you have evidence for believing that proposition. In this view, evidence consists of perceptual, introspective, memorial, and intuitional experiences, and to possess evidence is to have an experience of that kind. So according to this evidentialism, what makes you justified in believing that p is your having an experience that represents p as being true.

    Many reliabilists, too, would say that the experiences mentioned in the previous paragraph matter. However, they would deny that justification is solely a matter of having suitable experiences. Rather, they hold that a belief is justified if, and only if, it results from cognitive origin that is reliable: an origin that tends to produce true beliefs and therefore properly probabilifies the belief. Reliabilists, then, would agree that the beliefs mentioned in the previous paragraph are justified. But according to a standard form of reliabilism, what makes them justified is not the possession of evidence, but the fact that the types of processes in which they originate — perception, introspection, memory, and rational intuition — are reliable.

    2.3 Internal vs. External

    In contemporary epistemology, there has been an extensive debate on whether justification is internal or external. Internalists claim that it is internal; externalists deny it. How are we to understand these claims?

    To understand what the internal-external distinction amounts to, we need to bear in mind that, when a belief is justified, there is something that makes it justified. Likewise, if a belief is unjustified, there is something that makes it unjustified. Let's call the things that make a belief justified or unjustified J-factors. The dispute over whether justification is internal or external is a dispute about what the J-factors are.

    Among those who think that justification is internal, there is no unanimity on how to understand the concept of internality. We can distinguish between two approaches. According to the first, justification is internal because we enjoy a special kind of access to J-factors: they are always recognizable on reflection.[20] Hence, assuming certain further premises (which will be mentioned momentarily), justification itself is always recognizable on reflection.[21] According to the second approach, justification is internal because J-factors are always mental states.[22] Let's call the former accessibility internalism and the latter mentalist internalism. Externalists deny that J-factors meet either one of these conditions.

    Evidentialism is typically associated with internalism, and reliabilism with externalism.[23] Let us see why. Evidentialism says, at a minimum, two things:

    E1 Whether one is justified in believing p depends on one's evidence regarding p.

    E2 One's evidence consists of one's mental states.

    By virtue of E2, evidentialism is obviously an instance of mentalist internalism.

    Whether evidentialism is also an instance of accessibility internalism is a more complicated issue. The conjunction of E1 and E2 by itself implies nothing about the recognizability of justification. Recall, however, that in Section 1.1 we distinguished between TK and NTK: the traditional and the nontraditional approach to the analysis of knowledge and justification. TK advocates, among which evidentialism enjoys widespread sympathy, tend to endorse the following two claims:

    Luminosity
    One's own mind is cognitively luminous: Relying on introspection, one can always recognize on reflection what mental states one is in.[24]
    Necessity
    a priori recognizable, necessary principles say what is evidence for what.[25] Relying on a priori insight, one can therefore always recognize on reflection whether one's mental states are evidence for p.[26]

    Although E1 and E2 by themselves do not imply access internalism, it is quite plausible to maintain that evidentialism, when embellished with Luminosity and Necessity, becomes an instance of access internalism.[27]

    Next, let us consider why reliabilism is an externalist theory. Reliabilism says that the justification of one's beliefs is a function of, not one's evidence, but the reliability of one's belief sources such as memorial, perceptual and introspective states and processes. Whereas the sources might qualify as mental, their reliability does not. Therefore, reliabilists reject mentalist internalism. Moreover, if the justification of one's beliefs is determined by the reliability of one's belief sources, justification will not always be recognizable on reflection. Hence reliabilists reject access internalism as well.[28]

    Let's use an example of radical deception to illustrate the difference between evidentialism as an internalist theory and reliabilism as an externalist theory. If evidentialism is true, a subject who is radically deceived will be mislead about what is actually the case, but not about what he is justified in believing. If, on the other hand, reliabilism is true, then such a subject will be misled about both what is actually the case and what he is justified in believing. Let us see why.

    Distinguish between Tim and Tim*: one and the same person whom we imagine in two altogether different situations. Tim's situation is normal, like yours or mine. Tim*, however, is a brain in a vat. Suppose a mad scientist abducted and "envatted" Tim* by removing his brain from his skull and putting it in a vat in which his brain is kept alive. Next, the mad scientist connects the nerve endings of Tim*'s brain with wires to a machine that, controlled by a powerful computer, starts stimulating Tim*'s brain in such a way that Tim* does not notice what actually happened to him. He is going to have perfectly ordinary experiences, just like Tim. Indeed, let's assume that the mental states of Tim and the mental states of Tim* are alike. But, since Tim* is a brain in a vat, he is, unlike Tim, radically deceived about his actual situation. For example, when Tim believes he has hands, he is right. When Tim* believes he has hands, he is mistaken. (His hands were discarded, along with the rest of his limbs and torso.) When Tim believes he is drinking coffee, he is right. When Tim* believes he is drinking coffee, he is mistaken. (Brains don't drink coffee.) Now suppose Tim* asks himself whether he is justified in believing that he has hands. Since Tim* is just like Tim, Tim* will say that his belief is justified, just as Tim would if he were to ask himself whether he is justified in believing that he has hands. Evidentialism implies that Tim*'s answer is correct. For even though he is deceived about his external situation, he is not deceived about his evidence: the way things appear to him in his experiences. This illustrates the internality of evidentialist justification. Reliabilism, on the other hand, suggests that Tim*'s answer is incorrect. Tim*'s belief that he has hands originates in cognitive processes — "seeing" and "feeling" his (nonexisting) hands — that now yield virtually no true beliefs. To the extent that this implies their unreliability, the resulting beliefs are unjustified. Consequently, he is deceived not only about his external situation (his not having hands), but also about the justificational status of his belief that he has hands. This illustrates the externality of reliabilist justification.

    The example of Tim and Tim* may serve as well to illustrate a further way in which we may conceive of the difference between internalism and externalism. Some internalists take the following principle to be characteristic of the internalist point of view:

    Mentalism
    If two subjects, S and S*, are alike mentally, then the justificational status of their beliefs is alike as well: the same beliefs are justified or unjustified for them to the same extent.[29]

    When we apply this principle to the Tim/Tim* example, it tells us that evidentialism is an internalist and reliabilism an externalist theory. Even though there are significant physical differences between Tim and Tim*, mentally they are alike. Evidentialism implies that, since Tim and Tim* are mentally alike, they have the same evidence, and thus are justificationally alike as well. For example, they are both justified in believing that they have hands. This makes evidentialism an internalist theory. Reliabilism, on the other hand, allows that, even though Tim and Tim* are mentally alike, they differ justificationally, since Tim's beliefs are (by and large) produced by reliable cognitive faculties, whereas the faculties that produce Tim*'s beliefs may count as unreliable. For example, some versions of reliabilism imply that Tim is justified in believing that he has hands, whereas Tim* is not. This makes reliabilism an externalist theory.[30]

    2.4 Why Internalism?

    Why think that justification is internal? One argument for the internality of justification goes as follows: "Justification is deontological: it is a matter of duty-fulfillment. But duty-fulfillment is internal. Therefore, justification is internal." Another argument appeals to the brain-in-the-vat scenario we considered above: "Tim*'s belief that he has hands is justified in the way that Tim's is justifed. Tim* is internally the same as Tim and externally quite different. Therefore, internal factors are what justify beliefs." Finally, since justification resulting from the possession of evidence is internal justification, internalism can be supported by way of making a case for evidentialism. What, then, can be said in support of evidentialism? Evidentialists would appeal to cases in which a belief is reliably formed but not accompanied by any experiences that would qualify as evidence. They would say that it's not plausible to claim that, in cases like that, the subject's belief is justified. Hence such cases show, according to evidentialists, that a belief can't be justified unless it's supported by evidence.[31]

    2.5 Why Externalism?

    Why think that justification is external? To begin with, externalists about justification would point to the fact that animals and small children have knowledge and thus have justified beliefs. But their beliefs can't be justified in the way evidentialists conceive of justification. Therefore, we must conclude that the justification their beliefs enjoy is external: resulting not from the possession of evidence but from origination in reliable processes. And second, externalists would say that what we want from justification is the kind of objective probability needed for knowledge, and only external conditions on justification imply this probability. So justification has external conditions.[32]

    3. The Structure of Knowledge and Justification

    The debate over the structure of knowledge and justification is primarily one among those who hold that knowledge requires justification. From this point of view, the structure of knowledge derives from the structure of justification. We will, therefore, focus on the latter.

    3.1 Foundationalism

    According to foundationalism, our justified beliefs are structured like a building: they are divided into a foundation and a superstructure, the latter resting upon the former. Beliefs belonging to the foundation are basic. Beliefs belonging to the superstructure are nonbasic and receive justification from the justified beliefs in the foundation.[33]

    For a foundationalist account of justification to be plausible, it must solve two problems. First, by virtue of exactly what are basic beliefs justified? Second, how do basic beliefs justify nonbasic beliefs? Before we address these questions, let us first consider the question of what it is that makes a justified belief basic in the first place. Once we have done that, we can then move on to discuss by virtue of what a basic belief might be justified, and how such a belief might justify a nonbasic belief.

    According to one approach, what makes a justified belief basic is that it doesn't receive its justification from any other beliefs. The following definition captures this thought:

    Doxastic Basicality (DB)
    S's justified belief that p is basic if and only if S's belief that p is justified without owing its justification to any of S's other beliefs.

    Let's consider what would, according to DB, qualify as an example of a basic belief. Suppose you notice (for whatever reason) someone's hat, and you also notice that that hat looks blue to you. So you believe

    (B) It appears to me that that hat is blue.

    Unless something very strange is going on, (B) is an example of a justified belief. DB tells us that (B) is basic if and only if it does not owe its justification to any other beliefs of yours. So if (B) is indeed basic, there might be some item or other to which (B) owes its justification, but that item would not be another belief of yours. We call this kind of basicality ‘doxastic’ because it makes basicality a function of how your doxastic system (your belief system) is structured.

    Let us turn to the question of where the justification that attaches to (B) might come from, if we think of basicality as defined by DB. Note that DB merely tells us how (B) is not justified. It says nothing about how (B) is justified. DB, therefore, does not answer that question. What we need, in addition to DB, is an account of what it is that justifies a belief such as (B). According to one strand of foundationalist thought, (B) is justified because it can't be false, doubted, or corrected by others. So (B) is justified because (B) carries with it an epistemic privilege such as infallibility, indubitability, or incorrigibility.[34] The idea is that (B) is justified by virtue of its intrinsic nature, which makes it possess some kind of an epistemic privilege.

    Note that (B) is not a belief about the hat. Rather, it's a belief about how the hat appears to you. So (B) is an introspective belief about a perceptual experience of yours. According to the thought we are considering here, a subject's basic beliefs are made up of introspective beliefs about the subject's own mental states, of which perceptual experiences make up one subset. Other mental states about which a subject can have basic beliefs include such things as having a headache, being tired, feeling pleasure, or having a desire for a cup of coffee. Beliefs about external objects do not and indeed cannot qualify as basic, for it is impossible for such beliefs to own the kind of epistemic privilege needed for the status of being basic.

    According to a different version of foundationalism, (B) is justified not by virtue of possessing some kind of privileged status, but by some further mental state of yours. That mental state, however, is not a further belief of yours. Rather, it is the very perceptual experience that (B) is about: the hat's looking blue to you. Let ‘(E)’ represent that experience. According to this alternative proposal, (B) and (E) are distinct mental states. The idea is that what justifies (B) is (E). Since (E) is an experience, not a belief of yours, (B) is, according to DB, basic.

    Let's call the two versions of foundationalism we have distinguished privilege foundationalism and experiential foundationalism. Privilege foundationalism restricts basic beliefs to beliefs about one's own mental states. Experiential foundationalism is less restrictive. According to it, beliefs about external objects can be basic as well. Suppose instead of (B), you believe

    (H) That hat is blue.

    Unlike (B), (H) is about the hat itself, and not the way the hat appears to you. Such a belief is not one about which we are infallible or otherwise epistemically privileged. Privilege foundationalism would, therefore, classify (H) as nonbasic. It is, however, quite plausible to think that (E) justifies not only (B) but (H) as well. If (E) is indeed what justifies (H), and (H) does not receive any additional justification from any further beliefs of yours, then (H) qualifies, according to DB, as basic.

    Experiential Foundationalism, then, combines to two crucial ideas: (i) when a justified belief is basic, its justification is not owed to any other belief; (ii) what in fact justifies basic beliefs are experiences.

    Under ordinary circumstances, perceptual beliefs such as (H) are not based on any further beliefs about one's own perceptual experiences. It is unclear, therefore, how privilege foundationalism can account for the justification of ordinary perceptual beliefs like (H). Experiential foundationalism, on the other hand, has no trouble at all explaining how ordinary perceptual beliefs are justified: they are justified by the perceptual experiences that give rise to them. This could be viewed as a reason for preferring experiential foundationalism to privilege foundationalism.

    Above, we noted that how to think of basicality is not uncontroversial. DB defines just one kind of basicality. Here's an alternative conception of it:

    Epistemic Basicality (EB)
    S's justified belief that p is basic if and only if S's justification for believing that p does not depend on any justification S possesses for believing a further proposition, q.[35]

    EB makes it more difficult for a belief to be basic than DB does. To see why, we turn to the chief question (let's call it the ‘J-question’) that advocates of experiential foundationalism face:

    The J-Question
    Why are perceptual experiences a source of justification?

    One way of answering the J-question can be viewed as a compromise position, since it is meant to be a compromise between foundationalism and its competitor, coherentism. The compromise position will be of interest to us because it illustrates how DB and EB differ. For if we adopt the compromise position, beliefs such as (H) will qualify as basic according to DB, but according to EB as nonbasic. So let's see what the compromise position says.

    From a coherentist point of view, we might answer the J-question as follows: Perceptual experiences are a source of justification because we are justified in believing them to be reliable. As we will see below, making perceptual justification dependent on the existence of reliability-attributing beliefs is quite problematic. There is, however, an alternative answer to the J-question that appeals to reliability without making perceptual justification dependent upon beliefs that attribute reliability to perceptual experiences. According to this second answer to the J-question, perceptual experiences are a source of justification because we have justification for taking them to be reliable. That's the view we shall call the compromise position.[36]

    Note that your having justification for believing that p doesn't entail that you actually believe p. For example, if you believe that the person next to you wears a blue hat, you have justification for believing that the person next to you wears a blue hat or a red hat. But of course you are unlikely to believe the latter even though you have justification for it. Likewise, your having justification for attributing reliability to your perceptual experiences doesn't entail that you have given thought to the matter and actually formed the belief that they are reliable. According to the kind of coherentism we considered above, if your perceptual experiences are a source of justification for you, it must be the case that you have considered the matter and believe them to be reliable. The compromise position says no such thing. It says merely that, if your perceptual experiences are a source of justification for you, you must have justification for believing them to be reliable.

    What might give us justification for thinking that our perceptual experiences are reliable? That's a complicated issue. For our present purposes, let's consider the following answer: We remember that they have served us well in the past. We are supposing, then, that justification for attributing reliability to your perceptual experiences consists of memories of perceptual success. According to the compromise position, it is never a perceptual experience (E) by itself that justifies a perceptual belief, but only (E) in conjunction with suitable track-record memories that give you justification for considering (E) reliable. Let ‘(E)’ again stand for the hat's looking blue to you, and ‘(H)’ for your belief that that hat is blue. According to the compromise position, (E) justifies (H) only if (E) is accompanied by track-record memories (M) that give you justification for attributing reliability to your visual experiences. So what, according to the compromise position as we have described it, justifies (H) is the conjunction of (E) and (M).

    We can now see how DB and EB differ. According to the compromise position, your having justification for (H) depends on your having justification for believing something else in addition to (H), namely that your visual experiences are reliable. As a result (H) is not basic in the sense defined by EB. However, (H) might still be basic in the sense defined by DB. As long as your justification for (H) is owed solely to (E) and (M), neither of which includes any beliefs, DB tells us that (H) is basic. It follows that an experiential foundationalist who wishes to classify beliefs such as (H) as basic cannot adopt the compromise position. Such a foundationalist would have to say that (E) by itself is sufficient for making (H) a justified belief.

    How do experiential foundationalists who prefer EB to DB answer the J-question? Because of the way they conceive of basicality, they cannot say that perceptual experiences are a source of justification for you because you have a reason, R, for believing that they do. For R would be justification for believing something else — the very thing that, according to EB, is an obstacle to basicality. One option for EB-foundationalists would be to endorse externalism. If they do, they could say that perceptual experiences are a source of justification if, and only if, they are of types that are reliably associated with true resulting beliefs. On that view, it would be the fact of reliability, not evidence of reliability, that makes perceptual experiences a source of justification.[37] Another internalist option would be to say that perceptual experiences are a source of justification because it couldn't be otherwise: it's a necessary truth that certain perceptual experiences can justify certain perceptual beliefs. This would be an internalist answer to the J-question because perceptual experiences would be a source of justification whether or not they are reliable.[38]

    To conclude this section, let us briefly consider how justification is supposed to be transferred from basic to nonbasic beliefs. There are two options: the justificatory relation between basic and nonbasic beliefs could be deductive or non-deductive. If we take the relation to be deductive, each of one's nonbasic beliefs would have to be such that it can be deduced from one's basic beliefs. This seems excessively demanding. If we consider a random selection of typical beliefs we hold, it is not easy to see from which basic beliefs they could be deduced. Foundationalists, therefore, typically conceive of the link between the foundation and the superstructure in non-deductive terms. They would say that, for a basic belief, B, to justify a nonbasic belief, B*, it isn't necessary that B entails B*. Rather, it is sufficient that, given B, it is likely that B* is true.

