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 ~

+10
bobhardee
miii
Jenetta
Aquaries1111
Mercuriel
devakas
Brook
magamud
JesterTerrestrial
orthodoxymoron
14 posters

    The University of Solar System Studies

    magamud
    magamud


    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  magamud Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:31 am

    Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

    Matthew 6:34
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:22 pm

    I know I'm out of control, A-1. That's why I'm trying to pull-over to the side of the Information Super-Highway -- and get stopped. BTW -- the quotes are mostly (95%) from 'my' threads (and I always give proper credit). I have been accused of ignoring others (and not working with the group) -- but probably 85% of this thread (and all of 'my' threads) are the work of others (including you). If all of my posts were different and conflicting -- I would be accused of being indecisive and inconsistent. If all of my posts were the same -- I would be accused of being boring and stuck in a rut. Actually, my posts are diverse (while remaining consistent) -- so I get accused of all of the above. Every answer is the 'wrong answer'. Every approach is the 'wrong approach'. If I'm intelligent, intuitive, innovative, and sensitive -- I am called rebellious and effeminate (and even 'demon-possessed'). If I am conformist, conservative, consistent, and unimaginative -- I am called a 'Completely Ignorant Fool'. Anyway, I suspect that the bottom-line will be 'You Screwed-Up -- and You're Going to Burn in Hell' -- regardless of how good or bad I've been -- and regardless of whether I've laid hold of the Merits of the Crucified Christ -- or not. There's always a loophole to screw whoever one wishes to screw -- in whichever style they choose. While I agree that living in the NOW is optimal -- I am aware that when one fails to plan -- they are planning to fail. I prefer the concept of Responsible Comprehensive Concentration -- which is consistent with your quote from the Sermon on the Mount, magamud.
    Eartheart wrote: :roll:What if this God somehow became Corrupt and Insane?
    As this is certainnotonlyforour planet it seems not so bad, more of a creative and farsight-effort on Her/His side, while only concerned observers can judge some acts they cannot comprehend as corrupted insanety... How we had to do insanethings to bridge some lifetimes in the dark ages for instance!!!
    confused
    Would they remain 'Perfect' and retain Absolute Authority??
    Again a implied judgement of underdog observers - if iam in divine unity such questions and speculations are avoided...
    drunken
    What if someone had a 'Better Idea'? Would this be considered Rebelious Heresy if this innovation were condemned by God?
    Better implies innovative intelligence from the One applied, using source would be considered obidient, even if you had a reptile Boss watching over your quadrant...
    scratch
    What if we are dealing with Ancient Reptilian Queen (loyal to Reptilian Tradition) v Ancient Reptilian Queen (loyal to Humanity and Responsible-Freedom)?
    The ARQ's will alllways be programmed by reverse coding, so there wont be one loyal to Humans & Responsible Freedom! Even if it may be true, that the Orion Mothers signed the "Anchara Peace Treaty", there are their own prophecys of reaching this crowning and closing of their circle of borgism,
    and there are certain multilayered purposes in that. (Just remember that many stupid and lower programmed war-borgs couldnt believe or tune to the new (1996-2004) intergalactic peace treaty - and keep to wrack heavoc, same like those around An's warparty, wholeft orion to travel through the montauck timerift so 5000years back to start the sumerian deception and play the "Weown you"-game, importing 20million killersouls onto Gea and ursurping all Looverkingdoms and blood/timelines... But we will extract this bubble and unmake this false godless creation with the help of Allthatis...
    Thank-you Eartheart. As usual, I'll have to read your post several times -- and let it gradually sink in. I seem to be presently obsessed with a Pre-Human Traditional-Reptilian Galactic-Civilization -- a Recent-Renegade Freedom-Seeking Human-Civilization -- and the Problems Arising from Differences in Physicality and Governance. I feel as if I'm on the verge of Something Big -- yet I feel as if this might be a Bad Thing. The Truth Might Utterly Destroy Me -- Rather Than Setting Me Free.

    My questions about God have to do with Divine Accountability. What is a proper methodology for evaluating Divine Performance?? I am NOT advocating Insubordination or Rebellion -- yet I am wondering how we can properly apply a Rear-View Mirror Evaluation to God(s)?? If beings Just Follow Orders -- does this not open the door to possible misuse and abuse?? What if a Good God is overthrown by a Bad God?? Do the Obedient Sheep obey the New Bad God with the same devotion as they exhibited toward the Old Good God?? What if the Pope, the Queen, and the President get infiltrated, subverted, corrupted, blackmailed, etc, etc??? At what point does humanity legitimately cry "FOUL!!" and seek to remedy the Crisis Situation???

    We often seem to desire Strong Leadership -- yet we often resent being told what to do.

    Could someone please discuss 'Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs' by Ralph Ellis -- and 'The Gods of Eden' by William Bramley?? I have no idea how close to the mark they are -- but these two books are extremely thought-provoking -- especially when combined.

    I'm considering doing a verse by verse study of Deuteronomy, Psalms, Matthew, and Hebrews -- within this thread -- with a special emphasis on the Kingdom of God -- and the Governance Modus Operandi of God. Pre-Human Reptilian Physicality, Psychology, Ethics, Law, Religion, and Governance -- are of special interest to me -- relative to Recent-Human Physicality, Psychology, Ethics, Religion, Law, and Governance. I'm beginning to imagine myself in Pre-Human Reptilian and Recent-Human Management Roles -- to attempt to understand all of the above from BOTH perspectives. But Siriusly, this is a disorienting mind-game, to say the least!! I've come to the conclusion that LAW and RESPONSIBILITY are central to fixing the problems. I'm thinking that I need to think more like a Lawyer as I seek to make my case.

    I'll probably get myself into deeper and deeper trouble as I continue to model a possible Reptilian-Reptilian v Human-Reptilian power-struggle. I've even been trying to imagine what it might be like to be a Draconian-Reptilian -- so as to see things from their point of view. What if all of us were Draconian-Reptilians thousands (or even millions) of years ago?? I want things to be happy and peaceful -- but I keep getting the sinking feeling that things are too screwed-up for there to be true peace and happiness for all -- anytime soon. I think I might not have another life -- or that I will be facing hell-on-earth for hundreds (or thousands) of years. Whatever the hypothetical galactic civil-war is all about -- I doubt that it will be resolved anytime soon. A regime-change would probably NOT be the end of hostilities. Whoever got the short-end of the deal would undoubtedly vow to get even -- and then some. I continue to think that this universe is NOT a nice place, which is inhabited by nice beings. I used to think just the opposite -- and I wish I still felt that way. I HATE the way I presently think. But where does the evidence lead???

    I must point-out that my modeling within this thread does not necessarily represent the way I think. I Don't Know What's Really Going On. I tend to think that the TRUE state of affairs might remain hidden for a very long time. I also tend to think that I should become a lot more private regarding my speculations. I think I've placed quite enough on the table already. If I stop posting, this won't mean that I've stopped caring. I am just VERY uncomfortable with my present speculations and impressions. I don't think I'm crazy -- but it wouldn't surpise me if I became insane at some point. I think the Truth might push me over the edge. Perhaps ignorance really is bliss.

    You have NO idea what I REALLY think about. You really don't. I think the Ancient Egyptian Deity might have a pretty good idea though. A couple of others might know too. Perhaps they can even read my mind. That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. Once, when I was hesitant to answer a question, the Ancient Egyptian Deity said something like 'Don't make me go inside your head to get the answer'! Another time, when I was upset about something they said, they came to where I was, from another room, to find-out what was wrong! One dark night, we discussed 'They Live'! The last conversations (of any length) I had with said Deity (approximately one year ago), seemed VERY different than previous discussions. These seemed to be much more 'official' and 'tense' -- as if something of significance had occurred (or was in the process of occurring). Global finance was mentioned at one point. Nuff said.

    Financial stability seems to be very difficult to maintain in this computerized and sophisticated age. It seems to be too easy to move money around -- and to create financial collapses. It seems as if wealth can be created and destroyed much too easily and quickly. Perhaps I should study the FDIC, the GAO, and the SEC. Who knows?? I keep getting the feeling that some sort of a Physical, Mental, and Spiritual Time of Trouble is Coming to This World -- and Coming Soon -- and that Few Are Prepared for That Which is Almost Upon Us. I have tried to help prepare a critical mass of individuals for this possibility -- but the impact seems to have been minimal. I don't know that I'm prepared for what lies ahead -- but I still think that this thread is an excellent study-guide for what we might be facing in the near future. I think I need to review the territory I've already covered. I think I need to turn this thread into a Doctoral Dissertation -- without participating in a formal program -- although that might be nice. The problem is that I seem to be involved in some sort of an ongoing spiritual-war which is quite incapacitating -- and I doubt that I will ever achieve peace and resolution. I feel as if I am on the verge of shutting-down and completely withdrawing from just about everything. Game Over? Perhaps this thread will generate greater interest in a Post-Apocalyptic Solar System. Namaste and Godspeed.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Human-evolution-into-obesityThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Human-Evolution
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 3827657432_347f3f4cb2_o
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Australopithecus-afarensis-300The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Suited-alienThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Hobbit%20head-lo
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Pop-1a
    What the hell happened??? Why are we ruining this beautiful world??? How many people do we need???
    20 billion??? 40 billion??? Plus, we now have the technology to exterminate everyone!!! Aren't We Clever!!!
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:40 pm

    Consider the Lambeth Conferences. Just for the fun of it -- think of the United States of the Solar System -- in terms of a Year-Round Lambeth Conference -- Bilderberg Conference -- the United Nations -- and Washington D.C. (Senate and Congress) with 10,000 Representatives (4,000 at the Washington National Cathedral -- and 6,000 spread throughout the Solar System)!!! This would be a cool location -- but there are dozens of satisfactory possibilities -- including the St. Mary's Cathedral possibility I previously discussed (as long as the West-Coast does not undergo 'Earth-Changes'). I continue to have a VERY bad feeling regarding 'infiltration and subversion', 'poison-pills', and 'scorched-earth policies'. I continue to NOT know what we're REALLY dealing with -- and I am NOT in bed with anyone (other than my dog).

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viLtbgTJQzw&feature=related
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=I9Y9NGXxdAg&NR=1
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=B4oTrQgFYFI&NR=1
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=233EE1w83oc&NR=1&feature=endscreen
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7DlevKYUkE
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mM46lVVarg&playnext=1&list=PL532F3BC51B73B12D&feature=results_video
    7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bryEXPELAyg&feature=relmfu
    8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvjh48Wh7ig&feature=related
    9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFfadVSmIJQ&feature=related
    10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt59kxm2NTo (I used to love doing organ improvisations on 'Ash Grove'!!)
    11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQr_YBUnno
    12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ec2L98TiAq0&NR=1 (I like watching this video!!)
    13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK7JEYqIfw4&feature=related
    14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=540-2kPpvcA
    15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-MlHTgnA3o&feature=relmfu
    16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8mvjYdsyk&feature=related (Is Honesty the Best Policy??)
    17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0KIKFiygWY&feature=related
    18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKwCwBVjrj0&feature=related
    19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq8i69-L-Fs
    20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pny-Ily4SbE&feature=related
    21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdyTsD1QaQ
    22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Xkr8z3lEo&feature=related

    Shouldn't the most important decisions imaginable be made as if in the Very Presence of Almighty God??? Or would you rather decide the fate of the Solar System at the local McDonalds? Is there ANYONE in the Galaxy with whom I can discuss these matters in a detailed and ongoing manner??? ANYONE??? I get the distinct impression that NEITHER Humanity or Divinity wants what I'm hinting at in this thread. Will an Infiltrated and Subverted United States of the Solar System be used to further screw humanity for a thousand years -- prior to the final extermination of mankind??? Is this the Second Death??? If God be against us -- what chance do we have??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owUt2FajilU I have a VERY bad feeling about BOTH Divinity and Humanity -- but I SO hope that I'm wrong. I have never felt worse about our situation, than I feel right now. Perhaps listening to Sherry Shriner will calm me down. I certainly hope so. I tend to listen more closely to her description of the problems -- than I do to her recommended solutions. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/08/14/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner I'm going to request one more time that some of you use this thread as a study-guide. I'm a mess -- but I think this thread might be of significant value to the right researchers -- who are willing to give it their undivided attention. I have very little confidence in myself -- and I don't love myself -- even though that's what Robert Schuller said we should do. What I am going to do -- is get lost in documentaries. Is this finally over? I don't know.

    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. Once again, I am much more interested in the next best steps for humanity -- than I am interested in historical condemnation. BTW -- I'm doing an FOIA -- but I will NOT say anything more about it. I think that BOTH Divinity and Humanity hate me -- and I'm going to try NOT to say anything about anything. I've probably said way too much already. I'll need to see evidence of support from BOTH Divinity and Humanity -- before I climb any farther out on a VERY high and thin limb. Evidence of completely understanding this thread might be nice. Are there any Adults in this Galaxy??? (Just Kidding!) I keep getting the feeling that I've somehow been tricked and trapped. If this is the case -- I wish to reverse any foolish decisions or statements I might've made, at any time, or on any level. I sought to do the right thing for all-concerned -- but I smell a rat (or is it a snake?). Are we safe now??? No.

    What are the chances of reintroducing the Concorde?? What about using improved engines, materials, design, and manufacturing methods?? What about an American-British-French-German-Russian-Chinese-Japanese Cooperative Effort?? Just get along, and build the damn plane!!! Get 100 major airports to agree to at least a couple of Concorde take-offs per day!!! Then, paint 'The United States of the Solar System' on one of these new Concordes!!! But really, Mag-Lev Trains and Unconventional Spacecraft might make this project unnecessary. Still, I really liked the Concorde -- and I would love to see an international cooperative project of massive proportions. How about a Concorde Spacecraft??!! BTW -- in 'Contact' was S.R. Haddon's 'Jet' really a 'Spacecraft'?? Watch and listen carefully!! You'll see!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SbKE_U4b7U I keep getting the feeling that I have spoken with a real 'S.R. Haddon' for several years!! I might be a Completely Ignorant Fool in this incarnation -- but once upon a time, I think I might've been a helluva Engineer!! Nuff Said!!

    The following quote from 'Windswept House' (page 266) by Malachi Martin is interesting -- but fictional: "Tell me this, Father." The Pope seemed at ease again. "Would your discomfort prevent your sincere help to us in building the New Jerusalem? In building anew the Body of Our Savior? We are few. But Christ is the Master Builder. And"--the Pontiff smiled just a little now--"His Mother is in charge of operations." How might this quote relate to the subject of this thread ('Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System')??? Are we dealing with two Archangelic Queens of Heaven -- at war with each other -- with another Archangelic Queen of Heaven mediating between the two -- and in charge of operations on Planet Earth?? Or -- are we only dealing with TWO Archangelic Queens of Heaven?? I have no idea. Well, actually I do, but I'm into this thing WAY too deeply already -- and I'm frankly tired of sticking my neck out -- with very little response. On the other hand -- if I had been effective -- I'd probably be dead -- but that might not be so bad. Perhaps I should've eaten the dinner the Ancient Egyptian Deity gave me. Might that have been 'The Last Supper'?? We never met again (that I know of). Nuff said. This isn't fun -- and I'm done. Consider Psalm 118 (KJV):

    1 Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. 2 Let Israel now say, "His mercy endures forever." 3 Let the house of Aaron now say, "His mercy endures forever." 4 Let those who fear the Lord now say, "His mercy endures forever." 5 I called on the Lord in distress; The Lord answered me and set me in a broad place. 6 The Lord is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me? 7 The Lord is for me among those who help me; Therefore I shall see my desire on those who hate me. 8 It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in man. 9 It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in princes. 10 All nations surrounded me, But in the name of the Lord I will destroy them. 11 They surrounded me, Yes, they surrounded me; But in the name of the Lord I will destroy them. 12 They surrounded me like bees; They were quenched like a fire of thorns; For in the name of the Lord I will destroy them. 13 You pushed me violently, that I might fall, But the Lord helped me. 14 The Lord is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation. 15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation Is in the tents of the righteous; The right hand of the Lord does valiantly. 16 The right hand of the Lord is exalted; The right hand of the Lord does valiantly. 17 I shall not die, but live, And declare the works of the Lord. 18 The Lord has chastened me severely, But He has not given me over to death. 19 Open to me the gates of righteousness; I will go through them, And I will praise the Lord. 20 This is the gate of the Lord, Through which the righteous shall enter. 21 I will praise You, For You have answered me, And have become my salvation. 22 The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. 23 This was the Lord's doing; It is marvelous in our eyes. 24 This is the day the Lord has made; We will rejoice and be glad in it. 25 Save now, I pray, O Lord; O Lord, I pray, send now prosperity. 26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! We have blessed you from the house of the Lord. 27 God is the Lord, And He has given us light; Bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar. 28 You are my God, and I will praise You; You are my God, I will exalt You. 29 Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever.