    3.2 Coherentism

    Foundationalism says that knowledge and justification are structured like a building, consisting of a superstructure that rests upon a foundation. According to coherentism, this metaphor gets things wrong. Knowledge and justification are structured like a web where the strength of any given area depends on the strength of the surrounding areas. Coherentists, then, deny that there are any basic beliefs. As we saw in the previous section, there are two different ways of conceiving of basicality. Consequently, there are two corresponding ways of construing coherentism: as the denial of doxastic basicality or as the denial of epistemic basicality. Consider first coherentism as the denial of doxastic basicality:

    Doxastic Coherentism
    Every justified belief receives its justification from other beliefs in its epistemic neighborhood.

    Let us apply this thought to the hat example we considered in Section 3.1. Suppose again you notice someone's hat and believe

    (H) That hat is blue.

    Let's agree that (H) is justified. According to coherentism, (H) receives its justification from other beliefs in the epistemic vicinity of (H). They constitute your evidence or your reasons for taking (H) to be true. Which beliefs might make up this set of justification-conferring neighborhood beliefs?

    We will consider two approaches to answering this question. The first is known as inference to the best explanation. Such inferences generate what is called explanatory coherence.[39] According to this approach, we must suppose you form a belief about the way the hat appears to you in your perceptual experiences, and a second belief to the effect that your perceptual experience, the hat's looking blue to you, is best explained by the assumption that (H) is true. So the relevant set of beliefs is the following:

    (1) I am having a visual experience (E): the hat looks blue to me.
    (2) My having (E) is best explained by assuming that (H) is true.

    There are of course alternative explanations of why you have (E). Perhaps you are hallucinating that the hat is blue. Perhaps an evil demon makes the hat look blue to you when in fact it is red. Perhaps you are the sort of person to whom hats always look blue. An explanatory coherentist would say that, compared with these, the hat's actual blueness is a superior explanation. That's why your are justified in believing (H). Note that an explanatory coherentist can also explain the lack of justification. Suppose you remember that you just took a hallucinatory drug that makes things look blue to you. That would prevent you from being justified in believing (H). The explanatory coherentist can account for this by pointing out that, in the case we are considering now, the truth of (H) would not be the best explanation of why you are having experience (E). Rather, your having taken the hallucinatory drug would be an explanation at least as good as the assumption as (H) is true. That's why, according to the explanatory coherentist, in this variation of our original case you wouldn't be justified in be believing (H).

    One problem for explanatory coherentists is to make us understand, in nonepistemic terms, why the favored explanation is really better than the competing explanations. Let's use the evil demon hypothesis to illustrate that difficulty. What we need is an explanation of why you are having (E). According to the evil demon hypothesis, you are having (E) because the evil demon is tricking you. The explanatory coherentist would say that this is a bad explanation of why you are having (E). But why would it be bad? What we need to answer this question is a general and principled account of what makes one explanation better than another. Suppose we appeal to the fact that you are not justified in believing in the existence of evil demons. The general idea would be this: If there are two competing explanations, E1 and E2, and E1 consists of or includes a proposition that you are not justified in believing whereas E2 does not, then E2 is better than E1. The problem with this idea is that it puts the cart before the horse. Explanatory coherentism is supposed to make us understand where justification comes from. It doesn't do that if it accounts for the difference between better and worse explanations by making use of the difference between justified and unjustified belief. If explanatory coherentism were to proceed in this way, it would be a circular, and thus uninformative, account of justification. So the challenge to which explanatory coherentism must rise is to give an account, without using the concept of justification, of what makes one explanation better than another.

    Let us move on to the second way in which the coherentist approach might be carried out. Recall what a subject's justification for believing p is all about: possessing a link between the belief that p and p's truth. Suppose the subject knows that the origin of her belief that p is reliable. So she knows that beliefs coming from this source tend to be true. Such knowledge would give her an excellent link between the belief and its truth. So we might say that the neighborhood beliefs which confer justification on (H) are the following:

    (1) I am having a visual experience (E): the hat looks blue to me.
    (3) Experiences like (E) are reliable.

    Call coherentism of this kind reliability coherentism. If you believe (1) and (3), you are in possession of a good reason for thinking that the hat is indeed blue. So you are in possession of a good reason for thinking that the belief in question, (H), is true. That's why, according to reliability coherentism, you are justified in believing (H).

    Like explanatory coherentism, this view faces a circularity problem. If (H) receives its justification in part because you also believe (3), (3) itself must be justified. But where would your justification for (3) come from? One answer would be: from your memory of perceptual success in the past. You remember that your visual experiences have had a good track record. They have rarely led you astray. The problem is that you can't justifiably attribute a good track record to your perceptual faculties without using your perceptual faculties. So if reliability coherentism is going to work, it would have to be legitimate to use a faculty for the very purpose of establishing the reliability of that faculty itself. Some epistemologists think that would not be legitimate.[40]

    We have seen that explanatory coherentism and reliability coherentism each face its own distinctive circularity problem. Since both are versions of doxastic coherentism, they both face a further difficulty: Do people, under normal circumstances, really form beliefs like (1), (2), and (3)? It would seem they do not. It could be objected, therefore, that these two versions of coherentism make excessive intellectual demands of ordinary subjects who are unlikely to have the background beliefs that, according to these versions of coherentism, are needed for justification. This objection could be avoided by stripping coherentism of its doxastic element. The result would be the following version of coherentism, which results from rejecting EB (the epistemic conception of basicality):

    Dependence Coherentism
    Whenever one is justified in believing a proposition p1, one's justification for believing p1 depends on justification one has for believing some further propositions, p1, p2, … pn.

    An explanatory coherentist might say that, for you to be justified in believing (H), it's not necessary that you actually believe (1) and (2). However, it is necessary that you have justification for believing (1) and (2). It is your having justification for (1) and (2) that gives you justification for believing (H). A reliability coherentist might make an analogous point. She might say that, to be justified in believing (H), you need not believe anything about the reliability of your belief's origin. You must, however, have justification for believing that your belief's origin is reliable; that is, you must have justification for (1) and (3). Both versions of dependence coherentism, then, rest on the supposition that it is possible to have justification for a proposition without actually believing that proposition.

    Dependence coherentism is a significant departure from the way coherentism has typically been construed by its advocates. According to the typical construal of coherentism, the view says that a given belief is justified, the subject must have certain further beliefs that constitute reasons for the given belief. Dependence coherentism rejects this. According to it, justification need not come in the form of beliefs. It can come in the form of introspective and memorial evidence that gives a subject justification for beliefs about either reliability or explanatory coherence. In fact, dependence coherentism allows for the possibility that a belief is justified, not by receiving any of its justification from other beliefs, but solely by suitable perceptual experiences and memory content. Above, we called this view the "compromise position". The compromise position, then, may be characterized as follows:
    i.it allows for doxastic basicality;
    ii.it does not allow for epistemic basicality;
    iii.it is inconsistent with doxastic coherentism;
    iv.it qualifies as a version of coherentism, namely dependence coherentism.

    Note that (iii) follows from (i), and (iv) from (ii). An uncompromising foundationalist would reject dependence coherentism. A foundationalist of that kind views a basic belief that p as a belief whose justification does not depend on having any justification for believing another proposition q. Foundationalism of this sort could be called independence foundationalism, since it asserts that a basic belief's justification is completely independent of having justification for any other beliefs. The logic of the conflict between foundationalism and coherentism seems to suggest that, ultimately, the conflict between the two views boils down to that between dependence coherentism and independence foundationalism.[41]

    Next, let us examine the reasons for and against in the debate over foundationalism and coherentism.

    3.3 Why Foundationalism?

    The main argument for foundationalism is called the regress argument. It's an argument from elimination. With regard to every justified belief, B1, the question arises of where B1's justification comes from. If B1 is not basic, it would have to come from another belief, B2. But B2 can justify B1 only if B2 is justified itself. If B2 is basic, the justificatory chain would end with B2. But if B2 is not basic, we need a further belief, B3. If B3 is not basic, we need a fourth belief, and so forth. Unless the ensuing regress terminates in a basic belief, we get two possibilities: the regress will either loop back to B1 or continue ad infinitum. According to the regress argument, both of these possibilities are unacceptable. Therefore, if there are justified beliefs, there must be basic beliefs.[42]

    This argument suffers from various weaknesses. First, we may wonder whether the alternatives to foundationalism are really unacceptable. In the recent literature on this subject, we actually find an elaborate defense of the position that infinitism is the correct solution to the regress problem.[43] Nor should circularity be dismissed too quickly. The issue is not whether a simple argument of the form p therefore p is acceptable. Of course it is not. Rather, the issue is ultimately whether, in the attempt to show that trust in our faculties is reasonable, we may make use of the input our faculties deliver. Whether such circularity is as unacceptable as a p-therefore-p inference is an open question. Moreover, the avoidance of circularity does not come cheap. Experiential foundationalists claim that perception is a source of justification. Hence they need to answer the J-question: Why is perception a source of justification? As we saw above, if we wish to answer this question without committing ourselves to the kind of circularity dependence coherentism involves, we must choose between externalism and an appeal to brute necessity. Neither choice is unproblematic.

    The second weakness of the regress argument is that its conclusion merely says this: If there are justified beliefs, there must be justified beliefs that do not receive their justification from other beliefs. Its conclusion does not say that, if there are justified beliefs, there must be beliefs whose justification is independent of any justification for further beliefs. So the regress argument, if it were sound, would merely show that there must be doxastic basicality. Dependence coherentism, however, allows for doxastic basicality. So the regress argument merely defends experiential foundationalism against doxastic coherentism. It does not tell us why we should prefer independence foundationalism to dependence coherentism.

    Experiential foundationalism can be supported by citing cases like the blue hat example. Such examples make it plausible to assume that perceptual experiences are a source of justification. But they do not arbitrate between dependence coherentism and independence foundationalism, since either one of these views appeals to perceptual experiences to explain why perceptual beliefs are justified.

    Finally, foundationalism can be supported by advancing objections to coherentism. One prominent objection is that coherentism somehow fails to ensure that a justified belief system is in contact with reality. This objection derives its force from the fact that fiction can be perfectly coherent. Why think, therefore, that a belief system's coherence is a reason for thinking that the belief in that system tend to be true? Coherentists could respond to this objection by saying that, if a belief system contains beliefs such as "Many of my beliefs have their origin in perceptual experiences" and "My perceptual experiences are reliable", it is reasonable for the subject to think that her belief system brings her into contact with external reality. This looks like an effective response to the no-contact-with-reality objection. Moreover, it is not easy to see why foundationalism itself should be better positioned than coherentism when contact with reality is the issue. What is meant by "ensuring" contact with reality? If foundationalists expect a logical guarantee of such contact, basic beliefs must be infallible. That would make contact with reality a rather expensive commodity. Given its price, foundationalists might want to lower their expectations. According to an alternative construal, we expect merely the likelihood of contact with reality. But if coherentists account for the importance of perception in one way or another, they can meet that expectation as well as foundationalists.

    Since coherentism can be construed in different ways, it is unlikely that there is one single objection that succeeds in refuting all possible versions of coherentism. Doxastic coherentism, however, seems particularly vulnerable to criticism coming from the foundationalist camp. One of these we considered already: It would seem that doxastic coherentism makes excessive intellectual demands on believers. When dealing with the mundane tasks of everyday life, we don't normally bother to form beliefs about the explanatory coherence of our beliefs or the reliability of our belief sources. According to a second objection, doxastic coherentism fails by being insensitive to the epistemic relevance of perceptual experiences. Foundationalists could argue as follows. Suppose Kim is observing a chameleon that rapidly changes its colors. A moment ago it was blue, now it's purple. Kim still believes it's blue. Her belief is now unjustified because she believes the chameleon is blue even though it looks purple to her. Then the chameleon changes its color back to blue. Now Kim's belief that the chameleon is blue is justified again because the chameleon once again looks blue to her. The point would be that what's responsible for the changing justificatory status of Kim's belief is solely the way the chameleon looks to her. Since doxastic coherentism does not attribute epistemic relevance to perceptual experiences by themselves, it cannot explain why Kim's belief is first justified, then unjustified, and eventually justified again.[44]

    3.4 Why Coherentism?

    Coherentism is typically defended by attacking foundationalism as a viable alternative. To argue against privilege foundationalism, coherentists pick an epistemic privilege they think is essential to foundationalism, and then argue that either no beliefs, or too few beliefs, enjoy such a privilege. Against experiential foundationalism, different objections have been advanced. One line of criticism is that perceptual experiences don't have propositional content. Therefore, the relation between a perceptual belief and the perceptual experience that gives rise to it can only be causal. Consider again, however, the hat example from above. When you see the hat and it looks blue to you, doesn't your visual experience — its looking blue to you — have the propositional content that the hat is blue? It would seem it does. If it does, there seems to be no reason to deny that your perceptual experience can play a justificatory role.[45]

    Another line of thought is that, if perceptual experiences have propositional content, they cannot stop the justificatory regress because they would then be in need of justification themselves. That, however, appears to be a strange thought. In our actual epistemic practice, we never demand of others to justify the way things appear to them in their perceptual experiences. Indeed, such a demand would seem absurd. Suppose I ask you: "Why do you think that the hat is blue?" You answer: "Because it looks blue to me." There are sensible further questions I might ask at that point. For instance, I might ask: "Why do you think its looking blue to you gives you a reason for thinking it is blue?" Or I might ask: "Couldn't you be mistaken in believing it looks blue to you?" The latter question might irritate you, but it would not be illegitimate. After all, we can reasonably doubt that introspective beliefs about how things appear to us are infallible. But now suppose I ask you: "Why do you suppose the perceptual experience in which the hat looks blue to you is justified?" In response to that question, you should accuse me of misusing the word ‘justification’. I might as well ask you what it is that justifies your headache when you have one, or what justifies the itch in your nose when you have one. The latter questions, you should reply, would be as absurd as my request for stating a justifying reason for your perceptual experience.[46]

    Experiential foundationalism, then, is not easily dislodged. On what grounds could coherentists object to it? To raise problems for experiential foundationalism, coherentists could press the J-question: Why are perceptual experiences a source of justification? If foundationalists answer the J-question appealing to evidence that warrants the attribution of reliability to perceptual experiences, experiential foundationalism morphs into dependence coherentism, or, as we have called it, the compromise position. To avoid this outcome, foundationalists would have to give an alternative answer. One way of doing this would be to advocate independence foundationalism, which adopts the epistemic conception of basicality and views it as a matter of brute necessity that perception is a source of justification. So ultimately, the task of defending coherentism might come down to the task of showing that dependence coherentism as a compromise position is preferable to independence foundationalism. To back up such a preference, it might be argued that dependence coherentism gives us a more satisfying answer to the J-question than independence foundationalism does. But is that really so?

    Suppose we ask "Why is the sum of two and two four?" Isn't the answer "It couldn't be any other way" perfectly satisfactory? So sometimes, at least, a request for explaining the truth of p is met in a satisfying way by pointing out that p is necessarily true. Why, then, should we not be satisfied when independence foundationalists answer the J-question by saying that perceptual experiences are necessarily a source of justification? To find out whether we should be satisfied, we might employ thought experiments. We might try to describe a possible world in which, to use our example again, someone sees an object that looks blue to her, but the object's looking blue to her does not give her any justification at all for believing that the object is actually blue. If we can conceive of such a possible world, then we have reason to think that independence foundationalists are mistaken when they say that perceptual experience is necessarily a source of justification.
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:40 am

    Epistemology Continued. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

    4. Sources of Knowledge and Justification

    Beliefs arise in people for a wide variety of causes. Among them, we must list psychological factors such as desires, emotional needs, prejudice, and biases of various kinds. Obviously, when beliefs originate in sources like these, they don't qualify as knowledge even if true. For true beliefs to count as knowledge, it is necessary that they originate in sources we have good reason to consider reliable. These are perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony. Let us briefly consider each of these.

    4.1 Perception

    Our perceptual faculties are our five senses: sight, touch, hearing, smelling, and tasting. We must distinguish between an experience that can be classified as perceiving that p (for example, seeing that there is coffee in the cup and tasting that it is sweet), which entails that p is true, and a perceptual experience in which it seems to us as though p, but where p might be false. Let us refer to this latter kind of experience as perceptual seemings. The reason for making this distinction lies in the fact that perceptual experience is fallible. The world is not always as it appears to us in our perceptual experiences. We need, therefore, a way of referring to perceptual experiences in which p seems to be the case that allows for the possibility of p being false. That's the role assigned to perceptual seemings. So some perceptual seemings that p are cases of perceiving that p, others are not. When it looks to you as though there is a cup of coffee on the table and in fact there is, the two states coincide. If, however, you hallucinate that there is a cup on the table, you have perceptual seeming that p without perceiving that p.

    One family of epistemological issues about perception arises when we concern ourselves with the psychological nature of the perceptual processes through which we acquire knowledge of external objects. According to direct realism, we can acquire such knowledge because we can directly perceive such objects. For example, when you see a tomato on the table, what you perceive is the tomato itself. According to indirect realism, we acquire knowledge of external objects by virtue of perceiving something else, namely appearances or sense-data. An indirect realist would say that, when you see and thus know that there is a tomato on the table, what you really see is not the tomato itself but a tomato-like sense-datum or some such entity.

    Direct and indirect realists hold different views about the structure of perceptual knowledge. Indirect realists would say that we acquire perceptual knowledge of external objects by virtue of perceiving sense data that represent external objects. Sense data, a species of mental states, enjoy a special status: we know directly what they are like. So indirect realists think that, when perceptual knowledge is foundational, it is knowledge of sense data and other mental states. Knowledge of external objects is indirect: derived from our knowledge of sense data. The basic idea is that we have indirect knowledge of the external world because we can have foundational knowledge of our own mind. Direct realists can be more liberal about the foundation of our knowledge of external objects. Since they hold that perceptual experiences get you in direct contact with external objects, they can say that such experiences can give you foundational knowledge of external objects.

    We take our perceptual faculties to be reliable. But how can we know that they are reliable? For externalists, this might not be much of a challenge. If the use of reliable faculties is sufficient for knowledge, and if by using reliable faculties we acquire the belief that our faculties are reliable, then we come to know that our faculties are reliable. But even externalists might wonder how they can, via argument, show that our perceptual faculties are reliable. The problem is this. It would seem the only way of acquiring knowledge about the reliability of our perceptual faculties is through memory, through remembering whether they served us well in the past. But should I trust my memory, and should I think that the episodes of perceptual success that I seem to recall were in fact episodes of perceptual success? If I am entitled to answer these questions with ‘yes', then I need to have, to begin with, reason to view my memory and my perceptual experiences as reliable. It would seem, therefore, that there is no non-circular way of arguing for the reliability of one's perceptual faculties.[47]

    4.2 Introspection

    Introspection is the capacity to inspect the, metaphorically speaking, "inside" of one's mind. Through introspection, one knows what mental states one is in: whether one is thirsty, tired, excited, or depressed. Compared with perception, introspection appears to have a special status. It is easy to see how a perceptual seeming can go wrong: what looks like a cup of coffee on the table might be just be a clever hologram that's visually indistinguishable from an actual cup of coffee. But could it be possible that it introspectively seems to me that I have a headache when in fact I do not? It is not easy to see how it could be. Thus we come to think that introspection has a special status. Compared with perception, introspection seems to be privileged by virtue of being less error prone. How can we account for the special status of introspection?

    First, it could be argued that, when it comes to introspection, there is no difference between appearance and reality; therefore, introspective seemings are necessarily successful introspections. According to this approach, introspection is infallible. Alternatively, one could view introspection as a source of certainty. Here the idea is that an introspective experience of p eliminates all possible doubt as to whether p is true. Finally, one could attempt to explain the specialness of introspection by examining the way we respond to first-person reports: typically, we attribute a special authority to such reports. According to this approach, introspection is incorrigible. Others are not, or at least not typically, in a position to correct first-person reports of one's own mental states.

    Introspection reveals how the world appears to us in our perceptual experiences. For that reason, introspection has been of special interest to foundationalists. Perception is not immune to error. If certainty consists in the absence of all possible doubt, perception fails to yield certainty. Hence beliefs based on perceptual experiences cannot be foundational. Introspection, however, might deliver what we need to find a firm foundation for our beliefs about external objects: at best outright immunity to error or all possible doubt, or perhaps more modestly, an epistemic kind of directness that cannot be found in perception.

    Is it really true, however, that, compared with perception, introspection is in some way special? Critics of foundationalism have argued that introspection is certainly not infallible. Might one not confuse an unpleasant itch for a pain? Might I not think that the shape before me appears circular to me when in fact it appears slightly elliptical to me? If it is indeed possible for introspection to mislead, then it is hard to see why introspection should eliminate all possible doubt. Yet it isn't easy to see either how, if one clearly and distinctly feels a throbbing headache, one could be mistaken about that. Introspection, then, turns out to be a mysterious faculty. On the one hand, it does not seem to be in general an infallible faculty; on the other hand, when looking at appropriately described specific cases, error does seem impossible.[48]

    4.3 Memory

    Memory is the capacity to retain knowledge acquired in the past. What one remembers, though, need not be a past event. It may be a present fact, such as one's telephone number, or a future event, such as the date of the next elections. Memory is, of course, fallible. Not every instance of taking oneself to remember that p is an instance of actually remembering that p. We should distinguish, therefore, between remembering that p (which entails the truth of p) and seeming to remember that p (which does not entail the truth of p).

    One issue about memory concerns the question of what distinguishes memorial seemings from perceptual seemings or mere imagination. Some philosophers have thought that having an image in one's mind is essential to memory, but that would appear to be mistaken. When one remembers one's telephone number, one is unlikely to have an image of one's number in one's mind. The distinctively epistemological questions about memory are these: First, what makes memorial seemings a source of justification? Is it a necessary truth that, if one has a memorial seeming that p, one has thereby prima facie justification for p? Or is memory a source of justification only if, as coherentists might say, one has reason to think that one's memory is reliable? Or is memory a source of justification only if, as externalists would say, it is in fact reliable? Second, how can we respond to skepticism about knowledge of the past? Memorial seemings of the past do not guarantee that the past is what we take it to be. We think that we are a bit older than just five minutes, but it is logically possible that the world sprang into existence just five minutes ago, complete with our dispositions to have memorial seemings of a more distant past and items such as apparent fossils that suggest a past going back millions of years. Our seeming to remember that the world is older than a mere five minutes does not entail, therefore, that it really is. Why, then, should we think that memory is a source of knowledge about the past?[49]

    4.4 Reason

    Some beliefs would appear to be justified solely by the use of reason. Justification of that kind is said to be a priori: prior to any kind of experience. A standard way of defining a priori justification goes as follows:

    A Priori Justification
    S is justified a priori in believing that p if and only if S's justification for believing that p does not depend on any experience.

    Beliefs that are true and justified in this way (and not somehow "gettiered") would count as instances of a priori knowledge.[50]

    What exactly counts as experience? If by ‘experience’ we mean just perceptual experiences, justification deriving from introspective or memorial experiences would count as a priori. For example, I could then know a priori that I'm thirsty, or what I ate for breakfast this morning. While the term ‘a priori’ is sometimes used in this way, the strict use of the term restricts a priori justification to justification derived solely from the use of reason. According to this usage, the word ‘experiences' in the definition above includes perceptual, introspective, and memorial experiences alike. On this narrower understanding, paradigm examples of what I can know on the basis of a priori justification are conceptual truths (such as "All bachelors are unmarried"), and truths of mathematics, geometry and logic.

    Justification and knowledge that is not a priori is called ‘a posteriori’ or ‘empirical’. For example, in the narrow sense of ‘a priori’, whether I'm thirsty or not is something I know empirically (on the basis of introspective experiences), whereas I know a priori that 12 divided by 3 is 4.

    Several important issues arise about a priori knowledge. First, does it exist at all? Skeptics about apriority deny its existence. They don't mean to say that we have no knowledge of mathematics, geometry, logic, and conceptual truths. Rather, what they claim is that all such knowledge is empirical.

    Second, if a priori justification is possible, exactly how does it come about? What makes a belief such as "All bachelors are unmarried" justified solely on the basis of reason? Is it an unmediated grasp of the truth of this proposition? Or does it consist of grasping that the proposition is necessarily true? Or is it the purely intellectual experience of "seeing" (with they "eye of reason") or "intuiting" that this proposition is true (or necessarily true)? Or is it, as externalists would suggest, the reliability of the cognitive process by which we come to recognize the truth of such a proposition?

    Third, if a priori knowledge exists, what is its extent? Empiricists have argued that a priori knowledge is limited to the realm of the analytic, consisting of propositions of a somehow inferior status because they are not really "about the world". Propositions of a superior status, which convey genuine information about world, are labeled synthetic. a priori knowledge of synthetic propositions, empiricists would say, is not possible. Rationalists deny this. They would say that a proposition such as "If a ball is green all over, then it doesn't have black spots" is synthetic and knowable a priori.

    A fourth question about the nature of a priori knowledge concerns the distinction between necessary and contingent truths. The received view is that whatever is known a priori is necessarily true, but there are epistemologists who disagree with that.[51]

    4.5 Testimony

    Testimony differs from the sources we considered above because it isn't distinguished by having its own cognitive faculty. Rather, to acquire knowledge of p through testimony is to come to know that p on the basis of someone's saying that p. "Saying that p" must be understood broadly, as including ordinary utterances in daily life, postings by bloggers on their web-logs, articles by journalists, delivery of information on television, radio, tapes, books, and other media. So, when you ask the person next to you what time it is, and she tells you, and you thereby come to know what time it is, that's an example of coming to know something on the basis of testimony. And when you learn by reading the Washington Post that the terrorist attack in Sharm el-Sheikh of July 22, 2005 killed at least 88 people, that, too, is an example of acquiring knowledge on the basis of testimony.

    The epistemological puzzle testimony raises is this: Why is testimony a source of knowledge? An externalist might say that testimony is a source of knowledge if and only if it comes from a reliable source. But here, even more so than in the case of our faculties, internalists will not find that answer satisfactory. Suppose you hear someone saying ‘p’. Suppose further that person is in fact utterly reliable with regard to the question of whether p is the case or not. Finally, suppose you have no evidential clue whatever as to that person's reliability. Wouldn't it be plausible to conclude that, since that person's reliability is unknown to you, that person's saying ‘p’ does not put you in a position to know that p? But if the reliability of a testimonial source is not sufficient for making it a source of knowledge, what else is needed? Thomas Reid suggested that, by our very nature, we accept testimonial sources as reliable and tend to attribute credibility to them unless we encounter special contrary reasons. But that's merely a statement of the attitude we in fact take toward testimony. What is it that makes that attitude reasonable? It could be argued that, in one's own personal experiences with testimonial sources, one has accumulated a long track record that can be taken as a sign of reliability. However, when we think of the sheer breadth of the knowledge we derive from testimony, one wonders whether one's personal experiences constitute an evidence base rich enough to justify the attribution of reliability to the totality of the testimonial sources one tends to trust. An alternative to the track record approach would be to declare it a necessary truth that trust in testimonial sources is justified. This suggestion, alas, encounters the same difficulty as the externalist approach to testimony: it does not seem we can acquire knowledge from sources the reliability of which is utterly unknown to us.[52]

    5. The Limits of Knowledge and Justification

    5.1 The Case for Skepticism

    According to skeptics, the limits of what you know are narrower than you would like to think. There are many things that you think you know but actually fail to know. For example, you think you know that you have hands, but in fact you don't. How can the skeptics expect you to take such a strange conclusion seriously? Here's how. As a first step, the skeptics will focus on another proposition, about which you are likely to agree that you don't know it. As a second step, they will get you to agree that, since you don't know that second proposition, you don't know the first one either: the proposition that you have hands.

    When the skeptics get their argument started with some other proposition about which you are likely to agree you don't know it, what do they have in mind? They direct your attention to what is called a skeptical hypothesis. According to a skeptical hypothesis, things are radically different from what you take them to be. Here are several examples:
    •I'm lying in my bed dreaming.
    •I'm deceived by an evil demon.
    •I'm a mere brain-in-a-vat (a BIV).
    •I'm in the matrix world.

    What the skeptics will point out, and what they think you will easily agree with, is this: For any particular hypothesis on the list, you don't know that it is false. This works better for some than for others. It works really well for the BIV hypothesis, which we discussed already in section 2.2. The idea is that, if you are a BIV, you are reduced to a mere brain which is stimulated in such a way that the delusion of a normal life results. So the experiences you have as a BIV and the experiences you have as a normal person are perfectly alike, indistinguishable, so to speak, "from the inside." It doesn't look to you as though you are a BIV. After all, you can see that you have a body, and you can freely move about in your environment. The problem is that it looks that way to a BIV, too. As a result, the evidence you have as a normal person and the evidence you have as a BIV do not relevantly differ. Consequently, your evidence can't settle the question of whether or not you are a BIV. Based on this thought, the skeptics claim you don't know that you are not a BIV. That's the first step of the case for skepticism.

    Let us now focus on the second step. The basic thought is that, if you don't know you're not a BIV, you don't know you have hands. That thought is extremely plausible. After all, if you are a BIV, you don't have any hands. So if you can't distinguish between being and not being a BIV, you can't distinguish either between having and not having hands. But if you can't distinguish between having and not having hands, surely you don't know that you have hands. Putting the two steps of the skeptic's reasoning together, we get the following argument:

    The BIV Argument

    (1) I don't know that I'm not a BIV.

    (2) If I don't know that I'm not a BIV, then I don't know that I have hands.

    Therefore:

    (3) I don't know that I have hands.

    As we have just seen, (1) and (2) are very plausible premises. It would seem, therefore, that the BIV Argument is sound. If it is, we must conclude we don't know we have hands. But surely that conclusion can't be right. So we are confronted with a difficult challenge: On what grounds can we reject the conclusion of this seemingly sound argument?[53]

    5.2 Skepticism and Closure

    The second premise is closely connected to the principle that knowledge is closed under known entailment, for short, the closure principle. Setting complications aside, it says the following:

    The Closure Principle
    If I know that p, and I know that p entails q, then I know that q.[54]

    This principle is exceedingly plausible. Here's an example to illustrate it. Suppose you had exactly two beers. Your having had exactly two beers entails that you had less than three beers. If you know both of these things, then you know that you had less than three beers. This much, certainly, seems beyond dispute.

    How is the closure principle related to the skeptical argument? The connection can be seen when you replace ‘p’ and ‘q’ with the relevant propositions:

    p: I have hands.
    q: I'm not a BIV.

    Making these replacements, we get the following application of the closure principle to the BIV argument:

    BIV Closure
    If I know that I have hands, and I know that my having hands entails my not being a BIV, then I know that I'm not a BIV.

    According to the skeptical argument, you can't know that you are not a BIV. So the consequent of BIV closure is false. Therefore, the antecedent of BIV closure must be false. The antecedent of BIV closure is a conjunction. The second conjunct can't be argued with. If you understand what is meant by the BIV hypothesis, then you know that you don't have hands if you are a BIV. If follows that the antecedent of BIV Closure is false because its first conjunct is false. So starting out with the closure principle, we arrive at the skeptical conclusion: You don't know that you have hands.[55]

    5.3 Relevant Alternatives and Closure Denial

    Next, we will examine various responses to the BIV argument. According to the first, we should distinguish between relevant and irrelevant alternatives. An alternative to a state of affairs or proposition p is any state of affairs or proposition that is incompatible with p. Your having hands and your being a BIV are alternatives: if the former is true, the latter is false, and vice versa. According to the thought that motivates the second premise of the BIV argument, you know that you have hands only if you can discriminate between your actually having hands and the alternative of being a (handless) BIV. But you can't discriminate between these two states of affairs. That's why you don't know that you have hands. In response to such reasoning, a relevant alternatives theorist would say that your inability to discriminate between these two states of affairs is not an obstacle to your knowing that you have hands because your being a BIV is not a relevant alternative to your having hands. What would be a relevant alternative? This, for example: your arms ending in stumps rather than hands, or your having hooks instead of hands, or your having prosthetic hands. But these alternatives don't prevent you from knowing that you have hands — not because they are irrelevant, but rather because you can discriminate between these alternatives and your having hands. The relevant alternative theorist holds, therefore, that you do know that you have hands.

    The BIV argument is valid. Relevant alternative theorists must therefore deny one of its premises. Since they agree that you don't know that your are not a BIV, so they accept the first premise. Consequently, they reject the second premise. You know that you have hands even though you don't know that you are not a BIV. This means, in effect, that relevant alternative theorists deny the closure principle. Let's consider the details of this point. Relevant alternative theorists say:
    i.You know you have hands.
    ii.You know that your having hands entails your not being a BIV.
    iii.You don't know that you are not a BIV.