    I still think that we know very little about what's REALLY going on in the Solar System, Galaxy, and Universe. There are an infinite number of possibilities -- with huge challenges regarding proof and verification. I've been wondering if we really live in a rather hostile and nasty universe -- and if Earth is the wild, wild west -- with innovations in physicality, behavior, and governance -- which the rest of the universe considers to be rebellion and heresy??!! I get the picture of a VERY advanced ET Civilization in North Africa in antiquity (and presently??!!) which genetically engineered human physicality -- and got into a helluva lot of trouble for doing so. Then, it seems that the Hebrews jumped out of the frying-pan and into the fire -- by following a New God into the desert -- after being promised the Promised-Land -- as God's Chosen People. I'm seeing nasty factional fighting throughout history -- between Mighty Gods (who were not Almighty -- and certainly not pure and ethical by any current high-road ethical standards). I'm not judgemental in all of this -- but I certainly wish for things to dramatically improve -- at least within this particular solar system. It really wouldn't surprise me if (on a reincarnational basis) the rabbit-hole really does mostly go right up my @$$. This deeply frightens me. Once again, there is an aspect of the Thuban stuff that is attractive -- but I lean toward Christocentric-Egyptology, Jesus-Studies, and Astronomy -- all mixed together. However, at some point, I think I should completely read through that old Thuban Q&A on the old Project Avalon site. It tweaks my brain -- and makes me think about things in a new way (but not necessarily a good way). BTW -- what if all of us were Draconian Reptilians in antiquity??!! What if some of us became Humans (with Reptilian Souls)??!! What if the Reptilian God declared WAR on the New Humans??!! That would make "God" seem like "Satan" to the Humans -- wouldn't it??!! The Human Leader would be their "God" -- but certainly not the God of the Universe -- and probably relatively powerless compared to the Traditional Reptilian God. Does the Universe need to be governed by Absolute Power (on the part of God) -- with Absolute and Unquestioning Obedience (on the part of Everyone Else)??!! Can Responsible-Freedom be introduced into this equation -- without destroying Law and Order in the Universe??!!

    Once again, my 'Reptilian-Talk' is mostly speculative -- and it should probably be referred to as 'Other-Than-Human Possibilities'. I have no first-hand experience in this area of conjecture -- and I have no insider contacts -- although I think I have previously spoken with insiders (who were quite restrained). The subject of Pre-Human and Other-Than-Human Civilizations should NOT be ignored. The internet is forcing us to deal with subjects which have previously been hidden and forbidden. I generally assume that anyone who is anyone -- has been compromised in some way, shape, or form. I don't even trust myself. I feel VERY supernaturally attacked -- and I have no idea how badly I have been compromised by nefarious entities from the nether realms. BTW -- I will try to keep-up with this website -- but I'm going to try really hard to cut WAY back on my posting. This game is scaring the hell out of me -- and I think I need a change of scenery. I think I see the Nature of the Problems -- and I am fearful regarding what part I might've played in all of this. I think I need to stop this mental and spiritual torture -- and do something else -- at least for a while. What bothers me about the whole "God, Satan, Lucifer, Jesus, Angels, Demons, Heaven, Hell" thing -- is that so much of it is so obscure and mysterious -- leaving believers and unbelievers with very little of REAL substance to work with. I have been reduced to writing Pseudo-Intellectual Political and Theological Science-Fiction -- which is VERY unsatisfying and problematic.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    magamud wrote:Ortho,
    God is everywhere and part of his plan is to collapse the universe upon his workings in Eden.  This is the local solar systems destiny and anyone or anything working with our sphere will be subject to this.  Therefore everything flows from this wisdom, to all evil and all good. This is the foundations of consciousness. So what will concentrating on the Drama of another species bring you? Gods gift to us during this Grand plan is to only acknowledge his presence and ask for his help...
    How do you know this?? Have you Physically Observed God?? Have you spoken with God -- Face to Face?? You use mysterious language -- which supports what I previously said regarding obscurity and mystery. If we are the Children of Another Species -- or the Children of the Gods -- this might be of some importance to us -- regarding who we are -- where we came from -- and where we might be going. This might even be the Key to Understanding the Holy Bible. Who knows??
    magamud wrote:
    -"His Mother is in charge of operations."
    The hidden father is the creator.  His love manifests with his son in flesh and blood.  This is a straight line.  This is what Jesus is talking about that you have to go through him.
    You must put your faith into this and use this as prior.  Everything comes from this architecture..

    is that so much of it is so obscure and mysterious -
    I don't see this at all.  I see the evidence around everywhere.  Consider this saying.

    113. His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
    "It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

    For His mercy endures forever.
    As it would since everything flows from God...:)  
    magamud wrote:Ortho the evidence is everywhere, but man cannot see it.  This is because it comes in the matter of portends or in other words a completely different paradigm.
    The universe has slipped through mans perception because man has chosen to worship other gods.  Our science and senses have been fooled.
    Our narcissism is so great we have created our own self creating matrix to separate us from the Truth.

    I have physically observed God but not in its fullness, I have spoken to god but not in its fullness.  This mystery you speak of is the process of Faith and following his whispers.  His whispers become words and his portends become physicalized.  

    I am not being vague or obscure on purpose, I am trying to connect as best as I can...
    I don't like what I've been doing on this website -- but what options exist for getting at the REAL truth of the matter??? I have to consider various possibilities -- in a somewhat irreverent manner. I feel as if I am attacked by BOTH Divinity and Humanity when I 'do theology' in such a provoking and blasphemous manner -- yet isn't it necessary to consider all of the possibilities before arriving at any conclusions in this matter?? I am quite drained and upset about this presently. This all seems like a no-win activity. It almost seems as if confusion and fighting are thrust upon us -- and that those who seek lasting and happy solutions are not welcome or appreciated. I've been requesting a detailed critique of the totality of my internet posting -- for several years now -- with zero results. I have not represented my work as being anything more than Pseudo-Intellectual Political and Theological Science-Fiction --  Which MIGHT Reflect Certain Aspects of Hidden Reality. I have been asking 'What is Truth?' in a very unorthodox manner -- as an orthodoxymoron. I am NOT an atheist or an agnostic -- but I am a VERY unorthodox believer -- often in a highly irreverent manner. I am presently modeling a particular 'God-Hypothesis' -- which I don't necessarily believe in. It's a nasty job -- but someone has to do it. Unfortunately, the salvation of my immortal soul hangs in the balance. Hey, wait a minute, I'm a backslidden SDA -- and we don't believe in the immortality of the soul. Most of us don't, anyway. I'm presently sensing that dealing with God might be highly problematic -- for legion reasons. The True-Believers and Hardened-Atheists will NEVER properly deal with this subject. It's those of us who thrash-about between faith and doubt -- who will probably make some of the greatest theological breakthroughs -- as we beat-upon the rocks of infidelity. Now, should I leave this solar system for all eternity?? Would THAT make all of you happy?? The 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' asked me if I would travel in a UFO?! I was non-committal at the time -- but who knows?? One more question, before I go:

    Is the Universe Governed by Responsibility-Based Righteous-Ethics -- by Absolute-Power, Might, Loyalty, Tradition, and Absolute-Obedience -- All of the Above -- Or Some Other Possibility??

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Conference
    2. http://www.lambethconference.org/index.cfm
    3. http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/lambeth-conference.html
    4. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/Lambeth1998/lambeth.html
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCJ1G_3WPjw
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4aanpsx6Q&feature=related
    7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2r68MDj5xs&feature=related
    8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Ma-AodQ9I
    9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S20ZUcXh5v0&NR=1&feature=endscreen
    10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQaEV303mgs&feature=relmfu
    11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNtDI1LY6So&feature=relmfu
    12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U0kHELoHds&feature=relmfu
    13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHAkJLUHxmE&feature=relmfu
    14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNiu4PDGBSw&feature=related
    15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1RUZHT3YK8&feature=relmfu
    16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpB3e5MsFM&feature=related
    17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdsbsmCaRy8&feature=related
    18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCJ-qOO6Y4w&feature=related
    19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq1aq8iaN5k
    20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ilzX89q_ew&feature=related
    21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEkqFNXLXXs
    22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkUJTPQ_FSk&feature=related
    23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmQic5E0v7w&feature=related
    24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWCRliG4Rg&feature=related

    The Lambeth Conferences are decennial assemblies of bishops of the Anglican Communion convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first such conference took place in 1867.

    As the Anglican Communion is an international association of autonomous national and regional churches and not a governing body, Lambeth Conferences serve a collaborative and consultative function, expressing "the mind of the communion" on issues of the day. Resolutions which a Lambeth Conference may pass are without legal effect, but they are nonetheless influential.

    These conferences form one of the communion's four "Instruments of Communion".

    Origins

    The idea of these meetings was first suggested in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury by Bishop John Henry Hopkins of Vermont in 1851, but the immediate impulse came from the colonial Church in Canada. In 1865 the synod of that province, in an urgent letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Longley), represented the unsettlement of members of the Canadian Church caused by recent legal decisions of the Privy Council, and their alarm lest the revived action of Convocation "should leave us governed by canons different from those in force in England and Ireland, and thus cause us to drift into the status of an independent branch of the Catholic Church".;[1] However, the possibility of such an international gathering of bishops had first emerged during the Jubilee of the Church Missionary Society in 1851 when a number of US bishops were present in London.[2]

    They therefore requested him to call a "national synod of the bishops of the Anglican Church at home and abroad",[3] to meet under his leadership. After consulting both houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, Archbishop Longley assented, and convened all the bishops of the Anglican Communion (then 144 in number) to meet at Lambeth in 1867.

    Many Anglican bishops (amongst them the Archbishop of York and most of his suffragans) felt so doubtful as to the wisdom of such an assembly that they refused to attend it, and Dean Stanley declined to allow Westminster Abbey to be used for the closing service, giving as his reasons the partial character of the assembly, uncertainty as to the effect of its measures and "the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church".[4]

    Archbishop Longley said in his opening address, however, that they had no desire to assume "the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England", but merely to "discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action".[5]

    The resolutions of the Lambeth Conferences have never been regarded as synodical decrees, but their weight has increased with each conference.

    Seventy-six bishops accepted the primate’s invitation to the first conference, which met at Lambeth on 24 September 1867 and sat for four days, the sessions being in private. The archbishop opened the conference with an address: deliberation followed; committees were appointed to report on special questions; resolutions were adopted, and an encyclical letter was addressed to the faithful of the Anglican Communion. Each of the subsequent conferences has been first received in Canterbury Cathedral and addressed by the archbishop from the chair of St. Augustine.

    From the Second Conference, they have then met at Lambeth Palace, and after sitting for five days for deliberation upon the fixed subjects and appointment of committees, have adjourned, to meet again at the end of a fortnight and sit for five days more, to receive reports, adopt resolutions and to issue their encyclical letter.

    From 1978 onwards the conference has been held on the Canterbury campus of the University of Kent allowing the bishops to live and worship together on the same site for the first time. In 1978 the bishops spouses were accommodated at the nearby St Edmund's School (an Anglican private school); this separation of spouses was not felt helpful, indeed, the wife of Archbishop Desmond Tutu was famously observed climbing in through the window of her husband's room to visit him. Since 1988 the spouses have also lived at the university.

    Conferences

    First: 1867

    The first Lambeth Conference was presided over by: Charles Thomas Longley -- with 76 bishops present. The Conference began with a celebration of the Holy Communion at which Whitehouse of Illinois preached; Wilberforce of Oxford later described the sermon as 'wordy but not devoid of a certain impressiveness'. The first session convened in the upstairs Dining Room (known as the Guard Room); the remainder of the first day was spent debating the Preface to the Address which was intended to be issued after the conference. The second day was spent on a discussion of synodical authority concluding that the faith and unity of the Anglican Communion would be best maintained by there being a synod above those of the 'several branches'. Day 3 was given over to discussing the situation in the Diocese of Natal and its controversial bishop Colenso. Longley refused to accept a condemnatory resolution proposed by Hopkins, Presiding Bishop of the Americans, but they later voted to note 'the hurt done to the whole communion by the state of the church in Natal'. Of the 13 resolutions adopted by the conference, 2 have direct reference to the Natal situation. Day 4 saw the formal signing of the Address. There had been no plan for further debate but the bishops unexpectedly returned to the subject of Colenso, delaying the end of the conference. Other resolutions have to do with the creation of new sees and missionary jurisdictions, Commendatory Letters, and a voluntary spiritual tribunal in cases of doctrine and the due subordination of synods. It was agreed that the reports of the committees would be received at a final meeting on December 10 by those bishops still in England. On the final day, the bishops attended Holy Communion at Lambeth Parish Church at which Longley presided; Fulford of Montreal, one of the instigators of the original request, preached. No one session of the conference had all the bishops attending although all signed the Address and Longley was authorised to add the names of absent bishops who later subscribed to it. Attending bishops included 18 English, 5 Irish, 6 Scots, 19 American and 24 'Colonial'. The Latin and Greek texts of the Encyclical - as it rapidly became known - were produced by Wordsworth of Lincoln.

    Second: 1878
    Presided over by: Archibald Campbell Tait
    100 bishops present

    Tait was a friend of Colenso and shared Dean Stanley's Erastian views (that the conference should not have been called without some royal authority) but when the Canadians again requested a Conference in 1872, he concurred. The American bishops suggested a further conference in 1874, Kerfoot of Pittsburgh delivering the request in person. Importantly, the Convocation of the Province of York had changed its position and now supported the Conference idea. 108 of the 173 bishops accepted the invitation, although the actual attendance was a little smaller. The first gathering was in Canterbury Cathedral on St. Peter's Day, 29 June. The bishops then moved Lambeth for the First Session on 2 July, after Holy Communion at which Tait presided and Thomson of York preached, the bishops gathered in the Library. One half day was assigned to each of the six main agenda areas. The reports of the special committees (based in part upon those of the committee of 1867) were embodied in the encyclical letter, which described the best mode of maintaining union, voluntary boards of arbitration, the relationship between missionary bishops and missionaries (a particular problem in India), chaplains in continental Europe, modern forms of infidelity and the best way of dealing with them and the condition, progress and needs of the churches. A final service of thanksgiving took place in St. Paul's Cathedral on 27 July. Attending bishops included 35 English, 9 Irish, 7 Scots, 19 American and 30 'Colonial and Missionary'. One Bishop Suffragan and a number of former colonial bishops with commissions in England also attended as full members. The costs of the conference were met by the English bishops and a programme of excursions was organised by J. G. Talbot, M.P. The Latin and Greek texts of the Encyclical were again produced by Wordsworth of Lincoln.

    Third: 1888
    Presided over by: Edward White Benson
    145 bishops present

    The agenda of this conference was noticeable for its attention to matters beyond the internal organisation of the Anglican Communion and its attempts to engage with some of the major social issues that the member churches were encountering. In addition to the encyclical letter, nineteen resolutions were put forth, and the reports of twelve special committees are appended upon which they are based, the subjects being intemperance, purity, divorce, polygamy, observance of Sunday, socialism, care of emigrants, mutual relations of dioceses of the Anglican Communion, home reunion, Scandinavian Church, Old Catholics, etc., Eastern Churches, standards of doctrine and worship. Importantly, this was the first conference to make use of the "Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral" as a basis for Anglican self-description. The Quadrilateral laid down a fourfold basis for home reunion: that agreement should be sought concerning the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, the two sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate.

    Fourth: 1897
    Presided over by: Frederick Temple (having been convened by Archbishop Benson)
    194 bishops present

    This conference was held a year early because of the thirteenth centennial celebrations of St. Augustine's arrival in Kent. The first event was a visit by the bishops to the Augustine monument at Ebbsfleet. A special train was run by the South Eastern Railway that stopped at Canterbury to collect the cathedral clergy and choir. A temporary platform was built at Ebbsfleet for first class passengers; second class passengers had to alight at Minster-in-Thanet and walk the remaining 2.3 miles. After an act of worship the party retrained and proceeded to Richborough to visit the Roman remains and take tea. There is no station at Richborough, perhaps a second temporary one was created. The bishops then travelled back to Canterbury to be ready for the opening service of the conference on the following day. The arrangements did not go well and the Dean of Canterbury complained of 'the appalling mismanagement by the railway authorities'.[6]

    One of the chief subjects for consideration was the creation of a tribunal of reference, but the resolutions on this subject were withdrawn due to opposition of the bishops of the Episcopal Church in the USA, and a more general resolution in favour of a "consultative body" was substituted. The encyclical letter is accompanied by sixty-three resolutions (which include careful provision for provincial organisation and the extension of the title archbishop "to all metropolitans, a thankful recognition of the revival of brotherhoods and sisterhoods, and of the office of deaconess," and a desire to promote friendly relations with the Eastern Churches and the various Old Catholic bodies), and the reports of the eleven committees are subjoined.

    Davidson chafed under the arrangements for the conference in which he had played no part and detirmined to write the final Encyclical himself. There were a number of unfortunate phrases in his draft to which many bishops objected but he refused to accept amendments on the day of its presentation. However, he reconsidered overnight and announced the following morning that he had changed the draft as requested. A bishop who rose to thank to express gratitude for his change of mind was rebuked with the words, 'Sir you may thank me all you wish, but you must thank me in silence'.[7]

    Fifth: 1908
    Presided over by: Randall Davidson
    242 bishops present

    The chief subjects of discussion were: the relations of faith and modern thought, the supply and training of the clergy, education, foreign missions, revision and "enrichment" of the Book of Common Prayer, the relation of the Church to "ministries of healing" (Christian Science, etc.), the questions of marriage and divorce, organisation of the Anglican Church, and reunion with other Churches. The results of the deliberations were embodied in seventy-eight resolutions, which were appended to the encyclical issued, in the name of the conference, by the Archbishop of Canterbury on August 8.

    Sixth: 1920
    Presided over by: Randall Davidson
    252 bishops present

    Rejected Christian Science, spiritualism, and theosophy. Supported political lobbying against "such incentives to vice as indecent literature, suggestive plays and films, the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels." Affirmed the place of women as lay members of synods.

    The single most important action of this conference was to issue the "Appeal to all Christian People", which set out the basis on which Anglican churches would move towards visible union with churches of other traditions. The document repeated a slightly modified version of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and then called on other Christians to accept it as a basis on which to discuss how they may move toward reunion. Interestingly, this proposal did not arise from the formal debates of the conference but amongst a group of bishops chatting over tea on the lawn of Lambeth Palace.

    The conference's uncompromising and unqualified rejection of all forms of artificial contraception, even within marriage, was contained in Resolution 68, which said, in part:

    We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. [8]

    Seventh: 1930

    This section requires expansion. (April 2011)

    Presided over by: Cosmo Gordon Lang
    307 bishops attend

    Stressed abstinence and approved the use of birth control in limited circumstances, but did not specify contraceptives. Rejected war as a means of settling international disputes. Declared induced abortion "abhorrent". Opposed racial segregation in churches.

    Eighth: 1948
    Presided over by: Geoffrey Fisher
    349 bishops attend

    Advised that the ordination of Florence Li Tim-Oi "would be against the tradition and order...of the Anglican Communion" and dismissed the need for further examination of women's ordination. Welcomed full communion between the Anglican and Old Catholic churches. Affirmed that "discrimination between men on the grounds of race alone is inconsistent with the principles of Christ's religion".

    Ninth: 1958
    Presided over by: Geoffrey Fisher
    310 bishops attend

    Called for respect for the "consciences" of married couples who use birth control. Recommended considering the renewal of the permanent diaconate.

    Tenth: 1968
    Presided over by Michael Ramsey who famously dozed off during at least one debate.
    462 bishops attended

    This was the first conference not to take place in Lambeth Palace. This was because of the increase in the number of bishops attending, as well as the presence of almost 100 observers and consultants. Meetings were instead held at Church House, Westminster although the bishops, with their spouses, were invited to dinner at Lambeth by rotation.

    Recommended the ordination of women to the diaconate and the recognition of previously-appointed "deaconesses" as deacons. Found the arguments for and against women in the priesthood "inconclusive". Suggested that assent to the Thirty-Nine Articles no longer be required of clergy. Endorsed open communion.

    Eleventh: 1978
    Presided over by Donald Coggan
    440 bishops attended.[9]

    This conference "recognised the autonomy of each of its member churches...legal right of each Church to make its own decision" about women priests. It also denounced the use of capital punishment and called for a common lectionary.

    This was the first conference to be held on the campus of the University of Kent at Canterbury where every subsequent conference has been held.

    This is sometimes said[who?] to be the first conference at which some assistant bishops were invited to attend,[10] although the record shows that this is not the case.

    Twelfth: 1988
    Presided over by Robert Runcie
    518 bishops present

    The conference dealt with the question of the inter-relations of Anglican international bodies and issues such as marriage and family, human rights, poverty and debt, environment, militarism, justice and peace. The conference decided that "each province respect the decision of other provinces in the ordination or consecration of women to the episcopate."

    At previous Lambeth Conferences, only bishops were invited to attend, but all members of the Anglican Consultative Council and representative bishops from the "Churches in Communion" (i.e. the Churches of Bangladesh, North and South India and Pakistan) were invited to attend.[11]

    Thirteenth: 1998
    Presided over by: George Carey
    749 bishops present including, for the first time, 11 women bishops

    The most hotly debated issue at this conference was homosexuality in the Anglican Communion. It was finally decided, by a vote of 526-70, to pass a resolution (1.10) calling for a "listening process" but stating (in a section passed by a much smaller majority on a separate vote) that "homosexual practice" (not necessarily orientation) is "incompatible with Scripture".[12] A subsequent public apology was issued to gay and lesbian Anglicans in a "Pastoral Statement" from 182 bishops worldwide, including eight primates (those of Brazil, Canada, Central Africa, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales).[13] Division and controversy centred on this motion and its application continued to the extent that, ten years later, in 2007, Giles Goddard of Inclusive Church suggested in published correspondence with Andrew Goddard across the liberal-evangelical divide: "It's possible to construct a perfectly coherent argument that the last 10 years have been preoccupied with undoing the damage Lambeth 1.10 caused to the Communion."[14]

    A controversial incident occurred during the conference when Bishop Emmanuel Chukwuma of Enugu, Nigeria attempted to exorcise the "homosexual demons" from the Reverend Richard Kirker, leader of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, who was passing out leaflets. Chukwuma told Kirker that he was "killing the church"; Kirker's civil response to the attempted exorcism was "May God bless you, sir, and deliver you from your prejudice against homosexuality."[15][16][17]

    Discussions about a mission to fight poverty, create jobs and transform lives by empowering the poor in developing countries using innovative savings and microcredit programs, business training and spiritual development led to the formation of Five Talents. [18]

    Fourteenth: 2008
    Presided over by Rowan Williams
    Over 650 bishops present[19]

    The fourteenth conference took place from 16 July to 4 August 2008 at the University of Kent's Canterbury campus. In March 2006 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, issued a pastoral letter[20] to the 38 primates of the Anglican Communion and moderators of the united churches setting out his thinking for the next Lambeth Conference.

    Williams indicated that the emphasis will be on training, "for really effective, truthful and prayerful mission". He ruled out (for the time being) reopening of the controversial resolution 1.10 on human sexuality from the previous Lambeth Conference, but emphasised the "listening process" in which diverse views and experiences of human sexuality were being collected and collated in accordance with that resolution and said it "will be important to allow time for this to be presented and reflected upon in 2008".

    Williams indicated that the traditional plenary sessions and resolutions would be reduced and that "We shall be looking at a bigger number of more focused groups, some of which may bring bishops and spouses together."

    Attendance at the Lambeth Conference is by invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Invitations were sent to more than 880 bishops around the world for the Fourteenth Conference. Notably absent from the list of those invited are Gene Robinson and Martyn Minns. Robinson was the first Anglican bishop to exercise the office while in an acknowledged same-sex relationship. Minns, the former rector of Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax, Virginia, is the head of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, a splinter group of American Anglicans; the Church of Nigeria considers him a missionary bishop to the United States, despite protest from Canterbury and the U.S. Episcopal Church.

    In 2008, the seven martyred members of the Melanesian Brotherhood were honoured during the concluding Eucharist of the 2008 conference at Canterbury Cathedral. Their names were added to the book of contemporary martyrs and placed, along with an icon, on the altar of the "Chapel of the Saints and Martyrs of Our Times". When the Eucharist was over, bishops and others came to pray in front of the small altar in the chapel.[21] The icon stands in the cathedral as a reminder of their witness to peace and of the multi-ethnic character of global Anglicanism.[22]

    Opposition

    In 2008, four Anglican primates announced that they intended to boycott the Lambeth conference because of their opposition to the actions of Episcopal Church in the USA (the American branch of the Anglican church) in favour of homosexual clergy and same-sex unions.[23][24] These primates represent the Anglican provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda. In addition, Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia and Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, among others announced their intentions not to attend.

    The Global Anglican Future Conference, a meeting of conservative bishops held in Jerusalem in June 2008 (one month prior to Lambeth), was thought by some to be an "alternative Lambeth" for those who are opposed to the consecration of Robinson.[25] GAFCON involved Martyn Minns, Akinola and other dissenters who consider themselves to be in a state of impaired communion with Lambeth, ECUSA and Canterbury.[26] The June 2008 church blessing of Peter Cowell, an Anglican chaplain at The Royal London Hospital and priest at Westminster Abbey, and David Lord, an Anglican priest serving at a parish in Waikato, New Zealand, renewed the debate one month prior to the conference. The Reverend Martin Dudley who officiated at the ceremony at St Bartholomew-the-Great maintained that the ceremony was a "blessing" rather than a matrimonial ceremony.[27]

    References

    1.^ Davidson, R.T., (1920)Five Lambeth Conferences, The London SPCK, p. 3
    2.^ Morgan, D. (1967, revised edition) Bishops Come to Lambeth, The; London, Mowbrays; p.49
    3.^ Davidson, op cit p.3
    4.^ Davidson, op cit.,p.12
    5.^ Davidson, op cit.,p.8
    6.^ The Times, July 3, 1897; issue 35246
    7.^ Stephenson, A.M.G. (1978) London SPCK;p.108
    8.^ "Resolution 68 – Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality". Lambeth Conference Archives. 1920. Retrieved 2008-07-21.
    9.^ The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1997 Edition, Volume 7: p120.
    10.^ http://forums.anglicanjournal.com/timelines/lambeth/
    11.^ "FACTBOX-What is the Lambeth Conference?". Reuters. 2008-07-21.
    12.^ "Lambeth Conference 1998: Resolution 1.10 Human Sexuality". Retrieved 2008-07-03.
    13.^ "A Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans". Retrieved 2008-07-03.
    14.^ "Giles to Andrew". Retrieved 2008-07-03.
    15.^ Kirkpatrick, Frank G. (2008). The Episcopal Church in crisis: how sex, the Bible, and authority are dividing the faithful. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-313-34662-0.
    16.^ Bates, Stephen (2004). A church at war: Anglicans and homosexuality. I.B. Tauris. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-85043-480-1.
    17.^ Harries, Richard; Michael W. Brierley (2006). Public life and the place of the church: reflections to honour the Bishop of Oxford. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-7546-5301-1.
    18.^ "Archbishop Supports the Work of the Microfinance Charity Five Talents and the Role of the Church in Grassroots Development". Retrieved 2009-12-27.
    19.^ http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1889
    20.^ "Archbishop Sets Out Thinking on Lambeth Conference 2008". Lambeth Palace.
    21.^ "Lambeth bishops attend closing Eucharist; Martyred Melanesian brothers honored in Canterbury Cathedral". Episcopal Church. 2008-08-03. Retrieved 2009-12-03.
    22.^ "The Gathering". Canterbury Diocese. 2009-09-04. Retrieved 2009-12-03.[dead link]
    23.^ "GAFCON Response to Evangelical English Bishops". Anglican Church of Nigeria.
    24.^ Matthew Davies (2008-02-15). "Five primates announce Lambeth Conference boycott". Episcopal Church.
    25.^ Mark Hadley. "FutureAnglicans unite".
    26.^ "GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE CONFERENCE IN HOLY LAND ANNOUNCED BY ORTHODOX PRIMATES". GAFCON. 2007-12-24.
    27.^ Stated by Dudley in his article published by the New Statesman, 17 June 2008.
    Archbishop R.T. Davidson, The Lambeth Conferences of 1867, 1878 and 1888 (London, 1896)
    Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion, Encyclical Letter, etc. (London, 1897 and 1908).
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:43 pm

    Aquaries1111 wrote:Oxy wrote: The bottom-line of all of this madness is to 1. Determine who the major players have been in this solar system going back thousands of years. 2. Determine the governmental systems in this solar system going back thousands of years. 3. Determine the true history of the human race and this solar system. 4. To establish the best possible governmental system in this solar system - with the best long-term chances of facilitating responsible freedom.

    I'd like to know the true history of the human race and this solar system too.. Far too much has been held from us.. It's time we all found now our own "direct connection back to source".. This is the only way I believe... We are not going to make it on this planet without our "direct connection in knowing" becoming restored.. and we have to want this sooooo bad that we know we can't make it on this planet without it.. Who is tired of "second hand news" when we can have "first hand news"..

    I knew instinctively as a small child that the Egyptians did not build those pyramids with sweat equity and blood.. I just knew there was more to it than hands and hard work.. It's obvious some technology of sorts was used.. What else did we know instinctively without "being told"? What else can we know "instinctively" without hearing it as "second hand news"?  It's time for first hand answers!  and how many "true" intuitive seers have you met that can "see your life path" before you yourself can see or know.. I am "demanding" now a direct link to Source.. no more "second hand news"...
    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


    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=cW_rIdd69W8
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX0PHt1HDQI

    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

    Aquaries1111 wrote: 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...
    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.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Cleopatra_03000240
    Aquaries1111 wrote: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
    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???
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Jews_with_torah
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:15 pm

    Aquaries1111 wrote: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..