    Relevant alternative theorists, then, assert the antecedent and deny the consequent of BIV closure, as stated in the previous section. They are, therefore, committed to the claim that the closure principle is false.[56]

    There are two chief problems for this approach. The first is that denouncing the BIV alternative as irrelevant is ad hoc unless it is supplemented with a principled account of what makes one alternative relevant and another irrelevant. The second is that the closure principle enjoys a high degree of intrinsic plausibility. Denying it generates so-called abominable conjunctions. Here is one:

    An Abominable Conjunction
    I know that I have hands but I do not know that I am not a (handless) BIV.

    Many epistemologists would agree that this conjunction is indeed abominable because it blatantly violates the basic and extremely plausible intuition that you can't know you have hands without knowing that you are not a BIV.[57]

    5.4 The Moorean Response

    Next, let us consider a response to the BIV argument according to which it's not the second but the first premise that must be rejected. G. E. Moore has pointed out that an argument succeeds only to the extent that its premises are more plausible than the conclusion. So if we encounter an argument whose conclusion we don't like, and notice that the denial of the conclusion is actually quite plausible, in fact more plausible than the assertion of the premises, then we can turn the argument on its head. According to this approach, we can respond to the BIV argument as follows:

    Counter BIV

    (1) I know that I have hands.

    (2) If I don't know that I'm not a BIV, then I don't know that I have hands.

    Therefore:

    (3) I know that I am not a BIV.

    Unless we are skeptics or opponents of closure, we would have to concede that this argument is sound. It is valid, and its premises are true. Yet few philosophers would agree that Counter BIV amounts to a satisfying response to the BIV argument. What needs to be accomplished is more than a mere assertion of (3), based on knowledge of one's hands. What we need to have explained to us is how one can know that one is not a BIV. The observation that the premises of the BIV argument are less plausible than the denial of its conclusion doesn't help us understand how such knowledge is possible. That's why the Moorean response falls short of being a successful rebuttal of the skeptical argument.[58]

    5.5 The Contextualist Response

    We have looked at two responses to the BIV argument. The relevant alternatives response denies the second premise. Because of the plausibility of the second premise, this might strike us as a desperation move. The Moorean response denies the first premise. The problem with that move is this: Unless we are provided with a convincing explanation of how one can know that one isn't a BIV, it's not more than just digging in one's non-skeptical heels. According to contextualism, it's possible to articulate a more satisfying reply to the BIV argument. The trick is to focus on how we actually use the word ‘know’. If we do that, we'll notice that our use of that word varies from one situation — from one context — to another. What so varies is what we mean by that word.

    Three questions arise immediately. First, what are these various meanings of the word ‘know’? Second, why and how does what we mean by ‘know’ change from one context to another? Third, how does the context-sensitivity of ‘know’ help us respond to the BIV argument? Let us consider each question in turn.

    First, when what we mean by ‘know’ changes from one context to another, what changes is the standards that we think must be met if someone is to have knowledge of something. For the sake of keeping things simple, let's distinguish between just two sets of standards: very high and not so high. Let's refer to them as ‘high’ and ‘low’ standards. In some contexts, when we use the word ‘know’, we have low standards of knowledge in mind: standards that are easy to meet. We will then ascribe knowledge liberally. In other contexts, our use of the word ‘know’ is guided by more demanding high standards. Meeting these is very difficult. In such contexts, we will ascribe knowledge only reluctantly. Second, what effects such changes in what we mean by ‘know’? According to some contextualists, it is the salience of error-possibilities. In an ordinary, low-standard context, you don't worry about being a BIV. It's not an error possibility you ignore. As a result, your standards of knowledge remain low. In such a context, all it takes for you to know you have hands is that you can discriminate between having hands and having stumps, hooks, or prosthetic hands. That's a condition you easily meet. Hence you will not be reluctant at all to ascribe to yourself knowledge of your hands. But suppose you start thinking about the problem of skepticism. You're wondering how you could know that you are not a BIV. You come to note that it's very difficult to know that one isn't a BIV. The BIV alternative is now salient to you. This makes your standards of knowledge rise. Bearing in mind that BIVs don't have hands, you now think that, for you to know that you have hands, you must be able to eliminate the error possibility of being a BIV. Since you realize you can't eliminate that possibility, you are no longer willing to ascribe to yourself knowledge of your hands.

    Third, how does all of that help us find a reply to the BIV argument? Contextualists view the BIV argument as presenting us with a paradox. We think it's crazy to deny knowledge of our hands. At the same time, we don't think one can know that one isn't a BIV. How can the conflict between these thoughts be resolved? Contextualists propose to resolve it by saying this: In low standard contexts (when skeptical hypotheses are not salient), the first premise and the conclusion of the BIV argument are both false. In such contexts, a speaker who says "You don't know that you have hands" or "You don't know that you are not a BIV" is mistaken. The speaker is mistaken because we do in fact meet low standards of knowledge. So relative to what we mean by ‘know’ in such contexts, we know that we have hands and that we are not BIVs. However, in high standard contexts (when an error possibility such as being a BIV is salient), the first premise and the conclusion of the BIV argument are both true. Now, when speakers say "You don't know that you have hands" or "You don't know that you are not a BIV", they are correct, for with regard to having hands and being or not being a BIV, our epistemic position is not strong enough for us to meet high standards of knowledge. Therefore, relative to what we mean by ‘know’ when we are confronted with a salient error possibility such as being a BIV, we know neither that we have hands nor that we are not BIVs.

    Contextualism is intended as a closure preserving response to skepticism. The closure principle is true even relative to "knowledge" attributions that are subject to high standards. Hence, according to contextualism, things fall into place as follows:
    i.we know the closure principle whether the meaning of ‘know’ is fixed by high or low standards;
    ii.when the meaning of ‘know’ is fixed by low standards, we know both that we have hands and that we are not BIVs;
    iii.when the meaning of ‘know’ is fixed by high standards, we know neither that we have hands nor that we are not BIVs.

    As a result, closure is preserved. Contextualism is also meant to be an improvement over the Moorean response. According to that response, the first premise of the BIV argument is false. This conflicts with our intuition that we cannot know that we are not BIVs. Contextualism resolves this conflict by saying that the first premise is false only in low standards contexts. In high standards contexts, that premise is true.

    Naturally, contextualism has elicited many objections. According to one, what's wrong with contextualism is that it replaces our interest in knowledge itself with focus on the word ‘know’. This objection (let us call it the replacement objection) is based on a misunderstanding of contextualism. In the next section, we will see why.

    According to another objection, contextualism overemphasizes the importance of the context sensitivity of the word ‘know’. Let us distinguish between two elements of contextualism. The first is semantic ascent. If we endorse the semantic ascent element, we think that a satisfactory response to skepticism in general and the BIV argument in particular requires of us to distinguish between a high-standards and a low-standards meaning of "knowledge." The semantic ascent thesis remains squarely within the limits of traditional epistemology. Indeed, in any area of philosophy, it's always going to be a good idea to remain aware of the possibility that the problems in which one finds oneself entangled might, at least to some extent, be due to subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) shifts in meaning. The other element of contextualism could be called strict context-sensitivity, as opposed to loose context sensitivity. Consider the thesis that the meaning of the word ‘know’ varies with context. There is an innocuous interpretation of this thesis: people do not always mean the same when they use the word ‘know’. Sometimes they mean one thing by ‘know’, at other times they mean another thing by ‘know’. This is loose context sensitivity. It's hard to see on what grounds such a weak claim might be disputed. Contextualists, however, make a stronger claim. They assert that what one means by ‘know’ is determined, in a way that's very difficult to resist, by the salience or non-salience of error possibilities. That's strict context sensitivity. If we endorse strict context sensitivity, there's something important that drops out: how one intends to use the word ‘know’. An alternative semantics of the word ‘know’ will de-emphasize the importance of the salience or non-salience of error possibilities, and ascribe a much higher degree of semantic independence to the subjects who use the word ‘know’. Next, let's consider a response to the BIV argument that retains the semantic ascent element of contextualism, but rejects strong context sensitivity.[59]

    5.6 The Ambiguity Response

    What proposition a "knowledge"-attributing sentence expresses depends on what concept of knowledge the person who uses that sentence (in spoken or written form) has in mind when using the word ‘know’. Let's distinguish between two concepts: a high-standards and a low-standards concept. There are various ways of cashing out this distinction. We will understand it in terms of fallible and infallible evidence. High-standards or infallible knowledge of p requires p-entailing evidence. Low-standards of fallible knowledge of p requires adequate evidence for p, where evidence for p can be adequate without entailing p.

    According to the ambiguity response, a "knowledge"-attributing sentence is ambiguous unless we can tell whether the word ‘know’, as it occurs in that sentence, refers to fallible or infallible knowledge. Suppose we think that fallible knowledge of one's hands is possible, whereas infallible knowledge of one's hands is not. Suppose further we hear Jane say ‘Carl knows that he has hands.’ Finally, suppose we have no idea whether Jane uses the word ‘know’ in the fallible or infallible sense. In that case, we would have to say that Jane's utterance is true if interpreted as a claim about fallible knowledge, but false if interpreted as a claim about infallible knowledge. Now, with regard to the BIV argument, we are in a similar situation. We have not been instructed on whether the word ‘know’ in its premises and its conclusion is to be understood in the fallible or infallible sense. Consequently, when assessing the merits of the BIV argument, we must consider three versions of it:

    The Mixed Version
    In the premises, the word ‘know’ refers to infallible knowledge, whereas in the conclusion, it refers to fallible knowledge.
    The High-Standards Version
    The word ‘know’ refers to infallible knowledge in both the premises and the conclusion.

    The Low-Standards Version
    The word ‘know’ refers to fallible knowledge in both the premises and the conclusion.

    Distinguishing between these three versions, proponents of the ambiguity response can reply to the BIV argument as follows:
    i.The mixed version is an instance of equivocation and thus invalid.
    ii.The high-standards version is sound but uninteresting. Its conclusion asserts that we don't have infallible knowledge of our hands. That's nothing to worry about. What really matters to us is whether we have fallible knowledge of our hands. But that question simply isn't addressed by the high-standards version.
    iii.The low-standards version is interesting but unsound. Its conclusion — we do not even have fallible knowledge of our hands — is indeed disturbing. If this conclusion were true, then we would be in a radical way mistaken about what we think we know. However, we don't have to accept this conclusion because the argument's first premise is false. According to that premise, one cannot even have fallible knowledge of one's not being a BIV. That's false. There is, after all, good evidence for thinking that one's is not a BIV. This evidence is good enough for knowing that one isn't a BIV even though it does not entail that one isn't a BIV.

    Suppose an opponent of the ambiguity response were to employ the replacement objection, claiming that the response focuses on the word ‘know’ instead of knowledge itself. This objection would be misguided. The ambiguity response mentions the word ‘know’ only at the initial stage, and then immediately shifts its focus to non-linguistic entities such as concepts and propositions. So advocates of the ambiguity response would point out that, when we distinguish between versions (i) through (iii), we are concerned with which propositions the premises and the conclusion of the BIV argument express, and thus are ultimately concerned with knowledge itself. The upshot of their reply, then, is to distinguish between the following two propositions:

    (Kif) I knowif that I have hands.

    (Kf) I knowf that I have hands.

    where the term ‘knowif’ in (Kif) refers to infallible knowledge, whereas the term ‘knowf’ in Kf refers to fallible knowledge. Both of these proposition are about knowledge itself, or, more precisely, about different kinds of knowledge. The ambiguity response, therefore, is not vulnerable to the replacement objection. Neither is contextualism. For according to contextualism, what context determines is precisely which proposition the conclusion of the BIV argument expresses: (Kif) or (Kf).[60] Hence contextualism, is, notwithstanding initial appearance, just as much about knowledge itself as is the ambiguity response.

    How, then, do contextualism and the ambiguity response differ? Both share the semantic ascent element. A satisfactory response to skepticism requires of us to distinguish between various meanings of the word ‘know’. Beyond that, they proceed in different directions. Whereas according to contextualism, whether we reject or endorse the conclusion of the BIV argument is a function of which context we are in, the ambiguity response makes context irrelevant. It makes context irrelevant because, no matter which context we are in, we can always disambiguate. So, when we are thinking about or discussing the BIV argument and are thus confronted with a salient error possibility, we need not adopt a high-standards meaning of ‘know’. Rather, we can respond to the argument by saying that, if it is about infallible knowledge its conclusion is true but unremarkable, whereas if it is about fallible knowledge its conclusion is remarkable but false.[61]

    5.6 Knowing One Isn't a BIV

    Contextualism and the ambiguity response, as discussed in the previous two sections, leave out one important detail. Contextualists say that, relative to the standards of knowledge operational in low-standards contexts, one can know that one isn't a BIV. Ambiguity theorists say that, in the fallibilist sense of ‘know’, one can know that one isn't a BIV. It might be objected that this is a bit optimistic. Let us look at the issue from the evidentialist point of view. An evidentialist who employs the ambiguity response would have to say that one's evidence for thinking one isn't a BIV is good enough for knowledge. But when the BIV hypothesis was introduced, we noted that part of the hypothesis is the following point: whehter you are a normal person or a BIV makes no difference with regard to your evidence: it's the same in either case. Call this the identical evidence thesis. This thesis is simply part of the hypothesis in question and must therefore be granted. How, then, could one possibly know, even in the fallibilist sense of ‘know’, that one isn't a BIV?

    It would be a mistake to think the identical evidence thesis entails that, as a normal person, one doesn't have good evidence for thinking that one isn't a BIV. Nor does it entail that, as a BIV, one doesn't have good evidence for thinking that one isn't a BIV. What it entails is merely this: Whatever evidence one has, as a normal person regarding the question of whether one is a BIV, one would have that very same evidence if one were a BIV. This leaves open the possibility that in either case, as a BIV or as a normal person, one has excellent evidence for thinking that one is not a BIV.

    What might evidence for thinking that one isn't a BIV consist of? For reasons of space, we will merely hint, by way of analogy, at how this question might be answered. Note that the BIV hypothesis entails various rather problematic propositions:

    (a) At least one BIV exists.

    (b) The know-how needed for envatting people exists.

    (c) The technology needed for envatting people exists.


    Compare:

    (d) At least one spaceship exists that can be used for traveling to another galaxy and coming back within a couple of months.

    (e) The know-how needed for building such a spaceship exists.

    (f) The technology needed for building such a spaceship exists.

    According to the evidentialist anti-skepticism under consideration here, you know, on the basis of your knowledge of how the world works, that (d)–(f) are all false.[62] In the very least, you can come to know this by consulting suitable experts. But what about (a) through (c)? Well, if you know or can come to know that (d)–(f) are all false, isn't it plausible to claim that you also know or can come to know that (a)–(c) are all false? If a skeptic were to argue that you know that (d)–(f) are all false, while you do not know that any proposition in (a)–(c) is false, that skeptic would incur the burden of having to dislodge the analogy, of having to explain why, whereas knowledge that (d)–(f) are all false is easily obtainable, knowledge of the falsehood of each (a)–(c) is beyond our reach. This might not be easily accomplished.