    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.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 1117.1388.image.eng
    Aquaries1111 wrote: 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.

    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???

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:19 pm

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

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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.




    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Fatesswan
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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."


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 LaetoliafarThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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 The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Icon_studyThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 543611The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 139717
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:50 pm

    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!

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 2735753857_ecfbb7be7c
    "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.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 IndianaJones_BG_Medium
    Aquaries1111 wrote:
    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 The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 V-serie-tv-02-gThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 V3The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:10 pm

    Aquaries1111 wrote:The Seven Laws Governing Human Life - The Septenaries - Manly P. Hall

    The number 7 and laws governing human life.



    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 Please watch "The Road to Wellville"!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLUPJR6wz-I 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). 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

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 3230619
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 BMW_motorcycleThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 5489422970_029d988182_zThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 CrystalCathedralThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:13 pm

    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 : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:16 pm

    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]
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:20 pm

    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 : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:26 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 ..."

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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.


    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).

    Still, I think it would be cool to have some sort of a card, which would enable one to travel anywhere in the solar system, and have access to any locations and individuals (human and otherwise) -- traveling on 'regular' military or government transportation (including maglev trains and unconventional spacecraft). Access would be part of 'regular' military, governmental, or scientific functions. Lodging and Dining would be military cafeterias, social function dinners, etc. My point is, this would be a minimalistic 'no big deal' sort of thing. That 400-600 square-foot office-apartment (with a Cray!) might serve as a 'home-base'. It would be cool if it were in an exotic-location -- but this wouldn't be essential. I would like to think that if one had great wealth -- that they would live simply -- and use their money for compassionate purposes. I hope that I would practice what I preach if presented with such a situation (by work, luck, inheritance, etc.). Some sort of a charitable-foundation or trust might be a reasonable modality for having wealth without living 'high on the hog'. I suspect that most anything gets old -- once the novelty wears off -- and I further suspect that what I've conceptualized within this paragraph would be no exception. I guess I sometimes imagine myself in a future incarnation as being sort of a Palmer Joss or Chad Decker -- shadowing a Benevolent Anna through the solar system -- and then writing daily reports (which might be taken somewhat seriously). Do you see my point??? I didn't think so.

    All of the above would be cool if things were cool in the solar system (and beyond) -- but if we have been in a state of war (possibly for thousands of years) -- with no end in sight -- my 'dream-job' might turn out to be a 'nightmare' overnight. I think things ARE really bad -- and that they might be such for a VERY long time. I guess this is a major reason why I'm shutting this thread down -- and going completely underground. I am VERY uncomfortable with my ideas and speculations. I am quite patient and understanding -- but I doubt that the general public will keep their cool -- if and when things heat up. I wish to solve existing problems -- rather than creating new ones. I've only constructed this thread because of the madness which exists in plain-sight throughout the world. This thread has been sort of like a 'back-fire' created while fighting a forest-fire. Sometimes it takes fire to fight fire. Sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief. Sometimes it takes a Completely Ignorant Fool to (you get the point)...

    Are we dealing with Little White Nazis v Black Anunnaki Giants?? Once again, I get the sinking-feeling that the Major-Factions are NOT Nice. I get the sinking-feeling that this might be so because the Universe is NOT Nice. Like I said, there's a reason why I'm going silent. I encountered someone with a shirt depicting a handgun -- with the message "Six Reasons to Shut the F**k Up". I told them I liked their shirt -- but they remained silent and poker-faced -- which made me wonder if they were sending me a message. I know I'm paranoid -- but Siriusly -- can you imagine the contents of this thread being discussed out in the open (even a couple of decades ago)??!! I have to think that a significant PTB Faction wants at least some of the general-public to start thinking about this sort of thing. The secret is knowing when to stop. They have ways to make us stop. Many ways...

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Normal_sg1_101_0007
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 811_042
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Stargate-SG-1-Colonel-Frank-Simmons-5-Fifth-Man
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 2643251456_36e6a59c05
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Stargate.SG-1.Continuum
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 101_039
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Sg1_foothold
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 416_097
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 112_033
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Stargate---Thor
    "Mankind has GREAT Potential and MUCH to Prove."
    magamud
    magamud


    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  magamud Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:50 pm

    Since we have fallen Jesus knew when he made the second covenant it would fracture and destroy Satans Dream over time. He is warning us. This im sure can translate into basic physics. He also further reminds us that if you fight the system they will give you up to Judges and take everything from you.

    He tells you to buy a sword to protect yourself in these times. Im sure this was not easy for Jesus to do as he mentions I wish it was kindled already. Another reason he mentions he comes Quickly and that the Father spares us in the end times by making them shorter.
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:22 pm

    Eartheart wrote: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!

    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!

                                                                   The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 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

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

    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!!


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Xtreme%20Jesus
    WWJD??
    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.

    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

    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.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Think-Tank-No-background
    SuiGeneris wrote:
    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
    Thank-you Sui Generis. I think I witnessed some sort of a spaceship being destroyed by a group of UFO's right after that particular post. Then the Q&A  and the original Project Avalon site were shut down -- after everyone seemed to go nuts -- even including reports of supernatural attacks. Then, Project Avalon seemed to get infiltrated and subverted -- including the breakup of Bill and Kerry. Then, Anchor dropped under the radar. Then, I had a several month long contact with someone claiming to be an 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' which seemed to have something to do with my internet posting in general, and that Q&A post in particular. There seemed to be a problematic relationship between this individual and myself -- although we were both quite polite toward each other. I recently was told (in a round about way) that I didn't want to know about the true state of the solar system -- especially regarding treaties and covenants at the highest levels. I keep suspecting a VERY problematic Universe-Wide state of affairs. I continue to lean toward the Teachings Attributed to Jesus -- but my Universe-View is very unorthodox and upsetting to the nth degree. I desire the best for humanity -- yet I wonder how bad humanity has been (and is presently). I worry about ancient genocide and stolen technology. I worry about Star Wars -- ancient and modern. 95% of the questions I've asked -- remain unanswered. I've mostly been talking to myself. I seem to just be digging a deeper and deeper grave for myself.

    I worry that a United States of the Solar System might unleash unimaginable horrors -- even though it is idealistic and well-intentioned. I get the distinct impression that there is a very nasty power struggle throughout the universe -- and whoever is in charge of this solar system does NOT wish to be exposed and deposed. Perhaps a bad and sinister solar system administrator is the only thing standing between humanity and some REALLY bad@$$ ET's. How are we supposed to know??? For purposes of simplicity -- I am assuming a Lone Earth Humanity surrounded by a Universe of Draconian Reptilians (under the theocratic rule of a Reptilian Queen). This might be utter BS -- but how are we to determine the true state of affairs??? I wish to be open to conversation with just about anyone or anything -- but I do NOT wish to become demon-possessed, soul-scalped, chip-implanted, mind-controlled, hopelessly-deluded, criminally-insane, etc, etc, etc. I simply wish to help solve problems in this sector of the galaxy. What if:

    Osiris = God of an Ancient, Traditional, and Theocratic Draconian Reptilian Universe (Hostile Toward Humanity)??

    Isis = Renegade and Deposed Creator of Male and Female Human Physicality -- and Author of the Teachings of Jesus (in their full, original, and uncorrupted form)??

    Ra = Opportunistic Tall, Long-Nosed Grey Solar System Administrator aka the God of the Old Testament aka the God of This World -- Tasked with Punishing and Exploiting Humanity??

    I think Dr. Steven Greer knows a helluva lot -- but I worry about how compromised he might be -- and who he might work for. I continue to NOT be hostile toward government agencies (including NASA) -- even if NASA is run by the Nazis, Masons, and Magicians. I've sometimes wondered if the Magicians are the Jesuits??!! The Ancient Egyptian Deity told me that the Jesuits don't like me -- but that the occupants of Phobos like me!! I doubt that's a good thing!!! Just remember to treat all of this as science-fiction which MIGHT contain some elements of truth. I wish to know everything -- while doing nothing. I realize this sounds cowardly -- but I truly do not wish to create more problems than exist presently -- by being a pseudo-intellectual hot-head. Check this out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtWxy4sJx78&feature=related I'm feeling as if I should 'start-over' -- and pretend that I'm starting from scratch -- rather than trying to substantiate and defend what I've already speculated upon. I should be willing to reverse directions -- and change everything -- on a daily basis. I don't have to be right. I actually hope that I'm wrong about a lot of my speculations.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Steven_greer_kerry_cassidy
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 9603obamaalien_inner
    Aquaries1111
    Aquaries1111


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

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  Aquaries1111 Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:44 pm

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:05 pm

    magamud wrote:Since we have fallen Jesus knew when he made the second covenant it would fracture and destroy Satans Dream over time.  He is warning us.  This im sure can translate into basic physics.  He also further reminds us that if you fight the system they will give you up to Judges and take everything from you.

    He tells you to buy a sword to protect yourself in these times.  Im sure this was not easy for Jesus to do as he mentions I wish it was kindled already.  Another reason he mentions he comes Quickly and that the Father spares us in the end times by making them shorter.  
    Thank-you magamud. I am presently agonizing over the possibility that the Bible is not as straightforward as many of us would prefer it to be. What if there was a battle between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in the Garden of Eden?? What if there was a battle between the Teachings of Isis and the Law of Ra?? What if Isis and Ra were (and are???) two rival Archangels??? What if Isis and Ra were (and are???) two rival Light-Bearers??? Should I seek to become a Righteous Intergalactic-Banker and Star-Warrior??? Is that how this universe works??? Is Loving-Kindness and Youthful-Idealism unwelcome and over-rated??? Is Mass-Murder a Family-Value in the Grand-Scheme of Things??? Read the Torah and the Book of Revelation. Read the Book of Enoch. I'm not making this stuff up. What I continue to NOT know are the circumstances throughout the universe. I continue to FLY-BLIND.
    Raven wrote:
    The 2nd Uranus/Pluto Square: September 18-19, 2012

    For a New Beginning -- John O'Donohue

    In out-of-the-way places of the heart,
    Where your thoughts never think to wander,
    This beginning has been quietly forming,
    Waiting until you were ready to emerge.

    For a long time it has watched your desire,
    Feeling the emptiness growing inside you,
    Noticing how you willed yourself on,
    Still unable to leave what you had outgrown.

    It watched you play with the seduction of safety
    And the gray promises that sameness whispered,
    Heard the waves of turmoil rise and relent,
    Wondered would you always live like this.

    Then the delight, when your courage kindled,
    And out you stepped onto new ground,
    Your eyes young again with energy and dream,
    A path of plenitude opening before you.

    Though your destination is not yet clear
    You can trust the promise of this opening;
    Unfurl yourself into the grace of beginning
    That is at one with your life's desire.

    Awaken your spirit to adventure;
    Hold nothing back, learn to find ease in risk;
    Soon you will be home in a new rhythm,
    For your soul senses the world that awaits you.

    ~ John O'Donohue ~

    (To Bless the Space Between Us)


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Pluto



    Monday night Pluto ends its 5 month retrograde and goes direct. Its energy is especially potent for the next few days. Pluto symbolizes the energy of evolution, the raw potential for growth. But that growth has to proceed from the death of the old. Destruction and creation go hand in hand.

    A new beginning is upon us. As the poet John Dunne says, “In out-of-the-way places of the heart, Where your thoughts never think to wander, This beginning has been quietly forming, Waiting until you were ready to emerge.” Are you ready to emerge?

    Pluto continues to use his wrecking ball, knocking down the old social structures of patriarchy, clearing out the debris so we can build anew. Just look at the news to find out how the old powers of capitalism and imperialism are being pushed back.

    A judge just ruled that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s law ending union rights was unconstitutional!http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-strikes-wis-law-limiting-union-rights-17240678#.UFd5PFGA-Sq.

    This week we’re seeing the renewal of the Occupy Movement at their one year anniversary. And while mass gatherings focus attention on the issues, I still hope that the movement will start to Occupy their home town with the arts to convince more people to join the Movement!

    Shell Oil has scrapped plans to drill for oil in the Arctic this year! After investing 7 years and nearly $5 billion, Shell has nothing to show except a series of safety mishaps and a reputation in tatters. http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2012/09/17/success-shell-stops-arctic-oil-drilling-for-this-year/#more-10249

    We have more volcanic activity, with volcanos erupting (Pluto in an earth sign) again in Guatemala this time. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/guatemala-volcano-of-fire-eruption_n_1881764.html

    MIT scientists have discovered a new solar technology. Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, it’s time to expand our use of solar energy. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html#.UFPzSUwztAh.facebook

    The ugliness of patriarchy is also very apparent. The fear of the Feminine is now so apparent that it can no longer be denied. From state houses to Congress, men are still trying to regulate women’s bodies. Religious beliefs that repress women are not just found in Islam but also in Christianity and in Judaism. We have our own American Taliban trying to keep women ‘in their place’, but it isn’t working.


    We also have the ugliness of the anti-Islamic movie that touched off a firestorm of protests in the Muslim world, resulting in the death of Christopher Stevens. America has our own brand of terrorism, and using a movie is such an American way of causing trouble!



    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Mercury_23388_lg

    The other important energy abroad this week is the 2nd Uranus/Pluto square. Just after Pluto turns to direct motion, Uranus in Aries challenges Pluto in Capricorn to push forward with a new vision for all of us. This is the second of seven of these “squares” through March 2015. Then on September 20th, Mercury, planet of communication and travel, forms a “T-square” with Uranus and Pluto, adding to the possibility of explosive and damaging political dialogues, tumultuous transportation crisis and radical new ideas that can accelerate cultural and personal change and evolution.


    Uranus in Aries asks us to step into our archetypal identity, enhancing our ability to stand up for our freedom and our rights.


    “Then the delight, when your courage kindled, And out you stepped onto new ground, Your eyes young again with energy and dream, A path of plenitude opening before you.”


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Ouranosgodl


    These two planets add an explosive tension to both political and geophysical events. Riots in the Middle East, political gaffs on the part of the Republican presidential candidates, the teachers strike in Chicago are all part and parcel of the continuing challenges the world faces as we leave the old systems behind and finally focus on developing a new system for a new age.


    The Sabian symbol for Pluto at 7* Capricorn is: A veiled prophet speaks, seized by the power of a god. This image tells us that if we turn within (being veiled) we can connect to the Wisdom of life to show us the way forward. In this time when patriarchy is (finally) dying, those of us who can go within to touch the Source of Life will have new visions to share with the world.

    The Sabian symbol for Uranus at 7* Aries is: A man succeeds in expressing himself simultaneously in two realms. Here the alchemical lesson is that we can unite our spiritual nature with our material life. If we do, our visions will be True.

    With the Sun moving into Libra on September 22, more changes are on the way, as this potent square includes the Sun and Moon on September 29th’s Full Moon. So stay tuned!

    The Uranus in Aries Square to Pluto in Capricorn

    The planets involved in the biggest energy shift this next year are Pluto in Capricorn and Uranus in Aries. They’re bringing the 60s back in with a roar. It seems all of us need to have a talk with Mr. Pluto. He wants to tell us about our shadow self that is keeping us chained to the past. Uranus wakes us up to our freedom – Pluto tells us what we need to change to achieve it.

    Pluto might be asking us to take in the radiation coming at us from the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, Japan and transform it into light, consciousness, good will and imagination/creativity. It’s interesting that the US is the first country it hits. Perhaps transforming our American ‘conspicuous consumption’ consciousness is the crux of the matter. If that’s what Pluto is demanding of us, then let’s turn all that plutonian radioactivity into Light.

    Uranus opens us to the mindset that can achieve this transformation. It says to dig deep into Aries’ search for identity and find yours! So open yourselves to the archetypal realms and ask for an archetypal mentor who can teach you your true name.