    Suppose you do know that (a)–(c) are all false. Then you know that any proposition that entails (a)–(c) is false. The BIV hypothesis entails (a)–(c). Hence you know that the BIV hypothesis, is false. But if you know that you are not a BIV, then premise (1) of the BIV argument is false.[63]


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:42 am

    Epistemology Continued. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

    6. Additional Issues

    6.1 Virtue Epistemology

    Epistemology, as commonly practiced, focuses on the subject's beliefs. Are they justified? Are they instances of knowledge? When it comes to assessing how the subject herself is doing with regard to the pursuit of truth and the seeking of knowledge, this assessment is carried out by looking at the epistemic quality of her beliefs. According to virtue epistemology, the order of analysis ought to be reversed. We need to begin with the subject herself and assess her epistemic virtues and vices: her "good" and her "bad" ways of forming beliefs. Careful and attentive reasoning would be an example of an epistemic virtue; jumping to conclusions would be an example of an epistemic vice. It is only after we have determined which ways of forming beliefs count as epistemic virtues that we can, as a second step, determine the epistemic quality of particular beliefs. Its proponents construe virtue epistemology more or less stringently. According to pure virtue epistemology, epistemic virtues and vices are sui generis. They cannot be analyzed in terms of more fundamental epistemic or nonepistemic concepts. Proponents of a less stringent approach disagree with this; they would say that epistemic virtues and vices can fruitfully be analyzed by employing other concepts. Indeed, according to an externalist strand of virtue epistemology, it is the very notion of reliability that we should employ to capture the difference between epistemic virtues and vices. Stable ways of forming beliefs are epistemic virtues if and only if they tend to result in true beliefs, epistemic vices if and only if they tend to result in false beliefs. Virtue epistemology, thus conceived, is a form of reliabilism.[64]

    6.2 Naturalistic Epistemology

    According to an extreme version of naturalistic epistemology, the project of traditional epistemology, pursued in an a priori fashion from the philosopher's armchair, is completely misguided. The "fruits" of such activity are demonstrably false theories such as foundationalism, as well as endless and arcane debates in the attempt to tackle questions to which there are no answers. To bring epistemology on the right path, it must be made a part of the natural sciences and become cognitive psychology. The aim of naturalistic epistemology thus understood is to replace traditional epistemology with an altogether new and redefined project. According to a moderate version of naturalistic epistemology, one primary task of epistemology is to identify how knowledge and justification are anchored in the natural world, just as it is the purpose of physics to explain phenomena like heat and cold, or thunder and lightning in terms of properties of the natural world. The pursuit of this task does not require of its proponents to replace traditional epistemology. Rather, this moderate approach accepts the need for cooperation between traditional conceptual analysis and empirical methods. The former is needed for the purpose of establishing a conceptual link between knowledge and reliability, the latter for figuring out which cognitive processes are reliable and which are not.[65]

    6.3 Religious Epistemology

    In the history of philosophy, there are several famous arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the argument from design. From an epistemological point of view, the question is whether such arguments can constitute a rational foundation of faith, or even give us knowledge of God. A further question is whether, if God exists, knowledge of God might not also be possible in other ways, for example, on the basis of perception or perhaps mystical experiences. There is also a famous problem casting doubt on the existence of God: Why, if God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent being, is there evil in the world? Here, the epistemological question is whether, based on this problem, we can know that God (thus conceived) does not exist. Another, central issue for religious epistemology is raised by evidentialism. According to evidentialism, knowledge requires adequate evidence. However, there does not seem to be any adequate evidence of God's existence. Is it possible, then, for theists to endorse evidentialism?[66]

    6.4 Moral Epistemology

    The basic moral categories are those of right and wrong action. When we do theoretical ethics, we wish to find out what it is that makes a right action right and a wrong action wrong. When we do practical or applied ethics, we attempt to find out which actions are right and which are wrong. The epistemological question these areas of philosophy raise is this: How can we know any of that? Traditionally, philosophers have attempted to answer the questions of ethics via intuition, a priori reasoning, and the consideration of hypothetical cases. Some philosophers who belong to the naturalistic camp consider this approach misguided because they think that it is unreliable and liable to produce results that merely reflect our own cultural and social biases. Among those who think that moral knowledge can be acquired via intuition and a priori reasoning, a primary question is whether the kind of justification such methods can generate is coherentist or foundationalist. Finally, a further important question is whether moral knowledge is at all possible. Knowledge requires truth and thus objective reality. According to anti-realists, there is no objective reality of, and thus no truth about, moral matters. Since what is known must be true, it is not easy to see how, if anti-realism were correct, there could be knowledge of moral matters.[67]

    6.5 Social Epistemology

    When we conceive of epistemology as including knowledge and justified belief as they are positioned within a particular social and historical context, epistemology becomes social epistemology. How to pursue social epistemology is a matter of controversy. According to some, it is an extension and reorientation of traditional epistemology with the aim of correcting its overly individualistic orientation. According to others, social epistemology ought to amount to a radical departure from traditional epistemology, which they see, like the advocates of radical naturalization, as a futile endeavor. Those who favor the former approach retain the thought that knowledge and justified belief are essentially linked to truth as the goal of our cognitive practices. They hold that there are objective norms of rationality that social epistemologists should aspire to articulate. Those who prefer the more radical approach would reject the existence of objective norms of rationality. Moreover, since many view scientific facts as social constructions, they would deny that the goal of our intellectual and scientific activities is to find facts. Such constructivism, if weak, asserts the epistemological claim that scientific theories are laden with social, cultural, and historical presuppositions and biases; if strong, it asserts the metaphysical claim that truth and reality are themselves socially constructed.[68]

    6.5 Feminist Epistemology

    When construed in a non-controversial way, the subject matter of feminist epistemology consists of issues having to do with fair and equal access of women to, and their participation in, the institutions and processes through which knowledge is generated and transmitted. Viewed this way, feminist epistemology can be seen as a branch of social epistemology. When we move beyond this initial characterization, what feminist epistemology is will become a matter of controversy. According to some, it includes the project of studying and legitimizing special ways in which only women can acquire knowledge. According to others, feminist epistemology should be understood as aiming at the political goal of opposing and rectifying oppression in general and the oppression of women in particular. At the extreme end, feminist epistemology is closely associated with postmodernism and its radical attack on truth and the notion of objective reality.[69]

    Bibliography
    Alston, William. 1989. Epistemic Justification. Essays in the Theory of Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    –––. 1991. Perceiving God. The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    –––. 1993. The Reliability of Sense Perception. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    –––. 1999. “Perceptual Knowledge.” In: Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 223–242.
    Armstrong, D.M. 1973. Belief, Truth, and Knowledge. Cambrdidge: Cambridge University Press.
    Axtell, Guy (ed.). 1997. Knowledge, Belief, and Character. Readings in Virtue Epistemology.. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Audi, Robert. 1993. The Structure of Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    –––. 1997a. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Conviction in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield
    –––. 1997b. Moral Knowledge and Ethical Character. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    –––. 1998. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    –––. 1999. Moral Knowledge and Ethical Pluralism. In: Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 271–302.
    –––. 2000. Religious Committment and Secular Reason. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.
    –––. 2004. The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Boghossian, Paul and Peacocke, Christopher (eds.). 2000. New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    BonJour, Laurence. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    –––. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. London: Cambridge University Press.
    –––. 1999. “The Dialectic of Foundationalism and Coherentism”. In Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 117–142.
    –––. 2001. “Towards a Defense of Empirical Foundationalism”. In DePaul 2001, pp. 21–38.
    –––. 2002. Epistemology. Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    –––. 2005. “In Defense of the A Priori”. In Steup and Sosa (eds.) 2005, pp. 98–105.
    BonJour, Laurence and Sosa, Ernest. 2003. Epistemic Justification. Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundations vs. Virtues. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    Brady, Michael and Pritchard, Duncan. 2003. Moral and Epistemic Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Brewer, Bill. 1999. Perception and Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    –––. 2005. “Perceptual Experience Has Perceptual Content.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 217–230.
    Byrne, Alex. 2005. “Perception and Conceptual Content.” In Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 231–250.
    Casullo, Albert. 2003. A Priori Justification. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Chisholm, Roderick. 1982. The Foundations of Knowing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    –––. 1977. Theory of Knowledge, 2nd. ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
    –––. 1989. Theory of Knowledge, 3rd. ed., Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
    Cohen, Stewart. 1988. “How to be a Fallibilist.” Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 91–123.
    –––. 1999. “Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 57–90.
    –––. 2001. “Contextualism Defended: Comments on Richard Feldman's ‘Skeptical Problems, Contextualists Solutions’.” Philosophical Studies, 103(1): 87–98.
    –––. 2005. “Contextualism Defended.” In Steup and Sosa (eds.) 2005, pp. 56–62.
    Conee, Earl. 2004. “The Truth Connection”. In Conee and Feldman 2004, pp. 242–258.
    –––. 2005. “Contextualism Contested”. In Steup and Sosa (eds.) 2005, pp. 47–56.
    Conee, Earl and Feldman, Richard. 1985. “Evidentialism.” Philosophical Studies, 48: 15–35.
    –––. 2001. “Internalism Defended.” In: Kornblith (ed.) 2001, pp. 231–60. Reprinted in Conee and Feldman 2004, pp. 53–82.
    –––. 2004. Evidentialism. Essays in Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Dancy, Jonathan. 1985. Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    David, Marian. 2001. “Truth and the Epistemic Goal.” In: Steup 2001a.
    Devitt, Michael. 2005. “There is no A Priori.” In: Steup and Sosa (eds) 2005, pp. 105–115.
    DePaul, Michael (ed.). 2001. Resurrecting Old-Fashioned Foundationalism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
    DeRose, Keith. 1995. “Solving the Skeptical Problem.” The Philosophical Review, 104: 1–52.
    –––. 1992. “Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 913–929.
    –––. 1999. “Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense.” In: Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 187.
    DeRose, Keith, and Warfield, Ted. 1999. Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Devitt, Michael. 2005. “There is No A Priori.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 105–115.
    Dretske, Fred. 1970. “Epistemic Operators.” The Journal of Philosophy, 67: 1007–23.
    –––. 1971. “Conclusive Reasons.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 49: 1–22.
    –––. 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Oxford: Blackwell.
    –––. 2005. “The Case Against Closure.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 1–26.
    Elgin, Catherine. 1996. Considered Judgement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    –––. 2005. “Non-Foundationalist Epistemology: Holism, Coherence, and Tenability.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 156–167.
    Engel, Mylan. 1992. “Is Epistemic Luck Compatible With Knowledge?” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30: 59–75.
    –––. 2003. “What's Wrong With Contextualism, and a Noncontextualist Resolution of the Skeptical Paradox.” Erkenntnis, 61: 203–231.
    Feldman, Fred. 1986. A Cartesian Introduction to Philosophy. New York: McGraw Hill.
    Feldman, Richard. 1988. “Epistemic Obligations,” in Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 235–56.
    –––. 1999a. “Methodological Naturalism in Epistemology.” In: Greco 1999.
    –––. 1999b. “Contextualism and Skepticism.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 91–114.
    –––. 2001a. “Voluntary Belief and Epistemic Evaluation.” In: Steup 2001a, pp. 77–92.
    –––. 2001b. “Skeptical Problems, Contextualist Solutions.” Philosophical Studies, 103: 61–85.
    –––. 2003. Epistemology. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. Philosophical Studies, 103: 61–85.
    –––. 2005. “Justification is Internal.” In Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 270–284.
    Fumerton, Richard. 1995. Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    –––. 2001. “Classical Foundationalism.” In: DePaul 2001, pp. 3–20.
    Gettier, Edmund. 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis, 23: 121–123. [Independent transcription in HTML available online].
    Ginet, Carl. 1975. Knowledge, Perception, and Memory. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    –––. 2005. “Infinitism is not the Solution to the Regress Problem.” In: Steup and Sosa (eds.), pp. 140–149.
    Goldman, Alvin. 1976. “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–791.
    –––. 1979. “What is Justified Belief?” In: Justification and Knowledge, ed. George S. Pappas. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    –––. 1986. Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    –––. 1991. “Epistemic Folkways and Scientific Epistemology.” In: Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences. (Cambridge: MIT Press.)
    –––. 1999a. “Internalism Exposed.” The Journal of Philosophy, 96: 271–293.
    –––. 1999b. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Greco, John. 1993. “Virtues and Vices of Virtue Epistemology,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 23: 413–433.
    –––. 1999. “Agent Reliabilism,” Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 273–96.
    –––. 2000. Putting Skeptics in Their Place: The Nature of Skeptical Arguments and Their Role in Philosophical Inquiry. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
    –––. 2005. “Justification is Not Internal,” in Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 257–270.
    Greco, John and Sosa, Ernest (eds.). 1999. The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Haack, Susan. 1993. Evidence and Inquiry. Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology.. Oxford: Blackwell.
    –––. 2001. “‘The Ethics of Belief’ Reconsidered.” In Steup 2001a, pp. 21–33.
    Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Hawthorne, John. 2005. “The Case for Closure”. In Steup and Sosa (eds.) 2005, pp. 26–43.
    –––. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Huemer, Michael. 2000. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Klein, Peter. 1999. “Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 297–332.
    –––. 2005. “Infinitism is the Solution to the Regress Problem.” In Steup and Sosa (eds.) 2005, pp. 131–140.
    Kornblith, Hilary. 1999. “In Defense of a Naturalized Epistemology.” In: Greco 1999.
    –––. 2001. Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism. Malden (MA): Blackwell. Oxford University Press.
    –––. 2002. Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Kvanvig, Jonathan. 1996a. The Intellectual Virtues and the Life of the Mind. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    –––. 1996b. Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology. Essays in Honor of Plantinga's Theory of Knowledge. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Lackey, Jennifer. 2003. “A Minimal Expression of Non-Reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony.” Noûs, 37: 706–723.
    Lewis, David. 1996. “Elusive Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 549–567.
    Lehrer, Keith. 1990. Theory of Knowledge. Boulder: Westview Press.
    Longino, Helen E. “Feminist Epistemology.” In Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 325–353.
    Lycan, William G. 1996. “Plantinga and Coherentisms.” In Kvanvig 1996b, pp. 3–24.
    Moore, G.E.. 1959. Philosophical Papers. London: Allen and Unwin.
    Montmarquet, James. 1993. Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    –––. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Pollock, John. 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Pritchard, Duncan. 2004. “Some Recent Work in Epistemology”. The Philosophical Quarterly, 54: 605–613. [Preprint available from the author].
    –––. 2005. Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Pryor, James. 2000. “The Skeptic and the Dogmatist”, Noûs, 34: 517–49. [Preprint available from the author in PDF].
    –––. 2004. “What's Wrong with Moore's Argument?” Philosophical Issues, 15: 349–378. [Preprint available from the author in PDF].
    –––. 2005. “There is Immediate Justification.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 181–202.
    Quine, W. V. 1969. “Epistemology Naturalized.” In: Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia Press, pp. 69–90.
    Ryan, Sharon. 2003. “Doxastic Compatibilism and the Ethics of Belief.” Philosophical Studies, 114: 47–79.
    Russell, Bruce. 2001 “Epistemic and Moral Duty.” In: Steup (ed.) 2001 a.
    –––. 2004. “How to be an Anti-Skeptic and a Noncontextualist.” Erkenntnis, 61: 245–255.
    Schiffer, Stephen. 1996. “Contextualist Solutions to Skepticism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 96: 317–333.
    Schmitt, Frederick (ed.). 1994. Socializing Epistemology. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    –––. 1999. “Social Epistemology.” In: Greco and Sosa 1999, chapter 15.
    Sellars, Wilfrid. 1963. “Empiricisim and the Philosophy of Mind.” In: Science, Perception, and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Shope, Robert K. 1983. The Analysis of Knowing. A Decade of Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Sosa, Ernest. 1991. Knowledge in Perspective. Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    –––. 1997. “Reflective Knowledge in the Best Circles.” The Journal of Philosophy, 96: 410–30.
    –––. 1999a. “Skepticism and the Internal/External Divide.” In: Greco and Sosa (eds.) 1999, pp. 145–157.
    –––. 1999b. “How to Defeat Opposition to Moore.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 141–153.
    –––. 2003. “Relevant Alternatives, Contextualism Included.” Philosophical Studies, 119: 3–15.
    Steup, Matthias. 1996. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
    –––. 1999. “A Defense of Internalism.” In: Louis P. Pojman (ed.). The Theory of Knowledge. Classical and Contemporary Readings. Belmont: Wadsworth, pp. 373–384.
    –––. 2000. “Doxastic Voluntarism and Epistemic Deontology.” Acta Analytica, 15: 25–56. [Preprint available from the author in PDF].
    –––, (ed). 2001a. Knowledge, Truth, and Duty. Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    –––. 2001b. “Epistemic Duty, Evidence, and Internality.” In: Steup 2001a.
    –––. 2004. “Internalist Reliabilism.” Philosophical Issues, 14: 401–425.
    –––. 2005. “Contextualism and Conceptual Disambiguation.” Acta Analytica, 20: 3–15 [Preprint available from the author in PDF].
    Steup, Matthias and Sosa, Ernest (eds). 2005. Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden (MA): Blackwell.
    Stine, Gail. 1976. “Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure.” Philosophical Studies, 29: 249–61.
    Stroud, Barry. 1984. The Significance of Skepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Swain, Marshall. 1981. Reasons and Knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    Van Cleve, James. 1985. “Epistemic Supervenience and the Circle of Beliefs,” Monist, 68: 90–104.
    –––. 2005. “Why Coherence Is Not Enough: A Defense of Moderate Foundationalism.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 168–180.
    Williams, Michael. 1999a. Groundless Belief. Pinceton: Princeton University Press (first published 1977).
    –––. 1999b.“Skepticism.” In: Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 35–69. 2005, pp. 202–216.
    –––. 2005. “Doing Without Immediate Justification.” In: Steup and Sosa 2005, pp. 202–216.
    Williamson, Timothy. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus. 1996. Virtues of the Mind. An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    –––. 1999. “What is Knowledge?” In: Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 92–116.
    Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1999. Epistemology of Religion. In: Greco and Sosa 1999, pp. 303–324.

    Other Internet Resources
    •Epistemology Page, maintained by Keith De Rose (Yale University).
    •The Epistemology Research Guide, maintained by Keith Korcz (University of Lousiana/Lafayette).
    •"Direct Warrant Realism", an online manuscript, by Keith De Rose (Yale University).

    Related Entries

    contextualism, epistemic | epistemic closure principle | epistemology: naturalized | epistemology: social | epistemology: virtue | feminist (interventions): epistemology and philosophy of science | justification, epistemic: coherentist theories of | justification, epistemic: foundationalist theories of | justification, epistemic: internalist vs. externalist conceptions of | knowledge: analysis of | knowledge: by acquaintance vs. description | memory: epistemological problems of | perception: epistemological problems of | perception: the problem of | religion: epistemology of | self-knowledge

    Acknowledgments

    The author would like to thank Earl Conee for his help, both philosophical and editorial. The editors would like to thank Michael Beaton and Harry McCauley for suggesting improvements to the wording of some of the above sentences.