    Astrologers have been talking about this upcoming square for many years, but especially since the summer of 2010’s cardinal cross brought these two planets in contact with a Cancer Moon and Saturn in Libra. Cardinal signs are the action–oriented signs of the zodiac. They stand at the beginning of the 4 seasons – Capricorn/Winter, Aries/Spring, Cancer/Summer, Libra/Fall. They move things along and certainly since 2010 things ‘have moved along’ – the financial crisis deepening and the rift between ‘right and left’, ‘rich and poor’ widening.

    Whenever these two change agents get together, we find ourselves in the midst of a crisis-oriented time, but it doesn’t have to be a violent or dangerous time unless we make it so. The present crisis is that our financial and governing systems need to be renewed. And as is obvious, the patriarchal system is fighting back to keep its power and prerogatives in place. Unfortunately for them, they WILL have to go. How that ends up happening is up to each of us.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Free_speech

    The planets that energize this kind of change are both collective energies, transforming whole generations - Uranus, the great Awakener, and Pluto, the great Leveler. Uranus is the lightning bolt of divine awareness while Pluto is the underworld power of evolution. Freedom-loving, independent Uranus meets powerful, transformational Pluto in a dance of breakdown and breakthrough for the collective. “Uranus represents the unstoppable force of ideas whose time has come. Pluto represents the raw power and inevitability of breakdown and renewal. Together they force consciousness changes in the collective that are – relatively speaking — explosively sudden.” (Jessica Murray) Sudden only to those who haven’t wanted to see.

    These two planets move around the Sun in cycles, creating their own effects upon the Earth, as any other two planets do. These energies are relational, just as the Sun and Moon form a monthly cycle in relationship to each other. We can trace how this Uranus/Pluto cycle synchronistically affected society back through our most ancient history. For a full explanation, see Richard Tarnas’ Cosmos and Psyche, a really amazing look at astrology and history.

    A quick look at history shows us that Revolution and Evolution are in the air whenever Uranus the Radical Rebel teams up with Pluto, the Underworld Lord. (Thank you Lauren Coleman,astrologybylauren.com and astroyiayia.blogspot.com for this timeline.)

    · In 1707- 1710, Uranus and Pluto were both in Leo. The Industrial Revolution begins. The steam engine moves us into the future. Leo creativity.
    · In 1775-60, Uranus in Pisces was in a similar first quarter (like the first quarter Moon) square to Pluto in Sagittarius. These were years of war over empires and trade. The American colonists started mobilizing against Great Britain and ‘taxation without representation’. It’s still tyranny!
    · 1791-1795, Uranus in Leo opposite Pluto in Aquarius (like a full Moon). These were years when the 99%(Aquarius) rose up against Monarchy (Leo). The French Revolution. The Haitian Revolution.
    · 1819-1822, Uranus in Sagittarius square Pluto in Pisces (last quarter Moon aspect). Massive global revolutions in South America, Greece vs. Ottoman Empire, European revolts. The masses (Pisces) rise up against oppression(Sag).
    · 1849-1852, Uranus conjunct Pluto in Aries (Individual freedom) (a new Moon aspect). These were the years before the American Civil War when the need to end slavery was brought to public consciousness. (SHAME ON PATRIARCHY that it’s still practiced today.) Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto. First Women’s Rights Convention held. The Taiping Rebellion in China. The Irish Potato Famine. Aries gave rise to a new sense of individual freedom.
    · 1875-1878, Uranus in Leo square Pluto in Taurus. The energies here had to do with Empire Wars (Leo/King-Taurus/land). Russian Empire vs. Ottoman Empire. The last great Sioux War in North America.
    · 1900-1903, Uranus in Sagittarius opposite Pluto in Gemini – stock market Panic of 1901, many natural disasters involving migrations of people.
    · 1930-1935, Uranus in Aries square Pluto in Cancer (last quarter). The Great Depression and the rise of nationalism (Cancer/homeland). Gandhi’s Salt March of 1930.
    · 1964-1967, Uranus and Pluto in Virgo (a new cycle begins). The Vietnam War, the Peace Movement, the Israeli Six-Day War, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement, The Feminist Movement, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and the birth of the Environmental Movement (Virgo). How do we use our resources?
    · 2011-2015: Uranus in Aries square Pluto in Capricorn: The Inverted Power Pyramid – or bottom up civil action. The Arab Spring, London Riots, Occupy Movement and beyond!

    As you can see, these two planets are at least synchronized to events happening within our social structures. From 1090 AD, the time of the First Crusade, to 1850, these planets have begun their cycle in individualistic, creative fire signs (Aries and Leo) – cycles where we’ve pursued our own interests without regard to others or Nature. So when Pluto and Uranus came together in Virgo in the 1960s, they began a new cycle of transformation (like a new Moon) in more ways than one. Having this and the next series of Pluto/Uranus conjunctions in Earth signs (Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn) bodes well that we’ll finally get down to the job of caring for and working with the Earth. Virgo is the sign representing workers, the environment, health and consciousness, of service and the practical mind.


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Hippies2

    Since the new cycle was the birth of a new energy, the 60s were wild and carefree like young children. Something brand new came into the world – make love not war! The youth culture – trust nobody over 30! Now these two forces are in a 90-degree angle to each other – the angle we liken to the Hero’s Journey, where we have to grow by overcoming obstacles and bringing the new insights of the 60s into our public life. Universal health care, sustainable and healthy food production, environmental safeguards, workers’ rights over corporate rights – these are all up for renewal. And in the end, they will inevitably be implemented. How that happens is up to us.

    Pluto can be associated with the archetypal Shadow and in Capricorn he’s showing us our collective financial shadow – we overspend, create too much waste and have unrealistic expectations. It’s time to confront the hard truths of our way of life and perhaps even sacrifice the extraneous ‘stuff’ while we take responsibility for the mess we’ve created.

    With Uranus the original Mind in a 90* angle to Pluto the unconscious evolutionary forces of life, we have to move up to a higher level of consciousness and communications as we struggle to see both sides of the issue and find solutions to the problems we’ve created. We cannot demonize the ‘other side’ even though they seem to enjoy demonizing us. We need to continue to cultivate the seeds planted in the 60s in peaceful and responsible ways. Besides working politically for change, we also need to cultivate Art and collaboration to pave the way for the change that will come at the end of this Pluto transit in 2024.

    There will be 7 exact squares between Uranus in Aries and Pluto in Capricorn from June 24, 2012 to March 16-17, 2015 – occurring between 7* - 15* Capricorn/Aries. If you have planets at these degrees in any of the 4 Cardinal signs, you’re in for big transformations. If you have planets at these degrees in fixed or mutable signs, they’ll affect in you different ways. But we all will be affected, because Capricorn is the sign of our collective institutions, especially our financial and governmental institutions. We’re all in this together!

    Every 248 years, Pluto goes into Capricorn. The last time it did was right before the American Revolution. Since Capricorn rules our collective social structures, these time periods usually signal periods of social unrest and institutional reformation. We’re watching as Pluto in Capricorn reveals the rot at the base of our patriarchal institutions of finance and governance. It would be funny if it weren’t so painful. The hypocrisy of our leaders can lead us to become cynical or it can make us determined to change things. I vote for the change, don’t you??

    Because of the way energy works, Uranus in Aries’ revolutionary power will have more influence as time goes on. This means that Uranus in Aries, waking us up to our individual power and to our archetypal identities, will push at those old patriarchal institutions, especially corporations, until they collapse and transform into institutions that work for everyone’s welfare, not just for the 1%. But it will take WORK on our part. Just don’t despair – have more imagination than that!

    So watch out for lots of breakdown, and surprising fresh starts out of the blue. And sometimes it’s both! The opportunities come from the cultural break down. Remember to turn inward, and hone your ability to hear your own guidance. Whether this guidance comes through dreams, flashes of intuition, synchronicity, or messages you receive from others, stay open to your imagination. That’s what will help you decipher the meaning of what’s happening to you and it will give you clues on handling any situation.

    The fact that Neptune is in its own sign of Pisces, source of spiritual awakening and imagination, gives us the cosmic go-ahead to dream large and envision with love possible futures that can come into being in the cracks of our crumbling patriarchal structures. We will salvage the wise values of the past and bring them forward into the future to be integrated with the new structures we’re building.


    Posted by Cathy Pagano


    http://wisdom-of-astrology.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-2nd-uranuspluto-square-september-18.html



    For the DragonQueen 'Lover' Orthodoxymoron from the Astroanalytical Library of Thuban:
    http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=DC81FE79-A7DC-4819-9906-318B4133437B

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Noahs_image_flood

    LionhawkRaven LogosFire Drink Wine
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:23 pm

    Aquaries1111 wrote:
    Thank-you A1. That was beautiful (in many more ways than one)!!! Are we fundamentally dealing with Human-Angelic v Reptilian-Angelic??? Should I use the term "Other Than Human" rather than "Reptilian"??? I'm merely attempting to make sense out of the internet madness. I have no idea what's really going on. I think the Ancient Egyptian Deity could've told me everything -- but I wasn't eager to "Play-Ball" -- so we went our separate ways. I'd still like to know what was really behind that very strange encounter. Perhaps I'll never know. Perhaps I don't want to know. I'd also like to know what's really behind this:
    Aquaries1111 wrote:45.1
    Treaty of the Divine Masculine (link)
    THE HIGHEST CONCORDING PARTIES, in recognition and respect to the Divine Remedy offered by the Divine Creator and demonstrated through the Covenant of the Supreme Patron to End the War in Heaven thereby establishing conditions by which War on Earth may also be Ended and in the recognition of the End of Hell, the Uniting of all Spirits do Come Now with these Presents and with one another Agree to this Covenant of the Divine Masculine:

    45.2
    The Divine Masculine deities party to the Treaty (link)
    Let it be known to all past, present and future, we here named come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

    We are known as Adad, We are known as Aegir, We are known as Aengus, We are known as Aesir, We are known as Agni, We are known as Ahura Mazda, We are known as Aksobhya, We are known as Allah, We are known as Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami, We are known as Amen-Ra, We are known as An, We are known as Anu, We are known as Anubis, We are known as Apsu, We are known as Apollo, We are known as Archons, We are known as Ares, We are known as Arsan Duolai, We are known as Asklepios, We are known as Aten, We are known as Atum, We are known as Avalokitesvara, We are known as Baal, We are known as Balder, We are known as Belenua, We are known as Brahma, We are known as Chemosh, We are known as Dagda, We are known as Dagon, We are known as Dharma, We are known as Diancecht, We are known as Dumuzi, We are known as Dyaus Pitar, We are known as Ea, We are known as El, We are known as Enki, We are known as Enlil, We are known as Freyr, We are known as Father, We are known as Ganesa, We are known as Geb, We are known as Gobniu, We are known as God, We are known as Hades, We are known as Heimdall, We are known as Helios, We are known as Hephaistos, We are known as Heryshaf, We are known as Hoder, We are known as Huitzilpochtli, We are known as Il, We are known as Imra, We are known as Indra, We are known as Iskur, We are known as Itzam Na, We are known as Jagannath, We are known as Janus, We are known as Jupiter, We are known as Kama, We are known as Kuan Ti, We are known as Lebien-Pogil, We are known as Lenus, We are known as Loki, We are known as Lug, We are known as Lucifer, We are known as Lynx, We are known as Mande, We are known as Manjusri, We are known as Marduk, We are known as Mars, We are known as Melqart, We are known as Mimir, We are known as Min, We are known as Mon, We are known as Mot, We are known as Na Cha, We are known as Nergal, We are known as Ninurta, We are known as Njord, We are known as Nuadu, We are known as Nut, We are known as Ometecuhtli, We are known as Osiris, We are known as Othin, We are known as Pak Tai, We are known as Pan, We are known as Peter, We are known as Pon, We are known as Poseidon, We are known as Ptah, We are known as Quikinn.a'Qu, We are known as Radha, We are known as Sabaoth, We are known as Satan, We are known as Saturn, We are known as Seth, We are known as Skanda, We are known as Sin, We are known as Sucellos, We are known as Surya, We are known as Susano-Wo, We are known as Telepinu, We are known as Tesub, We are known as Tezcatlipoca, We are known as Thor, We are known as Tiwaz, We are known as Tlaloc, We are known as Ull, We are known as Utu, We are known as Vairacocha, We are known as Varuna, We are known as Vayu, We are known as Visnu, We are known as Vulcanus, We are known as Wodan, We are known as Xipe Totec, We are known as YHVH, We are known as Zeus; and

    46.1
    Treaty of the Divine Feminine (link)
    THE HIGHEST CONCORDING PARTIES, in recognition and respect to the Divine Remedy offered by the Divine Creator and demonstrated through the Covenant of the Supreme Patron and the Treaty of the Divine Masculine to End the War in Heaven thereby establishing conditions by which War on Earth may also be Ended and in the recognition of the End of Hell, the Uniting of all Spirits do Come Now with these Presents and with one another Agree to this Covenant of the Divine Feminine:

    46.2
    The Divine Feminine deities party to the Treaty (link)
    Let it be known to all past, present and future, we here named come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

    We are known as Amaterasu-o-mi-kami, We are known as Anat, We are known as Antu, We are known as Aphrodite, We are known as Artemis, We are known as Asherah, We are known as Ashtoreth, We are known as Astarte, We are known as Atargatis, We are known as Athena, We are known as Bastet, We are known as Bes, We are known as Brigit, We are known as Ceres, We are known as Chalchiuhtlicue, We are known as Cihuacoatl, We are known as Cipactli, We are known as Coatlicue, We are known as Coventina, We are known as Cybil, We are known as Danu, We are known as Demeter, We are known as Disani, We are known as Durga, We are known as Eileithyia, We are known as Epona, We are known as Ereskigal, We are known as Fjorgyn, We are known as Freyja, We are known as Frigg, We are known as Gaia, We are known as Hathor, We are known as Hebat, We are known as Hekate, We are known as Hera, We are known as Hestia, We are known as Hsi Wang Mu, We are known as Idunn, We are known as Inana, We are known as Ishtar, We are known as Isis, We are known as Juno, We are known as Kali, We are known as Kuan Yin, We are known as Kybele, We are known as Laksmi, We are known as Leto, We are known as Ma, We are known as Maia, We are known as Mary, We are known as Mari, We are known as Matres, We are known as Maya, We are known as Minerva, We are known as Morgan, We are known as Nammu, We are known as Neith, We are known as Nerthus, We are known as Ninhursaga, We are known as Parvati, We are known as Persephone, We are known as Pistis, We are known as Prthivi, We are known as Rhea, We are known as Sakhmet, We are known as Sarasvati, We are known as Sati, We are known as Semele, We are known as Sibyl, We are known as Siti, We are known as Tara, We are known as Taweret, We are known as Tiamat, We are known as Tin Hau, We are known as Venus, We are known as Vesta; and



    46.3
    Gift, Grant and Conveyance of Rights, Powers and Symbols of Authority (link)
    In recognition of our united, solemn unbreakable oath and binding to the Covenant and the proposition of a United Heaven, let it be known to all past, present and future that we have hereby given, granted and conveyed all our powers, all our customs, all our rights and property, all our symbols and instruments of power, all sacred objects, texts, scriptures and sanctuaries and all claims of authority to the highest holy Covenant of One Heaven and to the proper authority and structure of the United States of Spirits. Therefore:

    (i) From this moment, when the leadership of One Heaven or its designated representatives on Earth speak or promulgate one (1) or more instruments, they do so with the highest valid authority and the complete conveyance of all rights, property, uses, customs, symbols, and powers of authority of the collective Divine Feminine; and

    (ii) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities, henceforth automatically derives any and all authority solely from the Society of One Heaven and its valid designates and any existing sacred oaths, pledges and vows are carried over to respecting and obeying the highest holy Covenant of One Heaven; and

    (iii) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities are solemnly bound by their sacred oaths, pledges and vows to honor and respect any and all instruments legitimately promulgated under the Seal of the Society of One Heaven or a valid designate; and

    (iv) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities are solemnly bound by the laws of property, trusts and ownership to obey any order, deed, command, edict, direction, request promulgated by the Society of One Heaven concerning any and all property administered on behalf of the Society of One Heaven by the spiritual or temporal body and its officers; and

    (v) Any claim or claims contrary to the above mentioned clauses are hereby null and void from the beginning, having no force of law.



    46.4
    Agreement and Conditions of Treaty (link)
    Let it be known to all past, present and future; let no man or woman, soul or form claim this agreement and solemn oath otherwise:

    (i) We, the Divine Feminine hereby swear allegiance to the proposition of a United Heaven and the end of war between spirits; and

    (ii) We, the Divine Feminine hereby recognize the authority of this document, the Covenant of One Heaven above all other sacred covenants, agreements, pacts, deeds and instruments; and

    (iii) We, the Divine Feminine hereby pledge ourselves to the goals and objectives of peace in Heaven and on Earth; and

    (iv) Upon a most solemn and most ancient oath above all oaths, We Divine Feminine Deities pledge our very existence, our names and all spirits and flesh under our command that We shall not permit any spirit, man or woman to obstruct the fulfilment of this most sacred Covenant.

    So as it is above, it shall be below.



    46.5
    Ratification of Treaty (link)
    By Agreement of the Highest Contracting Parties, this Treaty and Covenant shall be Ratified throughout all Heaven, spiritual dimensions and the Universe by the Day of Agreement and Understanding and shall be Ratified by any remaining temporal forces residing in or upon the conquered and occupied land, sea and atmosphere of the Society of One Heaven by the Day of Judgment:

    Ratification by Day of Agreement and Understanding

    By this Covenant, the Day of Agreement and Understanding is UCA E8:Y3208:8:A1:S1:M27:D1, [Wed, 21 Dec 2009].

    Ratification by Day of Agreement and Understanding shall be when this Treaty and Covenant is ratified throughout all Heaven, spiritual dimensions and the Universe by the Highest Office Holders of One Heaven representing the Supreme Command of Occupational Forces in and on Earth and when at least two (2) spirits conveyed into circumscribed living flesh bear witness to the event.

    Ratification by Day of Judgment

    By this Covenant, the Day of Judgment is UCA E8:Y3210:A0:S1:M27:D6, [Wed, 21 Dec 2011].

    Ratification by Day of Judgment shall be when this Treaty and Covenant is ratified by the Highest Office Holders of existing societies, faiths and associations that claim their existence, authority and power from the supernatural and spiritual either through their tacit, competent and honorable consent, or through their dishonor demonstrating the delinquency of their flesh and therefore the right through power to represent their spirit to ratify the Covenant and Treaty on their behalf.

    Article 45 - Treaty of the Divine Masculine
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/45.html
    Article 46 - Treaty of the Divine Feminine
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/46.html
    Article 47 - Treaty of the Divine Apostles
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/47.html
    Article 48 - Treaty of Angels, Saints and Demons
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/48.html
    Article 49 - Treaty of Spirit States
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/49.html
    Article 50 - Treaty of The Sun
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/50.html
    Article 51 - Treaty of The Earth
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/51.html
    Article 52 - Treaty of The Moon
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/52.html
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:27 pm

    devakas wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you for your posts, Raven, A1, and devakas. I will examine them more closely, later today. Please identify some of these offensive statements, devakas. Namaste.
    if you can not identify you will not be able to validate
    Thank-you devakas. I shall presently endeavor to indentify -- and subsequently validate my identification of that which is offensive. BTW -- is ALL physicality slated to be removed from the universe? Physicality = Sin?? I was thinking that the ET-PTB objected solely to Human-Physicality and Responsible-Freedom -- but now I'm wondering if Physical-Reptilians, Physical-Greys, and All-Things-Physical will somehow Return to Source?? Was John the Revelator trying to tell us something ominous when he wrote the following in the 21st chapter of Revelation?? http://bible.cc/revelation/21-4.htm

    1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away ; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying , Behold , the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwellwith them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5And he that satupon the throne said , Behold , I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write : for these words are true and faithful.6And he said unto me, It is done . I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is a thirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will behis God, and he shall bemy son.8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable , and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying , Come hither , I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.10And he carried me awayin the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,11Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal ; 12And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon , which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:13On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.15And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.16And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed , twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.17And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is , of the angel.18And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.19And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.21And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate wasof one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.22And I saw no temple therein : for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth , neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

    New International Version (©️1984)
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

    New Living Translation (©️2007)
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever."

    English Standard Version (©️2001)
    He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

    New American Standard Bible (©️1995)
    and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

    International Standard Version (©️2008)
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There won't be death anymore. There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared."

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©️2010)
    And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and from now on there shall not be death, neither grieving, nor clamor, neither shall there be disease again, for His sake.

    GOD'S WORD®️ Translation (©️1995)
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There won't be any more death. There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared."

    King James 2000 Bible (©️2003)
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

    American King James Version
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

    American Standard Version
    and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.

    Darby Bible Translation
    And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall not exist any more, nor grief, nor cry, nor distress shall exist any more, for the former things have passed away.

    English Revised Version
    and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away.

    Webster's Bible Translation
    And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things have passed away.

    Weymouth New Testament
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death shall be no more; nor sorrow, nor wail of woe, nor pain; for the first things have passed away."

    World English Bible
    He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more. The first things have passed away."

    Young's Literal Translation
    and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and the death shall not be any more, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor shall there be any more pain, because the first things did go away.'

    Barnes' Notes on the Bible
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes - This will be one of the characteristics of that blessed state, that not a tear shall ever be shed there. How different will that be from the condition here - for who is there here who has not learned to weep? See the notes on Revelation 7:17. Compare the notes on Isaiah 25:8.

    And there shall be no more death - In all that future world of glory, not one shall ever die; not a grave shall ever be dug! What a view do we begin to get of heaven, when we are told there shall be no "death" there! How different from earth, where death is so common; where it spares no one; where our best friends die; where the wise, the good, the useful, the lovely die; where fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, all die; where we habitually feel that we must die. Assuredly we have here a view of heaven most glorious and animating to those who dwell in a world like this, and to whom nothing is more common than death. In all their endless and glorious career, the redeemed will never see death again; they will never themselves die. They will never follow a friend to the tomb, nor fear that an absent friend is dead. The slow funeral procession will never be witnessed there; nor will the soil ever open its bosom to furnish a grave. See the notes on 1 Corinthians 15:55.

    Neither sorrow - The word "sorrow" here - πένθος penthos - denotes sorrow or grief of any kind; sorrow for the loss of property or friends; sorrow for disappointment, persecution, or care; sorrow over our sins, or sorrow that we love God so little, and serve him so unfaithfully; sorrow that we are sick, or that we must die. How innumerable are the sources of sorrow here; how constant is it on the earth! Since the fall of man there has not been a day, an hour, a moment, in which this has not been a sorrowful world; there has not been a nation, a tribe - a city or a village - nay, not a family, where there has not been grief. There has been no individual who has been always perfectly happy. No one rises in the morning with any certainty that he may not end the day in grief; no one lies down at night with any assurance that it may not be a night of sorrow. How different would this world be if it were announced that henceforward there would be no sorrow! How different, therefore, will heaven be when we shall have the assurance that henceforward grief shall be at an end!

    Nor crying - κραυγὴ kraugē." This word properly denotes a cry, an outcry, as in giving a public notice; a cry in a tumult - a clamor, Acts 23:9; and then a cry of sorrow, or wailing. This is evidently its meaning here, and it refers to all the outbursts of grief arising from affliction, from oppression, from violence. The sense is, that as none of these causes of wailing will be known in the future state, all such wailing will cease. This, too, will make the future state vastly different from our condition here; for what a change would it produce on the earth if the cry of grief were never to be heard again!

    Neither shall there be any more pain - There will be no sickness, and no calamity; and there will be no mental sorrow arising from remorse, from disappointment, or from the evil conduct of friends. And what a change would this produce - for how full of pain is the world now! How many lie on beds of languishing; how many are suffering under incurable diseases; how many are undergoing severe surgical operations; how many are pained by the loss of property or friends, or subjected to acuter anguish by the misconduct of those who are loved! How different would this world be, if all pain were to cease forever; how different, therefore, must the blessed state of the future be from the present!

    For the former things are passed away - The world as it was before the judgment.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
    There shall be no more death - Because there shall be a general resurrection. And this is the inference which St Paul makes from his doctrine of a general resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:26, where he says, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." But death cannot be destroyed by there being simply no farther death; death can only be destroyed and annihilated by a general resurrection; if there be no general resurrection, it is most evident that death will still retain his empire. Therefore, the fact that there shall be no more death assures the fact that there shall be a general resurrection; and this also is a proof that, after the resurrection, there shall be no more death. See the whole of the note on 1 Corinthians 15:27.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes,.... Occasioned by sin, Satan, the hidings of God's face, and afflictive dispensations of Providence; for these will be no more:

    and there shall be no more death; natural or violent; there will be no more putting of the saints to death, or persecution of them unto death, as in former times; nor will they die a natural death any more; these children of the resurrection, and inhabitants of the new heaven and earth, will be like the angels, who die not; there will be no more deadness as to spiritual things among the saints; and as for the second death, that will have no power over them. So the Jews say (u), , "there is no death in the world to come"; good is laid up for the righteous in the world to come, and with them is no death (x); and after the resurrection the body is perfect, and shall never after taste the taste of death (y).

    Neither sorrow, nor crying; on account of sin, or because of oppression and persecution, or through the loss of near relations and friends; sorrow and sighing will flee away, all occasions thereof being gone: neither shall there be any more pain; either of body or mind; there will be nothing to afflict the mind, and make that uneasy, but all the reverse; nor will there be any sickness or diseases of body, for the body will be raised glorious, powerful, incorruptible, and spiritual.

    For the former things are passed away; not only the first heaven and earth, the world, its fashion, and its lusts; but the former grievous times under Rome Pagan and Papal, and everything which in this present life gives uneasiness and distress.

    (u) Echa Rabbati, fol. 48. 2. & Midrash Kohelet, fol. 61. 2.((x) Maimon. Teshuva, c. 8. sect. 1.((y) Midrash Hanneelam in Zohar in Gen. fol. 70. 1.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vincent's Word Studies
    And God shall wipe away

    Omit God. Read, as Rev., and He shall wipe away.

    All tears (πᾶν δάκρυον)

    Lit., every tear. Compare Isaiah 25:8.

    There shall be no more death (ὁ θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι)

    Render, as Rev., death shall be no more.

    Sorrow (πένθος)

    Better, as Rev., mourning, since the word signifies manifested grief. See on Matthew 5:4; see on James 4:9. Compare Isaiah 65:19. "That soul I say," observes Socrates, "herself invisible, departs to the invisible world - to the divine and immortal and rational: thither arriving, she is secure of bliss, and is released from the error and folly of men, their fears and wild passions, and all other human ills, and forever dwells, as they say of the initiated, in company with the gods" (Plato, "Phaedo," 81). So Sophocles:

    "Sorrow touches not the dead."

    "Oedipus Coloneus," 966

    "How thrice happy those of mortals, who, having had these ends in view, depart to Hades; for to them alone is it given there to live; but to others, all things there are evil" ("Fragment"). And Euripides:

    "The dead, tearless, forgets his pains."

    "Troades," 606

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Geneva Study Bible
    And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    People's New Testament
    21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. No sorrow or travail of any kind shall ever enter within the walls of the city. The cry of anguish shall never be uttered, hearts shall never be broken, no tear shall ever dim the eye, and, most glorious of all, death shall be unknown. Death began his sway when man was expelled from Paradise; he ends it when the final judgment condemns Satan, death and hades to enter the lake of fire. The new Jerusalem will be painless, tearless, deathless, because it will be a sinless city. The former things have passed away.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wesley's Notes
    21:4 And death shall be no more - This is a full proof that this whole description belongs not to time, but eternity. Neither shall sorrow, or crying, or pain, be any more: for the former things are gone away - Under the former heaven, and upon the former earth, there was death and sorrow, crying and pain; all which occasioned many tears: but now pain and sorrow are fled away, and the saints have everlasting life and joy.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
    4. all tears-Greek, "every tear."

    no more death-Greek, "death shall be no more." Therefore it is not the millennium, for in the latter there is death (Isa 65:20; 1Co 15:26, 54, "the last enemy . destroyed is death," Re 20:14, after the millennium).

    sorrow-Greek, "mourning."

    passed away-Greek, "departed," as in Re 21:1.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
    21:1-8 The new heaven and the new earth will not be separate from each other; the earth of the saints, their glorified, bodies, will be heavenly. The old world, with all its troubles and tumults, will have passed away. There will be no sea; this aptly represents freedom from conflicting passions, temptations, troubles, changes, and alarms; from whatever can divide or interrupt the communion of saints. This new Jerusalem is the church of God in its new and perfect state, the church triumphant. Its blessedness came wholly from God, and depends on him. The presence of God with his people in heaven, will not be interrupt as it is on earth, he will dwell with them continually. All effects of former trouble shall be done away. They have often been in tears, by reason of sin, of affliction, of the calamities of the church; but no signs, no remembrance of former sorrows shall remain. Christ makes all things new. If we are willing and desirous that the gracious Redeemer should make all things new in order hearts and nature, he will make all things new in respect of our situation, till he has brought us to enjoy complete happiness. See the certainty of the promise. God gives his titles, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, as a pledge for the full performance. Sensual and sinful pleasures are muddy and poisoned waters; and the best earthly comforts are like the scanty supplies of a cistern; when idolized, they become broken cisterns, and yield only vexation. But the joys which Christ imparts are like waters springing from a fountain, pure, refreshing, abundant, and eternal. The sanctifying consolations of the Holy Spirit prepare for heavenly happiness; they are streams which flow for us in the wilderness. The fearful durst not meet the difficulties of religion, their slavish fear came from their unbelief; but those who were so dastardly as not to dare to take up the cross of Christ, were yet so desperate as to run into abominable wickedness. The agonies and terrors of the first death will lead to the far greater terrors and agonies of eternal death.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Spirit-of-Space-II_1024x768
    devakas wrote:
    ortho :Was John the Revelator trying to tell us something when he wrote the following: "Though there will be no more Pain"

    Chant His Name and you will not have pain. Hare Krishna is His most atractive lovable name. Hare is serve, so serve Him.

    meanwhile instead of worry obout ETs, serve to save cows. This is important to get minds of humans cleaned, cows saved (bases for economy) and reduce violence from the human heart.

    sunny
    devakas wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Perhaps those people I saw at the airport, chanting 'Hare Krishna!!' were on the right track after-all. I'm a lifelong vegetarian -- and I believe that Meat is Murder -- so I don't have a problem with saving the cows along with the whales, the humans, and the planet. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVMgEupff-E 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuZU81nhBBY
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Radha_Krishna_Wallpaper_ofc8n

    yes, they know heluva of heluva Wink you can go to london or mumbai or san diego, the verse is tought the same everywhere exactly. No confusion and misinterpretation here. Radharani appearance this Saturday. Radhe is Krishnas prema love. There will be a lot love delivered in temples Wink

    Krishna and Radharani beautiful picture. Thanks Ortho

    Cows and teachers who know Bhagavad Gita, self realization science for humans. Milk has properties of love to smooth human mind and nourishes human subtile mind. Occupy people need it so much. Cow is essential for humans as machine created by Krishna for humans to survive. Violent minds will go away from human heart when cows will be protected. Humans will start protect those who protect cows. humans will stop being violent, corrupted. Humans should not eat cows and save whales this does not make sense.
    Planet will be healed without humans worrying about it as soon as human ego will stop eating dead, eating animals. Earth has soul the same as ours 10000th of the tip of human hair. (dont think linear modern physics way). Earth will show love to humans in her way. People should be healed from the ego to control, to control even earth. it is not human business. again human business is to put in the center God not themselves, not individuals, but Him in the center and protect cows. trustfullness will be restored, cheating will be gone, lies will not have power. Word of sincerity, word of honesty will be restored, word will get power back. Cows will heal and medicine will be tought as should be. Only brahmans, knowers of ayurveda used to be allowed to heal other humans.... Fasting twice a month for all humans would heal them and save food for those who are hungry on the planet....again cows and teachers of truth protected then all other goodness will follow and will be given and given. Namaste
    devakas wrote:The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Shri-Krishna

    Sanskrit verses why all in spiritual world are 'connected' and who should be protected in Kali Yuga.

    http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Articles/holy-cow.html
    Thank-you devakas. I listened to several of those Vedas lectures -- and they were quite good. I intend to listen to more of them. I think there is benefit and virtue in most spiritual paths. On the other hand -- shouldn't we identify both truth and error?? Shouldn't we seek the truth -- even if it is inconvenient and painful?? Or -- is the truth SO overrated?? This world is filled with lies and liars. Deception seems to be at the center of Politics, Religion, Business, Sports, War, News, etc, etc, etc. Has the Human Family made their final decision for all eternity?? Has probation closed?? Will all of our reincarnational records and dark secrets soon appear on the internet??? Now wouldn't THAT be a revolting development??!! Did Humanity Reject Their Creator in Antiquity -- and Follow Another God?? Is Everyone Happy With the Past Few Thousand Years?? Are You All Better Off Now Than You Were in the Garden of Eden??