    Copyright © 2005 by
    Matthias Steup <steup@purdue.edu>
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:19 pm

    What about some of the 'Hard Sayings' of Jesus?? Here's one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

    "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Gospel of Matthew 10:34), part of the Lesser Commission, is one of the controversial statements reported of Jesus in the Bible. The saying has been interpreted in several ways. Its main significance is that it is often offered as evidence that Jesus advocated violence—a view that is repugnant to many branches of Christianity, such as the peace churches. Many Christians believe that the sword is a metaphor for ideological conflict and that Jesus is not advocating physical violence, especially since he talks of division in a family immediately after, and because in a parallel passage found in Luke 12:51 virtually identical to it, the word "sword" is replaced with "division".

    The "full" quotation, according to the New American Standard Bible (NASB) translation of the Bible, reads:

    Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)
    Parallels in the Gospel of Luke (12:49–53,14:25–33) read:

    NASB 49 I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism* to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! 51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father* against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53) King James Version 49 I am come to send fire on Earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49–53) Verse comparison NASB If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26)
    And in Luke 22:35–38

    But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. (Luke 22:36 NASB)

    Context

    The first step of Biblical exegesis is usually to review the immediate context (surrounding text) of the passage in question. In the case of the first quote above (from the Gospel of Matthew), the tenth chapter may be considered sufficient context. (See here for the text; KJV.)

    This chapter tells of Jesus sending his disciples out to minister to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". ("Lost sheep" is a common Biblical metaphor for people who have "gone astray" in some way. "House of Israel" refers to the descendants of Israel, the Israelites.) Specifically, he commanded his disciples to "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." These were all considered good works, and according to Christians this exemplifies Jesus's message of peace, love, health, and life.

    Starting in verse 13, Jesus then goes on to inform his disciples that they will not always be warmly received. He instructs them to depart from homes and cities that will not receive them. He then adds in verse 15, "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." According to Abrahamic tradition, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had earlier been destroyed by God. As context for the "I bring a sword" quote, many Christians see this as an indication that God, rather than Christians, will be responsible for any punishment due to those who reject Jesus's message. (See also Olivet discourse.)

    Jesus then warned his disciples that they would encounter violent resistance on their ministry. In verse 16 he is quoted as saying (RSV), "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Here, doves may be invocative of peace, although in the context of first-century Judaic culture it may have had a different meaning. In verse 21 Jesus is quoted as saying (KJV), "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." This is clearly an apocalyptic prediction, and related to the Septuagint, Micah 7:6, but Jesus does not express his views on the matter, other than saying "All men will hate you because of me" in verse 22. He then instructs his followers to flee to a different city when they are persecuted.

    He then exhorts his disciples not to fear. He assures them that faithful proclamation of his message will have its rewards.

    Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32–33, KJV)

    Immediately thereafter Jesus makes the comment in question, verse 34, saying that he came not to bring peace, but the sword, followed by a direct quote of Micah 7:6 in verse 35–36.

    Some quote verses like John 14:27 as a contradiction to this verse: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." The perceived contradiction comes from a misunderstanding of the word "peace" as used in the New Testament. If the word "peace" is to be defined as an absence of conflict, the second clause of this sentence is contradictory to the first. Jesus would not need to encourage his audience to resist fear and trouble if he would be leaving them with a lack of conflict. Clearly Jesus is promising his followers a peace in the presence of conflict, to carry them through the coming trials.

    The Book of Kells, a Celtic illuminated manuscript copy of the Gospels, uses the word “gaudium” meaning “joy” rather than “gladium,” which means “sword” -- rendering the verse in translation: “I came not [only] to bring peace, but joy”.[1]

    See also

    The Bible and violence
    Christianity and violence
    Christian pacifism
    Live by the sword, die by the sword
    Sell your cloak and buy a sword
    Turning the other cheek
    Violence begets violence

    References

    1.^ Nathan, George Jean Nathan; Henry Louis Mencken (1951). The American Mercury. p. 572. "The compilers of the late seventh century manuscript, The Book of Kells, refused to adopt St. Jerome's phrase "I come not to bring peace but a sword." (" . . . non pacem sed gladium.")To them the phrase made no sense and they altered it ..."

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Blasphemy-jesus-dinosaurs-sword-blasphemy-demotivational-poster-1260378046
    WWJD??

    Check this out!! http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0122.htm

    Christ About His Father's Business

    A Sermon
    (No. 122)
    Delivered on Sabbath Morning, March 15, 1857, by the
    REV. C. H. Spurgeon
    at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.

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

    "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"—Luke 2:49
    Behold then, how great an interest God the Father takes in the work of salvation. It is called "his business;" and though Jesus Christ came to accomplish our redemption, came to set us a perfect example, and to establish a way of salvation, yet he came not upon his own business, but upon his Father's business—his Father taking as much interest in the salvation of men as even he himself did—the great heart of the Father being as full of love as the bleeding heart of the Son, and the mind of the first person of the Trinity being as tenderly affected towards his chosen as even the mind of Christ Jesus, our substitute, our surety, and our all. It is his "Father's business" Behold, also, the condescension of the Son, that he should become the servant of the Father, to do not his own business, but the Father's business. See how he stoops to become a child, subject to his mother; and mark how he stoops to become a man, subject to God his Father. He took upon himself the nature of man, and though he was the Son, equal in power with God, who "counted it not robbery to be equal with God," yet he "took upon himself the form of a servant and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Learn, then, O believer, to love all the persons of the Divine Trinity alike. Remember that salvation is no more the work of one than of the other. They all three agree in one, and as in the creation they all said, "Let us make man;" so in salvation they all say, "Let us save man;" and each of them does so much of it that it is truly the work of each and undividedly the work of all. Remember that notable passage of Isaiah the prophet—"I will divide him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the strong." God divides, and Christ divides. The triumph is God's; the Father "divides for him a portion with the great;" it is equally Christ's, he "divides the spoil with the strong." Set not one person before the other; reverently adore them alike, for they are one—one in design, one in character, and one in essence; and whilst they be truly three, we may in adoration exclaim, "Unto the one God of heaven and earth the glory, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."

    But now I shall invite your attention, first, to the spirit of the Saviour, as breathed in these words, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" and then, secondly, I shall exhort the children of God, with all the earnestness which I can command, with all the intensity of power which I can summon to the point, to labour after the same spirit, that they too may unfeignedly say, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? "

    I. First, then note THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST. It was a spirit of undivided consecration to the will of God his Father. It was a spirit urged onward by an absolute necessity to serve God. Note the word "must." "Wist ye not that I must?" There is a something in me which prevents me from doing other work. I feel an all-controlling, overwhelming influence which constrains me at all times and in every place to be about my Father's business; the spirit of high, holy, entire, sincere, determined consecration in heart to God. "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

    First, what was the impelling power which (as it were) forced Christ to be about his Father's business? and then, secondly, how did he do his Father's business, and what was it?

    1. What was the impelling power which made Christ say, "I must be about my Father's business? " In the first place, it was the spirit of obedience which thoroughly possessed itself of his bosum. When he took upon him the form of a servant he received the spirit of an obedient servant too, and became as perfect in the capacity of a servant as he had ever been in that of a ruler, though in that he had perfectly executed all his of life. Beloved believer! Do you not remember when you were first converted to God, when the young life of your new-born spirit was strong and active how impetuously you desired to obey God, and how intense was your eagerness to serve him in some way or other? I can remember well how I could scarcely abide myself five minutes without doing something for Christ. If I walked the street I must have a tract with me; if I went into a railway carriage I must drop a tract out of the window; if I had a moment's leisure I must be upon my knees or at my Bible if I were in company I must turn the subject of conversation to Christ, that I might serve my Master. Alas, I must confess, much of that strength of purpose has departed from me, as I doubt not it has from many of you who, with a greater prominence, have also received diminished zeal. It may be that in the young dawn of life we did imprudent things in order to serve the cause of Christ; but I say, give me back the time again, with all its imprudence and with all its hastiness, if I might but have the same love to my Master, the same overwhelming influence in my spirit making me obey because it was a pleasure to me to obey God. Now, Christ felt just in the same way. He must do it. He must serve God; he must be obedient; he could not help it. The spirit was in him, and would work, just as the spirit of disobedience in the wicked impels them to sin. Lust, sometimes, drags the sinner on to sin with a power so strong and mighty that poor man can no more resist it than the sere leaf can resist the tempest. We had lusts so omnipotent, that they had but to suggest, and we were their willing slaves; we had habits so tyrannical that we could not break their chains; we were impelled to evil, like the straw in the whirlwind, or the chip in the whirlpool. We were hurried whithersoever our lusts would bear us—"drawn away and enticed." Now, in the new heart it is just the same, only in another direction. The spirit of obedience worketh in us, impelling us to serve our God, so that when that spirit is unclogged and free we may truly say, "We must be about our Father's business." We cannot help it.

    2. But Christ had what some men only have. He had another motive for this, another impelling cause. He had a sacred call to the work which he had undertaken, and that secret call forced him on. You think, perhaps it is fanatical to talk of sacred calls; but call it fanatical or no, this one thing I will own—the belief in a special call to do a special work is like the arm of omnipotence to a man. Let a man believe that God has set him to do a particular work, and you may sneer at him: what cares he? He would give as much for your sneer as he would for your smile, and that is nothing at all. He believes God intends him to do the work. You say nay: but he never asked you for your vote upon the question; he has received God's message, as he thinks, and he goes on, and you cannot resist him. If he sits still for a little while, a spirit haunts him—he knows not what it is, but he is unhappy unless he engages in a business which he feels is the commission of his life. If he hold his tongue when God has commanded him to speak, the word is like fire in his bones—it burns its way out, until at last he says, with Elihu, "I am bled with matter; I am like a vessel that wanteth vent;" I must speak, or burst; I cannot help it. Depend upon it, the men that have done the greatest work for our holy religion have been the men who had the special call to it. I no more doubt the call of Luther than I doubt the call of the apostles, and he did not doubt it either. One of the reasons why Luther did a thing was because other people did not like it. When he was about to smite a blow at the Papacy by marrying a nun all his friends said it was a fearful thing. Luther consulted them, and did the deed, perhaps, all the sooner because they disapproved of it. A strange reason it may seem, that a man should do a thing because he was dissuaded from it; but he felt that it was his work to strike the Papacy right and left, and for that he would give up everything, even the friendship of friends. His business, by night and by day, was to pray down the pope, to preach down the pope, to write down the pope, and do it he must, though often in the roughest, coarsest manner, with iron gauntlets on his hands. It was his work; do it he must. You might have done what you pleased with Luther, even to the rending out his tongue: he would have taken his pen, dipped it in fire, and written in burning words the doom of Papacy. He could not help it, heaven had forced him to the work, he had a special commission given him from on high, and no man could stay him any more than he could stay the wind in its careering, or the tide in its motions. Christ had a special work. "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, the Lord hath anointed me to preach glad tidings to the poor." And he felt the effects of this anointing—the power of this impelling. And stay he must not, he could not, he dare not. "I must," said he, "be about my Father's business."

    3. But once more, Christ had something which few of us can fully know. He had a vow upon him—the vow to do the work from all eternity. He had become the surety of the covenant, he had sworn that he would execute his Father's business. He had taken a solemn oath that he would become man; that he would pay the ransom price of all his beloved ones; that he would come and do his Father's business, whatever that might be. "Lo, I come," said he. "In the volume of the book, it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O God." Therefore, being faithful and true, the covenant, the engagement, the suretyship, the sworn promise and the oath made him say, "I must be about my Father's business." Whenever you make a vow, my dear friends—and do that very seldom—take care that you keep it. Few should be the vows that men make, but they should always be sincerely kept. God asketh no vow of us, but when his Spirit moveth us to make a vow—and we may do so honestly if we make a vow in his strength—we are bound to keep it. And he that feels that he has made a vow, must then feel himself impelled to do the work which he hath vowed to do. Let the difficulty be never so great, if you have vowed to overcome it, do it. Let tire mountain be never so high, if you have made a vow to God that you will attempt it scale its summit, and never give it up. If the vow be a right one, God will help you to accomplish it. O ye upon whom are the vows of the Lord! (and some of you have taken solemn vows upon you, by making a profession of religion) I beseech you, by the sacrament in which you dedicated yourself to your Lord, and by that other sacrament in which you found communion with Jesus, now to fulfill your vows, and pay them daily, nightly, hourly, constantly, perpetually; and lot these compel you to say, "I must be about my Father's business." These, I think, were the impelling motives which forced Christ on in his heavenly labor.

    Secondly. But now, what was his Father's business? I think it lay in three things—example, establishment, expiation.

    1. One part of his Father's business was, to send into the world a perfect example for our imitation. God had written divers books of example in the lives of the saints. One man was noted for one virtue, and another for another. At last, God determined that he would gather all his works into one volume, and give a condensation of all virtues in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now he determined to unite all the parts into one, to string all the pearls on one necklace, and to make them all apparent around the neck of one single person. The sculptor finds here a leg from some eminent master, and there a hand from another mighty sculptor. Here he finds an eye, and there a head full of majesty. He saith, within himself, "I will compound those glories, I will put them all together; then it shall be the model man. I will make the statue par excellence, which shall stand first in beauty, and shall be noted ever afterwards as the model of manhood." So said God, "There is Job—he hath patience; there is Moses—he hath meekness, there are those mighty ones who all have eminent virtues. I will take these, I will put them into one; and the man Christ Jesus shall be the perfect model of future imitation." Now, I say, that all Christ's life he was endeavoring to do his Father's business in this matter. You never find Christ doing a thing which you may not imitate. You would scarcely think it necessary that he should be baptized; but lo, he goes to Jordan's stream and dives beneath the wave, that he may be buried in baptism unto death, and may rise again—though he needed not to rise—into newness of life. You see him healing the sick, to teach us benevolence; rebuking hypocrisy to teach us boldness; enduring temptation to teach us hardness, wherewith, as good soldiers of Christ, we ought to war a good warfare. You see him forgiving his enemies to teach us the grace of meekness and of forbearance; you behold him giving up his very life to teach us how we should surrender ourselves to God, and give up ourselves for the good of others. Put Christ at the wedding; you may imitate him. Ay, sirs, and you might imitate him, if you could, in turning water into wine, without a sin. Put Christ at a funeral; you may imitate him—"Jesus wept." Put him on the mountain-top; he shall be there in prayer alone, and you may imitate him. Put him in the crowd; he shall speak so, that if you could speak like him you should speak well. Put him with enemies; he shall so confound them, that he shall be a model for you to copy. Put him with friends, and he shall be a "friend that sticketh closer than a brother," worthy of your imitation. Exalt him, cry hosanna, and you shall see him riding upon a "colt, the foal of an ass," meek and lowly. Despise and spit upon him, you shall see him bearing contumely and contempt with the same evenness of spirit which characterised him when he was exalted in the eye of the world Everywhere you may imitate Christ. Ay, sirs, and you may even imitate him in that "the Son of Man came eating and drinking" and therein fulfllled what he determined to do—to pull down the vain pharisaism of man, which saith that religion standeth in meats and drinks, whereas, "Not that which goeth into a man defileth a man but that which goeth out of a man, that defileth the man." And that is wherein we should take heed to ourselves, lest the inner man be defiled. Never once did he swerve from that bright, true mirror of perfection. He was in everything as an exemplar, always doing his Father's business.

    2. And so in the matter that I have called establishment, that is the establishment of a new dispensation; that was his Father's business, and therein, Christ was always doing it. He went into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Was he doing it then? Ah, sirs, he was; for it was necessary that he should be "a faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." When he speaks, you can see him establishing his Word, and when he puts the finger of silence to his lips, he is doing it as much; for then was fulfilled the prophecy, "he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb." Does he work a miracle? Do the obedient winds hush their tumult at his voice? It is to establish the gospel, by teaching us that he is divine. Does he weep? It is to establish the gospel, by teaching us that he is human. Does he gather the apostles? It is that they may go abroad in every land, preaching the Word of God. Does he sit upon a well? It is that he may teach a woman, and that she may teach the whole city of Samaria the way of salvation. He was always engaged in this work of example, and this work of establishment.

    3. And ah, beloved, when he came to the climax of his labor, when he came to the greatest toil of all, that which a thousand men could never have done; when he came to do the great work of expiation, how thoroughly he did it.

    "View him prostrate in the garden;
    On the ground your Maker lies.
    On the bloody tree behold him:
    Hear him cry before he dies—
    'IT IS FINISHED!'"

    And there you have a proof that he was about his Father's business. It was his Father's business made him sweat great drops of blood; his Father's business ploughed his back with many gory furrows; his Father's business pricked his temple with the thorn crown; his Father's business made him mocked and spit upon; his Father's business made him go about bearing his cross; his Father's business made him despise the shame when, naked, he hung upon the tree; his Father's business made him yield himself to death, though he needed not to die if so he had not pleased; his Father's business made him tread the gloomy shades of Gehenna, and descend into the abodes of death; his Father's business made him preach to the spirits in prison; and his Father's business took him up to heaven, where he sitteth on the right hand of God, doing his Father's business still! His Father's business makes him plead day and night for Sion; the same business shall make him come as the Judge of quick and dead, to divide the sheep from the goats; the same business shall make him gather together in one, all people who dwell on the face of the earth! Oh, glory to thee, Jesus; thou hast done it! Thou hast done thy Father's business well.

    II. Thus, I have given you the example. Now, let me exhort you to IMITATE IT.

    Tell me, if you can why the religion of Christ is so very slow in spreading. Mohomet, an imposter stood up in the streets to preach. He was hooted, stones were thrown at him. Within a month after, he had disciples. A few more years, and he had a host behind him. Not a century had rolled away before a thousand scimitars flashed from their scabbards at the bidding of the caliphs. His religion overran nations like wildfire, and devoured kingdoms. But why? The followers of the prophet were entirely devoted to his cause. When that Moslem of old spurred his horse into the sea, to ride across the straits of Gibraltar, and then reined him up, and said, "I would cross if God willed it! "there was something in it that told us why his religion was so strong. Ah! those warriors of that time were ready to die for their religion, and therefore it spread. Can you tell me why Christianity spread so much in primitive times? It was because holy men "counted not their lives dear unto them," but were willing to "suffer the loss of all things" for Christ's sake. Paul traverses many countries, Peter ranges through many nations, Philip and the other evangelists go through various countries, testifying the word of God. Sirs, I will tell you why our faith in these days spreads so little. Pardon me—it is because the professors of it do not believe it! Believe it! Yes; they believe it in the head, not in the heart. We have not enough of true devotedness to the cause, or else God would bless Sion with a far greater increase, I am fully persuaded. How few there are that have given themselves fully up to their religion! They take their religion, like my friend over there has taken that little farm of his. He has a farm of a thousand acres, but he thinks he could increase his means, perhaps, by taking a little farm of a hundred acres or so a little way off; and he gives that to a bailiff and does not take much trouble about it himself. It is not very likely he will have very fine farming there, because he leaves it to somebody else. Just so with religion. Your great farm is your shop, your great aim is your worldly business. You like to keep religion as a snug investment at very small interest indeed, which you intend to draw out when you get near death; but you do not want to live on it just now. You have enough profit from your own daily business, and you do not want religion for every day life. Sirs, the reason why your religion does not spread is because it has not got root enough in your hearts. How few there are of us who are ready to devote ourselves wholly, bodily, and spiritually to the cause of the gospel of Christ! And if you should attempt to do so, how many opponents you would meet with! Go into the church meeting, and be a little earnest; what will they say? Why, they will serve you just as David's brother did, when David spoke about fighting Goliath. "Oh," he said, "because of the pride and the naughtiness of thine heart, to see the battle thou art come." "Now, stand aside, do not think you can do anything; away with you!" And if you are in earnest, especially in the ministry, it is just the same. Your brethren pray every Sabbath—"Lord, send more laborers into the vineyard!" And if God should send them, they wish them safe out of their corner of it, at any rate. They may go anywhere else, but they must not come anywhere near them, for it might affect their congregation, it might stir them up a little; and people might think they did not labor quite earnestly enough. "Stand aside! "they say. But brethren, do not mind about that. If you cannot bear to be huffed and snuffed, there is little good in you. If you cannot bear snuffing, depend upon it you cannot be well lit yet. Dare to go on against all the prudence of men, and you will find them pat you on the shoulder by-and-by and call you "dear brother." Every man is helped to get up, when he is as high as he can be. If you are down, "keep him down," is the cry; but if you are getting up, you will never get help till you have done it yourself; and then men will give you their help when you do not require it. However, your war-cry must be, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

    Again, even the best of your friends, if you are truly zealous of God, will come to you and say—and very kindly too—"Now, you must take a little more care of your constitution. Now, don't be doing so much; don't, I beseech you! "Or if you are giving money away—"Now you must be a little more prudent; take more care of your family. Really, you must not do so." Or if you are earnest in prayer, they will say—"There is no need of such enthusiasm as this: you know you can be religious, and not too religious; you can be moderately so." And so you find both friends and enemies striving to hinder your consecration to Christ. Now, I like what old Rowland Hill said, when some one told him that he was "moderately religious." "Well then, you are irreligious, for a man that is moderately honest is a rogue for certain; and so the man that is moderately religious is irreligious." If religion be worth anything it is worth everything; if it be anything it is everything. Religion cannot go halves with anything else, it must be all. We must, if we be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Christ, imitate Christ in this—the giving up of all to God; so that we can sincerely say,

    "And if I might make some reserve,
    And duty did not call,
    I love my God with zeal so great,
    That I could give him all."

    I shall never forget the circumstance, when after I thought I had made a full consecration to Christ, a slanderous report against my character came to my ears, and my heart was broken in agony because I should have to lose that, in preaching Christ's gospel I fell on my knees, and said, "Master, I will not keep back even my character for thee. If I must lose that too, then let it go, it is the dearest thing I have, but it shall go, if, like my Master, they shall say I have a devil and am mad; or, like him I am a drunken man and a wine-bibber. It is gone, if I may but say—"I have suffered the loss of all things; and I do count them but dross that I may win Christ!" And you, Christian, will never get on well in serving God, till you have given all to him. That which you keep back will canker, If you reserve the least portion of your time, your property, or your talents, and do not give all to Christ, you will find there will be a sore, a gangrene in it; for Christ will bless you in all when you give all to him; but what you keep from him, he will curse, and blight, and ruin. He will have all of us, the whole of us, all we possess, or else he never will be satisfied.

    And now let me answer one or two objections, and I shall still stir you up, who make a profession of religion, to give up all you have to Christ. You say, "Sir, I cannot do it; I am not in the right profession." Well, sir, you spoke truly when you said that; for if there be a profession that will not allow us to give all to Christ, it is not a right profession, and we ought not to follow it at all." "But," you say "how can I do it?" Well what are you? I do not care what you are; I assert it is possible for you to do all things in the name of God, and so to give glory to Christ. Do not think you need be a minister to dedicate yourself to Christ. Many a man has disgraced the pulpit, and many a man has sanctified an anvil; many a man has dishonored the cushion upon which he preached, and many a man has conscerated the plough with which he has turned the soil. We ought in all our business, as well as in our sacred acts, to do all for Christ. Let me illustrate this. A merchant in America had devoted a large part of his money for the maintenance of the cause of Christ; and one said to him, "What a sacrifice you make every year." Said he "Not so. I have a clerk: suppose I give that clerk fifty pounds to pay a schoolmaster, and when he goes to the schoolmaster, he should say, "Here is your salary; what a sacrifice it is to me to give you that! 'Why,' the schoolmaster would say, 'Sir, it is not yours, it is no sacrifice at all to you.'" So said this good man, "I gave up all when I came to God, I became his steward, and no longer head of the firm. I made God the head of the firm, and I became the steward. And now when I distribute of my wealth, I only distribute it as his allmoner; and it is no sacrifice at all." If we talk of sacrifices we make a mistake. Ought not that to be the spirit of our religion? It should be made a sacrifice at first, ant then afterwards there should be a voluntary offering of all. "I keep my shop open," said one, "and earn money for God. I and my family live out of it—God allows us to do it; for as a minister lives by the gospel, he allows me to live by my business, and he permits me to provide a competence for old age, but that is not my object." "I sell these goods," said another one, but the profit I get, God has; that which I require for my own food and raiment, and for my household, that God giveth back to me, for he has said, bread shall be given me, and water shall be sure; but the rest is God's not mine; I do it all for God." Now you do not understand that theory, do you? It is not business. No, sirs, but if your hearts were right you would understand it, for it is God's gospel—the giving up all to Christ; the giving up of everything to his cause. When we do that, then shall we understand this passage—"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" For your business, though it is carried on in your name, will, unknown to men, be carried on in God's name too. Let me beg of you, however, not to tell everybody, if you do it I have known some that hang the gospel in the window, more attractively, sometimes, than ribbons. I do hate the cant of a man, who, when you go to buy ribbons or pay a bill, asks you to have a tract, or invites you into the beck parlour to pray; you will see at once what he is after. He wants to sanctify his counter, so that as people catch flies with honey, he may catch you with religion. Put your religion where it will come out, but do not cant about it. If a stranger should call upon you, and in a moment exclaim "Let us pray;" your best policy is to let him have the street to do it in, and you should say, "Thank you, I do my praying alone mostly. I see what it is. If I thought you had the spirit of prayer, and it had been the proper season, I would have joined with you with all my heart." But the religion of a man who will just step into your house, to let you see what an extraordinary pious man he is, is either very sick, or else it is a galvanized thing that has got no life in it at all. I regard prayer as a very sacred thing. "When thou prayest, enter into thy closet; and when thou givest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." For verily if you do it to be seen of men you have your reward: and a poor one it is, a little praise for a minute, and it is all gone. But, nevertheless, do not run into one extreme by running from another. Conscerate your business by your religion. Do not paint your religion on your side-board; but keep it ready whenever you want it, and I am sure you will want it always.

    Says one, "How can I do God's business? I have no talent, I have no money; all I earn in the week I have to spend, and I have scarce money enough to pay my rent. I have no talent; I could not teach in a Sunday-school." Brother, have you a child? Well, there is one door of usefulness for you. Sister, you are very poor; no one knows you, you have a husband, and however drunken he may be, there is a door of usefulness for you. Bear up under all his insults, be patient under all his taunts and jeers, and you can serve God, and do God's business so." "But, sir I am sick, it is only to-day I am able to get out at all; I am always on my bed." You can do your Master's business, by Iying on a bed of suffering, for him, if you do it patiently. The soldier who is ordered to lie in the trenches, is just as obedient as the man who is ordered to storm the breach. In everything you do you can serve your God. Oh, when the heart is rightly tuned in this matter we shall never make excuses, and say, "I cannot be about my Father's business." We shall always find some business of his to do. In the heroic wars of the Swiss, we read that the mothers would bring cannon-balls for the fathers to fire upon the enemy, and the children would run about and gather up the shot that sometimes fell, when ammunition ran short. So that all did something. We hate war, but we will use the figure in the war of Christ. There is something for you all to do. Oh I let us who love our Master, let us who are bound to serve him by the ties of gratitude let us say, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

    And now I close up by addressing all the Lord's people here, and urging them to serve God with all their hearts, by giving them two or three very brief and very earnest reasons.

    Be about your Father's business with all earnestness, because that is the way of usefulness. You cannot do your own business and God's too. You cannot serve God and self any more than you can serve God and mammon. If you make your own business God's business, you will do your business well; and you will be useful in your day and generation. Never shall we see any great revival in the church, or any great triumphs of religion until the Christian world is more touched with the spirit of entire consecration to Christ. When the world shall see as in earnest then God will bring men in; not before. We go to our pulpits in half heartedness: we go to our place of worship mere shells without the kernel. We give the outward ceremony and take away the heart. We shall never see Christ's cause triumphant so. Would you be useful? Would you extend your Master's empire? Then be about your Father's business.

    Again, would you be happy? Be about your Father's business. Oh! it is sweet employment to serve your Father. You need not turn aside from the way of business to do that. If your heart be right, you can serve God in weighing a pound of tea as much as in preaching a sermon. You can serve God as much in driving a horse and cart as in singing a hymn—serve God in standing behind your counter. At the right time and the right season, as much as sitting in your pews. And oh, how sweet to think, "I am doing this for God. My shop is opened on God's behalf; I am seeking to win profit for God; I am seeking to get business for God 's cause, that I may be able to devote more to it, and prosper it more by what I am able voluntarily to consecrate to him." You will have a happiness when you rise, such as you never knew before, if you can think, "I am going to serve God to-day;" and when you end at night, instead of saying, "I have lost so much," you will be able to say, "Not I, my God has lost it. But the silver and the gold are his and if he does not care to have either of them—very well; let them go; he shall have it one way or another. I do not want it; if he chooses to take it from me in bad debts, well and good. Let me give to him in another way, it will be the same; I will revere him continually, even in my daily avocations."

    And this dear friends, will be the way—and I trust you can be moved by this—this will be the way to have eternal glory at the last, not for the sake of what you do, but as the gracious reward of God for what you have done. "They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever." Would you like to go to heaven alone? I do not think you would. My happiest thought is this, that when I die, if it shall be my privilege to enter into rest in the bosom of Christ I know I shall not enter heaven alone. Thousands have been there, whose hearts have been pricked and have been drawn to Christ under the labors of my ministry. Oh! what a pleasant thing to flap one's wings to heaven and have a multitude behind, and when you enter heaven to say, "Here am I and the children thou hast given me! "You cannot preach, perhaps, but you can travail in birth with children for God, in a spiritual sense, in another way; for if you help the cause you shall share the honour too. You do that, perhaps, which is not known among men yet you are the instrument, and God shall crown your head with glory amongst those that "shine as the stars for ever and ever." I think, dear Christian friends, I need say no more, except to bid you remember that you owe so much to Christ for having saved you from hell; you owe so much to that blood which redeemed you—that you are in duty bound to say—

    "Here, Lord, I give myself away;
    'Tis all that I can do."

    Go out now, and if you are tempted by the world, may the Spirit enable you to reply, "I must be about my Father's business." Go out, and if they call you fanatical, let them laugh at you as much as you like, tell them you must be about your Father's business. Go on, and conquer. God be with you. And now farewell, with this last word, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be damned." Faith in Christ is the only way of salvation. Ye who know your guilt cast yourselves on Christ, and then dedicate yourselves to him. So shall you have joy here, and glory everlasting in the kind of the blessed, where bliss is without alloy, and joy without end.

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Jesus-and-leaders
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:47 pm

    Imagine discussing this thread in the Stargate SG-1 Underground Base -- with a half-dozen skilled and wise researchers -- on a daily basis. When I speak of a "Room With a Cray" and an "Unlimited Access Badge" Heh heh I am mostly having fun with my imagination -- yet I continue to crave something more than my current pathetic life is providing me. I am much more of a "Reflector" than I am a "Commander". I would simply like to be taken somewhat seriously -- in a proper scholarly setting. Wouldn't we all??!! On the other hand -- this website might be more 'cutting-edge' than we think. We are probably a lot freer here than we would be in an Underground Base. Perhaps I should count my blessings -- before they are taken away by a Hypothetical Harsh Theocracy (HHT).

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Normal_sg1_101_0007 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 811_042 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Stargate-SG-1-Colonel-Frank-Simmons-5-Fifth-Man Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 IcarusBaseIDBadgeBlankcopy Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 5 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 2643251456_36e6a59c05 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Stargate.SG-1.Continuum Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 101_039 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Tokra
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Sg1_foothold Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 416_097 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 800px-AncientShuttle Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 112_033 Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Stargate---Thor


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:49 pm; edited 4 times in total
    Eartheart
    Eartheart


    Posts : 466
    Join date : 2012-02-23
    Age : 60
    Location : surface omnidim gridpoint

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  Eartheart Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:50 pm

    i am gladium you saw that oxydelighted friends Rolling Eyes

    as you remember i break the bread with you, so i have no need for those long knifes!

    And a divinely emanated mind will not be cuted (cute!) by a mind of a twosided blade.

    So watch the fire which i will shurly keep burning and find your first word at thou youngest day!

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:08 pm

    Thank-you Eartheart. I come in peace! What if the reincarnational aspect of Jesus Christ has been involved in nasty and bloody ancient and modern battles?? We might be shocked at who Jesus has been -- and what Jesus has done -- for thousands of years. Just speculation. On another thread, you mentioned "Returning to Source". I continue to think of that term as referring to the end of Male and Female Human Physicality -- and returning to a Completely Reptilian Existence. Is This Correct?? Is Earth Humanity Doomed??
    Eartheart wrote:looks like some antiinta ghost want to put some water into the thuban soup; because some guests arrived!

    That marvelous complex spiritplane which lifts us out of mirrrrored calaidoscopic tabernacles and unused aminoblocks memoplexes has freed my beeingness - thanx to the creative genius so eleborately crafted by our thuban visionary orgasms. Before i was a animal just on signals. Now this inflated 2Dim flowers again in thou original lifeforce, which unites all the interstellar species with the living light. I like my view from this 13Dim, unhindered by divine effulgence and wannabegood aspirations like hopes/speculations/believes...

    The Thuban perspective on our quadrant of the creations shall at least provoke a similar future clearness from those other factions of the gaian teams and interestgroups!!! Not just monkeyhowling! Even those hidden gangstars couldnt focus their minds anymore. Seems we now just have to deal the blowjob of this anticristall beastly rage& awe... Which shall implode by my inner signal! Hugh!

    In thou Rainbowserpent dreamdance songline initiation all dragons will be absorbed by her shakti, till the last red dragon will be remembrated by her and with resonant coherent charge lifted beyond Love back into the egg of creation again. Few knew and less understand. So drop the BS and your archetyped flaws,
    make love Hugs *****back to source you go!