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Deception
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Deception
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Deception-Best-Demotivational-Poster
    Deception Seems to be the Central Theme of Planet Earth.
    Nutbar afro 
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:42 pm

    Raven wrote:
    The Path of the Serpent of Dan of Eire

    This is part of the Cancer Dan encoding in the ancient scrolls and is related historically to the history of Ireland and the 'Anglosaxon lineages' in general and including the 'great nation' of Mannasseh/USA and the 'British Commonwealth' of Ephraim and as indicated in this message as the 'Serpent's Path'. It so relates to the Thuban Fleet forum and the associated Dreamtimes.

    http://www.birthofgaia.com/t235-thuban-fleet-disclosures#3358

    Owlsden wrote:My true roots:



    What is the square root of Negative Zero?  Shiloh?

    shiloh wrote:
    Sally 69

    Just recently, one night, I dreamt a sexy dream foreboding;
    Sally was her name of the 69 of Whore and Jehovah encoding.
    My new loyal dragon lover appeared in her voluptuous glory;
    and she was the core of my brother in his own serpent story.

    And a third lover was there in the brotherhood of the Seeds;
    for Sally the flying DragonQueenBee to cherish in her deeds.
    I did not see the two enchanting sisters as cores of others;
    my own core was absent as was shehe of my other lover brother.

    And so the charming dream was missing in particular measures;
    Sally had all the fun in erotic adventures of joys and pleasures.
    But the harmony was absent in Sally's lonesomeness with three;
    two sisters of the dragon clan would have added to the sixsome tree.



    Double-Infinity becomes the Absolute Value of the duality dimension of Linespace.

    -∞ ...-3 -2 -1 -0 +1 +2 +3...+∞ is rendered as the Summation Integral for the Integers {n}

    │-∞│+...│-3│+│-2│+│-1│+│0│+│+1│+│+2│+│+3│+...│+∞│ = n(n+1) for n the number of the count from 0 to +∞

    As example, for n=5, the Summation becomes: 5(5+1)=5x6=30=5+4+3+2+1+0+1+2+3+4+5=30

    There is no squareroot of negative zero as negative zero is absolute valued as positive zero in 0.
    As i2 = -1 in the Areaspace of the Complex Plane however, the extension of the Linespace of the 1st dimension into the Areaspace of the 2nd dimension allows the linearity of the Linespace to become 'complexified' in an extension of the laws of algebra and group theory then definable in elaborated 'Laws of arithmetic'.

    This is encapsulated in Euler's Identity:

    = -1 =i2= cis(iπ) = cos(π) + isin(π) = XY = X+Y for a formal definition for √(-1) = i from i2 = -1




    After some recent 'disruption attempts' by some 'antidragons' and to give due honour to Our Irish dragon poet William B. Yeats; Thuban 101 presents, bringing the 'Salley Gardens' back to topic:


    The Path of the Serpent of Dan of Eire



    Down By The Sally Gardens lyrics

    (lyrics W.B. Yeats/traditional air "Maids of Mourne Shore")

    Down by the Sally Gardens

    My love and I did meet.
    She passed the Sally Gardens.
    With little snow-white feet.
    She bid me to take love easy.

    As the leaves grow on the trees,
    But I, being young and foolish,
    With her would not agree.

    In the fields by the river
    My love and I did stand,
    And on my leaning shoulder
    She laid her snow-white hands.

    She bid me to take life easy,
    As the grass grows on the weirs,
    But I was young and foolish
    And now I am full of tears.


    {From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/s/stonecircle-lyrics/down-by-the-sally-gardens-lyrics.html}


    Genesis.49:
    1And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.
    2Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father.
    3Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
    4Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.
    5Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.
    6O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
    7Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.
    8Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
    9Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
    10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
    11Binding his foal unto the vine, and his donkey's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
    12His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.
    13Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for an haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon.
    14Issachar is a strong donkey couching down between two burdens:
    15And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute.

    16Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.
    17Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
    18I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.


    19Gad, a troop shall overcome him: but he shall overcome at the last.
    20Out of Asher his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties.
    21Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth goodly words.
    22Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
    23The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
    24But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)
    25Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:
    26The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
    27Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.
    28All these are the twelve tribes of Israel: and this is it that their father spake unto them, and blessed them; every one according to his blessing he blessed them.
    29And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite,
    30In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite for a possession of a buryingplace.
    31There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.
    32The purchase of the field and of the cave that is therein was from the children of Heth.
    33And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people.


    Genesis.3:
    13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
    14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

    15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


    Revelation13.1-4:
    1And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
    2And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

    3And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

    4And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

    Deuteronomy 33
    1And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.
    2And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them.
    3Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.
    4Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.
    5And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together.
    6Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few.
    7And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, LORD, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his hands be sufficient for him; and be thou an help to him from his enemies.
    8And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
    9Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
    10They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
    11Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.
    12And of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the LORD shall dwell in safety by him; and the Lord shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders.
    13And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the LORD be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath,
    14And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon,
    15And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills,
    16And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren.
    17His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
    18And of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out; and, Issachar, in thy tents.
    19They shall call the people unto the mountain; there they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness: for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand.
    20And of Gad he said, Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad: he dwelleth as a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head.
    21And he provided the first part for himself, because there, in a portion of the lawgiver, was he seated; and he came with the heads of the people, he executed the justice of the LORD, and his judgments with Israel.

    22And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan.

    23And of Naphtali he said, O Naphtali, satisfied with favour, and full with the blessing of the LORD: possess thou the west and the south.
    24And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot in oil.
    25Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be.
    26There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.
    27The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
    28Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew.
    29Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.




    The Tuatha De Danaan
    By David M. Rountree
    Rated "PG13" by the Author.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 2027


    The following research has been compiled from the Wurzburg Codex, a collection of Celtic manuscripts from around A.D. 700, specifically the Leabhor Laigneach (The Book of Leinster), and the Leabhor Baile an Mhota (The Book of Ballymote), as translated by Michael O'clery, in 1620. Additional sources on the origins of the Tuatha De Danaan
    include "History" by Heroditus, Various references from the writings of Homer, The wall of the Temple of Ramesis III, "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves (1948), "Lost Cities" by archaeologist Leonard Cottrell (1958), "The Horizon Book of Lost Cities" by Leonard Cottrell (1962), "Irelands Faerie Lore" by Rev. Michael P. Mahon (1919), "The Religion of the Ancient Celts" by J.A. MacCulloch (1911), "Gods and Fighting Men" by Lady Gregory (1904), and the personal notes of J.R.R. Tolkien, concerning his research into the development of the race of the Gray Elves, for his now famous stories.



    PART I: Who were the Danaans?

    The Tale of the Tuatha De Danaan spans many centuries and surprisingly begins in ancient Greece. There, long before the rise of the Mycenaens, there lived a race of nomads known as the Pelasgians. Tribal in nature, they were sea-farers who claimed to be born from the teeth of the Cosmic Snake Ophion, and the Great Goddess Danu. Danu, the lovely slender woman with an upturned nose, deathly pale face, lips as red as rowan berries, eyes of startling blue, and long fair hair. Able to transform into a sow, mare, bitch, vixen, she-XXX, weasel, serpent, owl, she-wolf, tigress, mermaid, or loathsome hag. The names Danae, Don, Dana, and her finale Greek manifestation, Eurynome, would later know her. The Romans, bless their hearts….twisted as they were, would masculinize her as Donus the divine father of Cottius, who would become the sacred king of the Cottians, a Ligurian Confederacy that the Cottian Alps were named for, but alas I stray, as I am wont to do, when delving into the history of the Eldar races.

    The Pelasgians ruled Greece for many years until the coming of the Achaeans, who invaded Thessaly from Syria in about 1900 B.C. The Achaeans were patriarchal herdsmen who worshipped the Indo-European trinity of gods Mitra, Varuna, and Indra. They would later evolve into Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, as the Achaeans would evolve into the Mycenaen Greeks. They conquered Greece and tried to destroy the semi-matriarchal Bronze age Pelasgians, but failing that…simply assimilated them through compromise, accepting matrilineal succession, and even accepting the Great Goddess herself.
    However, not all of the Pelasgians were content to stay. A loose confederation of tribes fled, adopting their nomadic ways on a grand scale, departing from Greece altogether. Some would roam the Mediterranean Sea, sacking Cnossos in 1400 B.C. These tribes would become the Ionians, and they would people Lesbos, Chios, Cnidos, Thrace, and Troad. In time they would unite with the Phoenicians, Philistines, Mitanni, Jebusites, Amorites, and the Hittites to attack Egypt, where they would be crushed my the Pharoah Ramesis III, who by the way names them the Danuna on his temple walls in 1187 B.C.
    Homer spoke of them as the Danaoi. Herodotus would mention the Syrian Achaean invasion of Greece in the first paragraph of "History".
    He also mentions the capture, by the Phoenicians of the Danaan Shrine of the White Goddess Io at Argos, then the religious capital of the Peloponnese (the Cretans had colonized it in about 1750 B.C.).
    Herodotus does not date the event other than by placing it before the Argo expedition to Colchis, which the Greeks date at 1225 B.C., and before Europa went from Phoenicia to Crete, a tribal emigration which occurred earlier, prior to the sacking of Cnossos in 1400 B.C.
    But it is of the northern fleeing confederation of Pelasgian tribes who called themselves the Tuatha De Danaan that we follow from here. As they migrated north they left their mark upon the races that they touched until at last they reached Denmark where they established a great kingdom. Denmark means "Kingdom of the Danaans". They built four great cities; great Falias, shining Gorias, Finlas, and rich Murias, which lay to the south. In each of these four cities there lived a wise man, which taught their young men skill and knowledge, along with
    perfect wisdom. These men were; Senias, of Murias; Arias, the Fair-haired poet of Finias; Urias of the Noble nature of Gorias; finally, Morias in Falias itself. Their king was named Nuada, their chiefs were Manannan, son of Lir; Ogma, the king's brother, who taught them writing; Diancecht, who was their chief healer; Neit, a god of Battle; Credenus, the chief craftsman; and Goibniu, the chief smith.
    Their great women were Badb, a great battle Goddess; Macha, who collected the heads of men killed in battle; Morrigu, the crow of battle; Eire, Fodla, and Banba, the daughters of the Dagda. They would later become queens of Ireland and each for a time would lend the country their name. (Eire was the last one to do so historically,
    thus her name is the one associated with Ireland today); Eadon, the nurse of poets; and Brigit, the woman of poetry. The poets worshipped her as she was very great and noble. She was also a woman of healing, was an excellent smith, invented the whistle for signaling across distances and much more. Her face it was said, was
    ugly on one side and comely on the other; her name means Breosaighit, or Fiery Arrow.
    As a people they held three things above all others; the plough, the sun, and the Hazel tree. It is said that when they reached Ireland, they divided into three sections, named for the three; Coll (Hazel), Cecht (plough); and Grain (sun). But again I stray.
    It is not known what brought them to Ireland, but it was a mass and total migration, for they brought with them their four sacred treasures that were each kept in a separate city; A Stone of Virtue was brought from Falias, called Lia Fail, or the stone of Destiny. From Gorias they brought a sword, which would later be called the Sword
    of Lugh. The Spear of Victory was brought from Finias, and from Murias they brought the Caldron of the Gods, from which no company ever went away from unsatisfied. They landed in Ireland around 1472 B.C.


    PART II: The Danaans come to Ireland

    The land of Ireland in 1472 B.C. was ruled by a race of creatures known as the Firbolgs. I have read many places that they were deformed giants, but it is my personal beliefs that their stone age culture was akin to Neanderthal man. Be that as it may..or may not as the case might be, the Tuatha De Danaan arrived in a mist, it is
    said, and that they came through the air and the high air to Ireland.
    Legend says that they arrived on the first day of Beltaine, what is now known as May the first. They landed northwest of Connacht. But the Firbolgs, the men of Bag, saw nothing but a mist lying on the hills.