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Magdal10

    i ama newenergy device, command Loove & peace for our solar system, offer Loovebacked current(cy),
    open sourced circle of divine unity for starhumanity...
    If Jesus was heavily involved in the creation of the Human Being -- don't you suppose that Jesus (or whatever name 'He' went by at that time) had Teachings?? Might the Teachings of Jesus have existed at the Creation of the Human Being?? What if the Teachings of Jesus and the Creation of the Human Being were considered 'Damnable Heresy of a Most Pestilential Nature' by a VERY Traditional Reptilian Theocracy?? What if the Torah (To-Ra??) was intended to stamp out the Teachings of Jesus (Teachings of Isis??) -- and to teach the Human Being an unforgetable lesson -- so that 'Sin' might NOT arise a second time??? What if we are dealing with the Great Controversy Between Isis and Ra in the Conflict of the Ages??!! What Would the Tok'ra Say??

    I keep repeating various versions of one basic theme -- and here is another one of those versions. Consider reading the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' and the 'Federalist Papers' while listening to Sacred Classical Music. Then, allow your mind to wander while reading -- and think freely about a wide variety of topics. Do you see what I mean?? I continue to enjoy listening to Latin Masses -- even though I have HUGE problems with the sacrificial aspects, and with other symbological aspects and interpretations. I'd still like to see and hear a Latin Mass properly combined with the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' -- with the Latin Mass interpreted by the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' (including the '39 Articles of Religion'). I'm not an expert in this area -- so my thoughts should simply be used to stimulate YOUR thoughts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enWiFcsBqIE Consider reading Deuteronomy and Matthew -- side by side -- with particular attention given to the Law of God -- and to the Commandments of God. Also, what religious services or ceremonies are prescribed in the Old and New Testaments?? Does the New Testament tell us to attend church on a particular day?? Does the New Testament tell us to attend church?? What is the One True Church in the world today?? The Old Testament Services seem brutal, bloody, and very harsh. There don't seem to be New Testament Services. I have been taking a closer look at Ceremonial Anglicanism (with a Latin Mass twist) because of the widespread use and centuries of tradition -- but not because this approach is particularly biblical. Should the Sabbath be observed by all Jews and Christians -- from Sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday?? Are there any Jews or Christians who observe the Torah in every detail?? Religion and Politics seem to be VERY dishonest IMHO.

    Consider studying Deuteronomy -- relative to every other Book of the Bible -- seeing how much (or how little) of Deuteronomy appears in these other books. Notice that I keep pointing toward various sources and studies -- rather than claiming that I have 'The Truth -- The Whole Truth -- And Nothing But The Truth'. What was I supposed to do in this life?? Was I expected to Lie about 'Life -- the Universe -- and Everything'?? Am I Messing Things Up By Attempting To Be Open and Honest?? www.themistsofavalon.net continues to be blocked by the public library wi-fi. Is it the site -- or is it just me?? Are either really THAT bad and threatening?? What's coming next?? I probably do not wish to know. Who Knows What Evil Lurks in the Heart of Darkness??

    I am NOT choosing the Latin Mass over the Mega-Church approach. I liked the Fred Swann era of the Crystal Cathedral. I got the impression that a lot of people didn't get what was REALLY being attempted at the Crystal Cathedral. Even the various Associate Pastors didn't seem to be on the same page as Robert H. Schuller. Robert A. Schuller didn't even seem to be on the same page. I think that in many ways, I was on the same page as Robert H. Schuller -- but with a definite Ellen G. White twist. I played one against the other. I did it for answers. BTW -- the Mass should NOT be turned into a Happy Meal at the Crystal Cathedral. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6Zcr5Ji9w 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsNv3KuWFDk&feature=related 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ4mDo2w0Xk&feature=related 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQSs8QwZFvU&feature=related

    I'm finding it very difficult to simply review the territory I've already covered. Perhaps this is because of insecurity and a lack of discipline. I'd really like to master this thread -- and then extrapolate from it. I consider this thread to be a launching-pad. I wish to repeat that I'm NOT angry with the 'government' -- even though I think that the solar system governmental secrets are VERY dark and unpleasant. I really could dig (for dirt or gold) a lot faster -- but I don't really want to. I could move a helluva lot faster -- believe me. I sensed a lot of what I'm now confirming -- at least a couple of decades ago -- and as a child I seemed to know WAY too much -- but I gradually got disillusioned and dumbed-down. The 'System' was VERY effective in my case. I'll continue to struggle with the madness -- but I am not particularly motivated to 'wake people up'. I continue to think that we might be on the brink of extinction -- but I do not wish to yell 'FIRE!!!' in a crowded forum. There are plenty of hot-heads doing just that already. The Horror.

    If the present global (and solar system) 'regime' is on its way out -- things might get very interesting. I doubt 'they' would go peacefully -- and I doubt 'they' would be friendly and helpful toward a new global (and solar system) regime. Poison pills and a scorched earth policy would be highly likely. 'They' might go out with a bang or a wall of water. I don't know that a change is coming -- but I keep hearing rumors -- and I think the factional fighting might get VERY nasty. A new regime might not necessarily consist of good guys and gals either. I suspect ancient hard-feelings and unsettled-scores at the highest levels of global (and solar system) governance. The more I think about all of this -- the more frightened I become. I continue to advocate evolutionary change -- rather than revolutionary change. Whoever is at the center of global (and solar system) governance has been at this game for a very long time -- and various methods and networks are probably very sophisticated and very deeply entrenched. Perhaps the New World Order is thousands of years old. Perhaps we have been living under a One World Government for thousands of years. I suspect a One Solar System Government -- going back at least to a Pre-Exodus Ancient Babylon and Egypt. Regime changes are likely to be VERY painful -- and I doubt the general public will understand. A new regime might not last more than a couple of decades -- and then we might be back in bed with whoever we're sleeping with presently. We might even be sleeping with the devil. Things might be bad -- no matter who rules -- and no matter what we do. I lean toward changing everything -- without seeming to change anything. The present unsustainable economic, religious, and political structure will likely keep going until 'they' hand the 'keys to the kingdom' over to the new guys and gals. Then 'they' will likely laugh as everything goes to hell. Just speculation, of course. The New Guy might be the Fall Guy.

    I'm still waiting for a detailed critique of my internet posting -- and I will correct any errors. I would be willing to start a thread of corrections and apologies. The bulk of my posting is speculative and science-fictional -- but there is some material which I have not represented as such. I continue to encounter curiously hostile attitudes in real-life -- including comments which could only be spoken by those who are aware of my internet posting -- yet with whom I have not discussed anything even remotely close to my internet posting. I could say more about this -- but I'd rather not. Just know that I know more about what's going-on behind my back than you think. You thought those meetings were secret, didn't you?? Unfortunately -- conversation with me on the internet relative to my internet posting is virtually non-existant. Thinking outside of the box -- and making people think -- is obviously not welcome. I think I make people very uncomfortable. I'm sorry people feel that way -- and I've learned the hard way that the truth is SO overrated. Giving people what they want -- and telling people what they wish to hear -- works SO much better. I continue to request that you take this thread as a whole -- rather than just looking at bits and pieces -- and then tearing me to pieces. Also, I'm sorry if you don't like the irreverent and/or humorous images I sometimes post. I try to post a cross-section of that which is out there -- relative to the subjects under review. I am trying to sensitize and desensitize -- in appropriate and constructive ways -- but my ways are not the ways of the world.

    Is this thread one aspect of a Final Jihad?? I have NOT intended it to be such -- yet the thoughts and speculations presented are quite provocative and potentially divisive. Who's side am I on?? Who do I work for?? Damned if I know. I'm simply exploring several possibilities -- as a truth-seeking methodology and modus operandi -- leaning strongly toward Occam's Razor and Reductio Ad Absurdum. If you are upset when someone questions your religion -- this is unfortunate -- especially if YOU do not question your religion. How do you KNOW that you attend the One True Church if you fail to ask the hard questions -- and are angry when others do so?? Can someone answer me THAT?? I asked hard questions regarding the church of my youth -- which is one reason why I no longer attend church. Most churches seem to wish to teach -- but not to learn -- especially from irreverent commoners or completely ignorant fools -- even if they happen to be right. I continue to wonder what things are REALLY like at the highest levels of secular and sacred governance in this world and solar system. I continue to suspect that the realities are NOT nice at all. I guess this is why I continue to attempt to deal with the madness by focusing upon solar system governance. I don't know much about it -- and I'm often not sure I really wish to know -- but a critical mass of humans and other than humans should probably work toward improving things in this solar system -- at the highest levels of governance. I continue to suspect that both divinity and humanity are highly problematic -- but I certainly don't know the details. Just going after the Pope and the Queen (and Distinguished Company) will probably NOT solve the alleged problems and abuses. I have NO idea what to do -- which is why I limit my activities to this little website. I truly do not know which way to jump.

    I keep wondering if Earth is a Subsidiary of a HUGE Galactic Business Empire -- with Banking, Religion, and the Military at the Center of the Control Structure??!! Even Jesus said "I Must Be About My Father's Business". One might interpret this in several ways. The Ancient Egyptian Deity told me that "In Twenty Years -- You'll be Working for Us". I'm not necessarily saying these things shouldn't be central -- but the abuse and corruption seem obvious. What is it they say about Absolute Power??? I keep thinking we need a Homeostasis Between the Royal-Model and the Servant-Model -- with a Mysterious-Blend of Royal-Judgment and Representative-Voting. I continue to model a Ceremonially-Anglican and Conservative-Constitutionalist Approach to Solar System Governance. This does NOT imply a State-Church which all must adhere to -- or else. The goal is to drastically reduce religious and political conflict -- and to completely eliminate religious and political persecution. This is a VERY tricky area -- to say the least. All of this is NOT intended to tell anyone what to think. It is simply intended to make us think. I continue to seek understanding and cooperation -- rather than condemnation and retribution. I mostly just wish to get away from all of this controversial madness. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGK76jbaxC4 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76lWR4sTc_k&feature=related 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=vGBsJEOMOzs&NR=1 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=ZYAFoso0CLk&NR=1 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8buJ2-oD02E&feature=related

    As an orthodoxymoron -- I continue to emphasize Bible-Study over Orthodoxy.

    This is only the beginning. I am of peace. Always. Wait a Minute. No I'm Not!

    This Thread is a Theatrical Piece of Work -- Modeling Personality Traits and Points of View.

    I Am NOT This Way in Real-Life.

    The Kingdom of God is a Party!!


    Check This Out!!! https://www.youtube.com/spacelab?feature=etp-rs-space This is VERY Cool!!!

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Xtreme%20Jesus
    WWJD??
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:21 pm

    The following is just informational. I am not endorsing the information presented. I continue to think that studying various religions is a beneficial pursuit. The critical examinations tend to be more revealing than the official literature and videos. I do NOT study this sort of thing to discover ways to be unkind to other people. I seek to enrich my understanding of the world we live in. Even false religions might contain beneficial aspects. If a strict rule were applied -- perhaps most governments and religions would be mostly discredited. Perhaps the foundations of our civilization mostly rest upon shifting sand. We must be VERY careful to NOT throw out the baby with the bathwater as we seek to refine and reform our society.



    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:14 am; edited 3 times in total
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13638
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:13 pm

    The viewcount has almost stopped for this thread. Perhaps this should tell me something. Perhaps this solar system should be run by:

    1. Giving people what they want.

    2. Telling people what they wish to hear.

    3. Robbing people blind -- without them having a clue as to what's really going on.

    Jordan Maxwell was VERY pessimistic in that Project Camelot interview a couple of years ago. He thought there was NO way to avoid the New World Order -- because people were too ignorant and apathetic. Perhaps he was right. If there is a regime change -- for better or for worse -- the world might have to be run in ways similar to that which it has been for a very long time -- except without all of the violence. I hate to put it that way -- but we might not be ready for that which I have been modeling within this thread.

    That 'demand' I made at the end of the Thuban Q&A on the old Project Avalon -- has me worried. Did that cause anything to change in this solar system?? Did I cause any sort of a problem with that post?? You know which one. Should I simply say that ALL of my internet posting should be viewed as being educational -- and nothing more?? I HONESTLY don't know who I am reincarnationally. I really don't -- despite some 'hints and clues' within this thread. I've done a lot of bluffing, modeling, and role-playing -- for educational purposes. Mostly MY education. I truly do NOT have enough inside information with which to make RESPONSIBLE decisions about anything of real importance. I never know how seriously my words are taken. I doubt that anyone pays any attention to them -- but one never knows. I continue to be VERY upset that I have to keep playing this stupid guessing game.

    Is the Bible being taught HONESTLY by anyone?? Anyone at all?? People don't want to be taught what they don't already believe. The Bible is not a NICE book. It contains inspiration -- but it also contains just the opposite. I tend to think that all of us need to be better researchers. Period. In ALL subjects. The REAL ANSWERS are often not the ones we would like to have -- so we settle for lies and half-truths -- sometimes trading one delusion for another. I continue to think that an Imperfect Humanity is dealing with an Imperfect Divinity -- and that this relationship is VERY problematic. I don't know that this thread is accurate -- but I think that if you study it carefully -- over several months or years -- that you will be much better prepared to recognize and deal-with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    I don't know how much truth is contained in Alex Collier's lectures and interviews -- but they really caused me to think. If you have been following this thread -- relisten to Alex's material -- with this thread in mind -- and see what you think. I continue to view his material as being a combination of fact and fiction -- but I really 'enjoy' watching and listening to this sort of thing -- even though it scares the hell out of me. I tend to prefer Alex's 90's material -- and I continue to be wary about 'mentoring' -- even though I remain open to all options. I keep sensing a sinister nastiness in connection with our predicament. I am more upset about all of this than you can imagine. Upset in a nice way -- wherein I agonize over the absurd -- as I continue to live a life of quiet desperation -- in a most pathetic way.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SouPQnxLtM

    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZegXpXm4bug&feature=relmfu

    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyFSbThtXc&feature=related

    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bim4-vHk8tc&feature=relmfu

    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_s8dDYvMEg

    As you well know, I continue to advocate a multidisciplinary approach to understanding life, the universe, and everything. Don't just latch on to a particular guru, church, philosophy, etc. There is so much to take in -- and so very many ways to get it wrong. Plus, I think that a lot of the type of thing I've been researching can be VERY dangerous -- in ways I might not even be aware of. I feel like I'm in a life and death battle 24/7 -- and this isn't fun. The more I research -- the less I seem to know -- and the more unhappy I become. I really do not wish to wake-up the majority of the general public. Not at this point. I don't wish to supress forbidden knowledge -- but I don't wish to become some sort of a crusader -- especially when I don't know what I'm talking about. Realistically, that Room with a Cray and an Unlimited Access Badge probably wouldn't help me (or anyone else). I don't seem to be able to handle the information I currently have access to. It's just fun to think about being a somebody -- especially when one is a nobody. "I am nobody." The world is filled with nobodies trying to be somebodies. Sorry. I know that's not nice -- but I'm not trying to be nice -- or trying to win friends and influence people. I just want the truth -- and the best for all concerned. I guess I wish to consider everything -- while doing nothing -- so as to not create more trouble than already exists. I discuss solar system governance out of insecurity -- not arrogance. I guess I'll just have to continue as a Think-Tank of One. BTW -- Thoth is a Dick-Head and Tehuti is Important -- but don't tell anyone.

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 541035-4-think-tank
     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Think-Tank-No-background


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:10 am; edited 5 times in total
    SuiGeneris
    SuiGeneris


    Posts : 1236
    Join date : 2010-04-09
    Location : Midgard

     Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System - Page 29 Empty Re: Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System

    Post  SuiGeneris Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:12 am

    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    That 'demand' I made at the end of the Thuban Q&A on the old Project Avalon -- has me worried. Did that cause anything to change in this solar system?? Did I cause any sort of a problem with that post?? You know which one. Should I simply say that ALL of my internet posting should be viewed as being educational -- and nothing more?? I HONESTLY don't know who I am reincarnationally. I really don't -- despite some 'hints and clues' within this thread. I've done a lot of bluffing, modeling, and role-playing -- for educational purposes. Mostly MY education. I truly do NOT have enough inside information with which to make RESPONSIBLE decisions about anything of real importance. I never know how seriously my words are taken. I doubt that anyone pays any attention to them -- but one never knows. I continue to be VERY upset that I have to keep playing this stupid guessing game.

    Dear Orthodoxymoron!


    Message from the Thuban Dungeons for you:

    I could not answer your question in early April 2010, because I was banned around April 5th and just a day or so about when you posed your question.

    There is NO Thuban conspiracy directed at you and the locality, you find yourself at.
    You can ease your mind, knowing that there is no 'Vendetta of the Thuban Dragons' threatening your well being in any form or manner.

    There are a number of developments regarding the cosmic reconfigurations underway however and you would be aware of particular avenues of enquiry you could pursue to find out more about those particulars.


    Abraxasinas; Council of Thuban, September 19th, 2012

    *************************



    Love,


    Sui Hadriel

      Current date/time is Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:31 pm