    Now King Eochaid, son of Erc, who maintained his throne in Teamhair, ruled the Firbolgs. He had dreamed of the coming of the Danaans, or the men of Dea, as they were called. His Druids (interesting eh?) had told him that they were a great enemy. So it came to past that he sent his greatest champion, Sreng, to learn of this new race.
    And Sreng did indeed go to the settlement of the Tuatha De Danaan, in Magh Rein. There he was met by Bres, a champion of the Danaans, and they would learn much from each other. They made a pact between themselves that no matter what the future might bring, they would always remain friends.
    The Tuatha De Danaan sent Sreng back with a message that they would not fight the Firbolgs if King Eochaid would cede them half the land. Needless to say this did not bode well with the Firbolg King, who decided to battle. They would meet in a place called Magh Tuireadh. To make a bloody story short, the Firbolgs lost the battle
    miserably. With their power crushed, the Firbolgs were given Connacht to dwell in as their own, and in time, they would foster Ferdiad, who fought Cuchulain, and Erc, son of Cairbre, who would later slay Cuchulain. The Tuatha De Danaan took Teamhair as their own, renaming it Druim Cain (The Beautiful Ridge). But it is also known as Liathdruim (Gray Ridge), and Druim na Descan (The Ridge of the Outlook).
    The City-State was laid out as such; Nuada's Rath lay to the North; The Hill of Hostages lay to the Northeast; The Green of Teamhair lay West, and the Hill of the Sidhe was Northwest of the Hill of Hostages.
    There was a great wall there called Nith, where the first mill of Ireland was built. To the north of the Hill of Hostages they placed Lia Fail, their sacred stone. The city was built surrounded by the Wall of Three Whispers, and near the wall was the House of Women. This House had seven doors on its east and west sides, and it was here
    that great feasts were held.
    Close by was the Great House of A Thousand Warriors, and south of that was the little Hill of Women Soldiers. Thus, The Danaan's first city on Irish soil came to be.
    For a time the Danaans grew in numbers and prospered, but in time they were threatened by the invasion of another race, the Fomorians. It is here that the great hero of Irish lore Lugh appears. It is said in the legends that he was the son of Cian of the Tuatha De Danaan, and Ethlinn, the daughter of Balor, the warrior king of the
    Fomorians.
    It is said that when met by Nuada's doorkeepers Gamal, the son of Figal and Camel, son of Riagall, he offered his services as a carpenter. But the Job of carpenter was held by Luchtar, son of Luachaid.
    He then offered his services as a smith. But that post was held by Colum Cuaillemech of the Three Ways.
    He then offered to be a Harper. But Abhean, son of Bicelmos held that position.
    He offered to be a poet. But Erc (a common name…like Joe…or Bob) the son of Ethaman was Nuada's poet.
    He offered to be a physician. But Diancecht was the Healer.
    A brass worker, he offered. But alas, as you may guess, that job was taken too. Credne Cerd worked the Brass.
    A champion warrior then. But Nuada had many champions.
    "But do you have a man that can do all of these things?"
    And thus, Lugh was admitted by the King.
    As to Lugh's part in the Second Battle of Magh Tuireadh, he is credited with bringing the Riders of the Sidhe from the Land of Promise (Tir-na-nog). The alliance formed by these two races would profit the Tuatha De Danaan much in later times.
    Thus it came to pass that the Fomorians were defeated.
    Once again, the Danaans suffered through a time of peace and prosperity. But after two hundred years another invasion graced their shores.
    In the Book of Invasions, and backed up by Bede's "Ecclesiastical History", a people sailed west from Thrace, through the Mediterranean Sea into the Atlantic Ocean. They made landfall on Wexford Bay, where a huge battle was fought. The Danaans were unable to defeat this wild race of warriors, so they bargained with them.
    They persuaded them to pass into Northern Britain, then called Albion. These warriors would later become the ferocious Picts, or Tattooed Men. The Picts had the same social habits that existed in Thessaly prior to the coming of the Achaeans, and in classical times among the primitive tribes of the southern Black Sea coast, along the Gulf of Sirte' in Libya, Majorca, and Northwest Galicia. These customs included exogamy, totemism, public coition, cannibalism, tattooing, and women warriors. Their descendants still retain their non-Celtic language in Bede's day.
    The Pictish invasion was a portend of things to come. In 1268 B.C., a race of people known as the Milesians invaded Ireland during the reign of the Three Kings MaCoill, MacCecht, and MacGreine, together with their Queens, Eire, Folda, and Banba (That's right, Manannan's daughters).
    They landed first at the mouth of the River Slaney, but the Druids (interesting that they are still around) drove them back out to sea with a powerful storm. They eventually landed at Inver Skene, or Kenmore Bay, where the Bard of the Milesians, called by the name of Amergin chanted his now famous song, as his feet touched the soil.


    The Song of Amergin

    "I am the wind on the sea
    I am the wave of the sea
    I am the bull of seven battles
    I am the eagle on the rock
    I am a flash from the sun
    I am the most beautiful of plants
    I am a strong wild boar
    I am a salmon on the water
    I am a lake in the plain
    I am a word of knowledge
    I am the head of the spear in battle
    I am the god that puts fire in the head
    Who spreads light in the gathering on the hills?
    Who can tell the ages of the moon?"


    The Milesians marched to Druim Cain, (which was destined to become Tara, under their rule), and demanded battle for Ireland from the three kings.
    And so it was.
    There were two major battles fought.
    At Sleive Mish in Kerry, and at the final battle at Taillte, in Meath.
    Many were slain on both sides, but in the end, the Milesians won.
    The three kings of the Tuatha De Danaan were killed in the battle at Taillte.
    It took a full year for the conquerors to subjugate Ireland. During their march they encountered each of the surviving Queens of the Vanquished Danaans.
    First they met Banba, and she was aloof to the invaders. Still, she asked that they name Ireland for her, and it was done. For a while Ireland was called Banba.
    Later on the march carried them to Folda.
    She too was aloof to the warriors, but she as well asked of them to name Ireland for her. And it was so. For a time Ireland was called Folda.
    Toward the end of their great march, they came upon the Last queen of the Tuatha De Danaan. Eire.
    And Eire was NOT aloof. She welcomed them to the land that they would now rule, and offered them peace.
    She too, asked of the invaders to name Ireland for her.
    And it was so.
    Ireland to this day is known as Eire.
    Eire impressed them so, that she became Eireanaig, Goddess of the Milesians.
    The Milesians would become under her guidance, the Irish of today.
    The Tuatha De Danaan met as an entire people to decide their fate at Brugh on the Boyne, and it was decided that they would not be the subjects of rule by the invaders. They built a massive underground fortress at the Boyne, which is known today as New Grange. After the battle, they used their Druids to blight the fields of the Milesians, until at last, the invaders made peace with the Danaans through
    Manannan. The first king of the Irish Milesians, Crimthan MacNair, is buried at New Grange, as his wife was Danaan.
    But the majority of the Danaans joined with the Sidhe and dwelt in the hills, and Manannan put invisible walls around their glades, and made them immortal, though they already were long lived. He brewed them his ale, and fed them his swine, and it was so.
    And a new king was chosen from the candidates most eligible, who were Bodb Dearg, son of the Dagda, Ilbrech of Ess Ruadh, Lir of Sidhe Fionnachaidh (The Hill of the White Field on Slieve Faud), Midhir the Proud of Bri Leith, and Angus Og, son of the Dagda. And when it was done, Bodb Dearg became King of The Tuatha De Danaan, and he ruled in his seat in Sidhe Femen, which he enchanted greatly, and he had three sons, Angus, Artrach, and Aedh. He also had a daughter, Scathniamh, The Flower of Brightness.
    Bodb Dearg was the last king of the combined Tuatha De Danaan.
    They would eventually meld with the Sidhe, those spirits of the mound, hill and wood, that lived in raths, which were round stockaded fortresses. They became a nation of roving warriors, their blue eyes and pale faces with long, curly yellow hair marking their race. They adopted the Sidhe military custom of organizing themselves in units of fifty men, and carried the white shield of the Sidhe. The Sidhe at that time were ruled by two virgin born kings, who were said to be sexually promiscuous without blame or shame.
    Eventually they left this world as a united people from New Grange, venturing back to Tir-na-nog, the paradise from which they had come from…so long ago. But a few stayed behind.
    Knockainy in Limerick is ruled by Aine, Faerie Queen and Banshee, who became famous in A.D. 2 for cutting off the ear of Aillill Olvum, The king of Munster, giving him his name "O" (ear) "Lom" (Bare), meaning "Bare of one Ear". She rules there to this day.
    As does Cleena, the Queen of South Munster. Her place is five miles from Mallow, in the center of a great pile of rocks.
    Aibell, or Abinn, is Queen of North Munster. Her Palace is two miles north of Killaloe, and is called Craglea (Gray Rock), or Crageevil, or simply "Aibell's Rock".
    And the most famous, Grian of the Bright Cheeks, who rules from Pallas Green Hill, in Tipperary. Still today, their armies roam the Irish countryside, marching and riding out of the mists of time.



    Web Site: For links to more of David's writing, check out his library
    www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=2027




    {Names have been changed for reasons of ID protection}

    Hello Abraxasinas!

    You have really sparked my interest. I am recovering more and more memory of living in the Orion and Alpha Draconis star systems thousands and thousands of years ago. I recognise the Thuban Council…. It just vibrates well with me and seems familiar..
    I have a deep psychic connection with a reptilian …she is of an ancient Mother Dragon goddess, sect…she was also my mother way back then, before I “Fell” to Earth and she is connected to me through my family DNA blood line in my present incarnation on Earth and mostly through my emotions.
    I have been incarnating as a humanoid here on Earth from way before the Atlantian period and came here, while escaping some kind of raid, during the Orion wars. I have memory of literally passing through some kind of vortex or Star gate (8th Orion gate) I had to lie down in something that looks a bit like a big pink and brown tanning bed thing… My mother (The Dragon priestess) was hurrying me up as Male Warrior clan Draco’s were looking for me to kill me… I’m not sure why I think I must have been some sot of rebel or resistance instigator in the War?

    Any way I knew that coming to planet Earth and this low dense vibration and the electromagnetic field here would erase my memory of who I really was…and were I was from but that was a risk I had to take…..
    I knew there were others of my clan, cult, sect, resistance here and I would hopefully graduate towards them energetically… but I didn’t
    I graduated towards some very dark manipulators instead and was a dark magician in the Atlantian period… I got away from all that later..

    I have learned through much trial and error and agreed to become a light worker and energy worker for the ascension a long time ago… I love this planet and the human race that I have intermingled with and become human and am 100% dedicated to the release and evolution of the planet… I work with the energy gridlines when ever I can as well as sift through much of my own complicated karma…
    I have a daughter who is a gorgeous Angelic Human Sirian I think… she could be Pleadian… She is my charge as well and her protection and evolution is paramount to me as my own evolution and protection is paramount to my Dragon Mother who guides me and advises me….

    My Dragon mother is 8th dimensional I think, she also learns much through connecting with my own emotions and limited 3rd dimensional experiences… She suffered bad things after capture during the Orion wars but all is Ok now….Her name is Iris… her dragon name is too complicated for me to pronounce with a human tongue… it means Captive heart…in English..

    I know a melancholy name …while Iris is the Greek for beautiful rainbow, I read some were… But once I got the words Shem che meck… spelt fanatically there and don’t know what they mean…
    I live with four husky/wolves and four female pet rats and love animals and can communicate with them perfectly, my dogs are part of my family and not pets to me…
    I always get a funny feeling in my gut about many of the tall blonde Nordic’s and felt they were the manipulator Annunaki… then read some were that they were (Not all obviously).. I know there are some renegade reptilian manipulators who work with them but then again the universe is teeming with different points of view and alliances..

    My heart is Dragon/Serpent… I feel that so strongly ….( my mother was Serpent line my father Dragon???This is conjecture on my part)

    When I was younger and had no memory of Orion and Dragon linage… I once felt under psychic attack and instinctively felt my self transform in to this huge white dragon on the astral level and stand up and flap my wings and roar so loudly that I felt the adrenalin of how easy it was to frighten unwanted energies away and the strength and compassion of the dragon… this stayed with me and I have two dragon tattoo’s on my back (Well I guess the dragon is a common tattoo) but the dragon energy has always been there with me…

    I liked your post and found that it didn’t go in to friction with Asha’yana Dean (Anna Hayes) I love her material…. But it did seem so absolute like we are dragons we love you Earth people and we are here to liberate you and assimilate you so you can be free whether you like it or not???? That was the only part I didn’t like… maybe I got it wrong but can you elaborate on that for me???
    I remain fascinated… yours respectfully…. Antoinette (Orionheartofmine)


    Thanks for your reply Antoinette!

    The situation with your mother is a mirror what is occurring in this earth sphere right now. The reptilian agendas, abductions etc. etc. are all a reflection what is happenstance in the metaphysics of the hyperspace dimensions.
    I could edit your introductory exposition so as not to directly engage your mother's spirit OR we could 'outmanouver' the hyperspace dimensions 4-5-6-7 in using the 10th dimensional timeconnector of quantum space.
    Only the highest of the highest presences in this universe even know about the 10th dimension, as they, as you know, are 8D.
    So their perceived 'superiority' cannot handle the energy from the 10th dimension and you and your mother would be quite 'safe' in such a scenario and under the auspices of Thuban.
    But my simple advice is now to simply ask your mother and in view of my response here; as to what she thinks about our plan.
    Did you know that the Irish are 'Serpent people' as a race; after the Tribe of Dan (Tuatha de Daan)?

    Love Abrax



    Hi...Abraxasinas.. yes sure why not... I think i mentioned in a small post a year ago about Iris... but briefely... I'm presuming the bit of my message to you that accompanied your kind reply to me , you had edited and made short for practicle purposes?
    That is ... I'm presuming you recieved a longer version? With my whole reptilian ancient dragon mother story on Orion etc???
    I myself don't talk too openly about her and our connection as I feel there are certain energies she is still vulnerable too and some in her own enviornment who would not be too happy about her and my deep spiritual connection and how she uses her experiance of my experiances and emotions in a very positive way... She tells me that some times all is still not totally rosey in her sphere of operation? I think there is a treaty pending?? They are in a state of Hmm lets see how this pans out... Some die hard old way stuborn dragon energies blocked and scared to face change who are still in positions of power with encredibly wondeful Christed masters/mistresses of compassion working along side them... I try not to draw attention to she and me...so would you use that excerpt to start the thread or the entire letter I presume you recieved? I hope I'm being clear? Some times I can be a bit muddley?
    But that would be an interesting thread and I'm happily anxious to hear what you have to say in your answer?? Blessings.. Antoinette


    Thanks for your reply Antoinette!

    The situation with your mother is a mirror what is occurring in this earth sphere right now. The reptilian agendas, abductions etc. etc. are all a reflection what is happenstance in the metaphysics of the hyperspace dimensions.
    I could edit your introductory exposition so as not to directly engage your mother's spirit OR we could 'outmanouver' the hyperspace dimensions 4-5-6-7 in using the 10th dimensional timeconnector of quantum space.
    Only the highest of the highest presences in this universe even know about the 10th dimension, as they, as you know, are 8D.
    So their perceived 'superiority' cannot handle the energy from the 10th dimension and you and your mother would be quite 'safe' in such a scenario and under the auspices of Thuban.
    But my simple advice is now to simply ask your mother and in view of my response here; as to what she thinks about our plan.
    Did you know that the Irish are 'Serpent people' as a race; after the Tribe of Dan (Tuatha de Daan)?

    Love Abrax



    She says go ahead... Post the entirety...She does what you said we could do ... I don't understand how it works .. she says it's like turning up the dial on a radio, shifting gear... It was a problem at the beginning as my connection to her was something i didn't understand and was of corse cautious that she may have been a Black ops mind cotrole memory plant or a negitive 4th dimentional reptilian entity...duping me... much has gone on since then and I soon grew to recognise her energy instantly... I've found some interferance before... enrgies hijaking our phone line so to spaek and I knew they were not her strait away... also this was before a few cerimonial initiations I went through with her, attuning to her on a deeper level and then i started to get all this memory recall ... She did have some problems on her end with some of the "Managment team" but she has over-riden that.. she said yuo do your thing, the 10 d stuff and she'll meet you half way!! I understand not the technicalities here.... so I guess Post the entire thing....

    Yeah the irish are the serpant people.. I am a mongrel... Scotish/Irish father descended direct line from a Hungerian night templer who married king Malcome of Scotlands sister Beatrice.... a big mural on the Roslym chapel of him with queen Margorate of Scotland on the back of his horse while he carries the rod of destiny (what ever that was?) My father was his great great great (a few more greats) grand son... ( Big posh titled family bla bla.. sacred bloodline and all that mish mosh) Whinston Churchhill my grandfathers first cousin... Whinston's mother American Jenny Jerome and her sister Leonie, my great great great geandmother were a quarter Iroquai (I think thats how yo spell it) red indian..

    My own mother is half German Hapsberg prodestant and half Hungerian Jewish.... So there is a lot of hungerian in there amongst celtic, jewish, red indian and god knows what else?? But I feel irish through and through... as I have absorbed so much of the ground energy here and am very attuned to the grid lines here... I do fireing up the grid work on some of our ancient sites (Star gates)... I yak on a lot i'll quit now!! lets start the post!! thanks Abraxasinas, your energy reminds me of my now departed father.. a great light worker and ancient soul... A big kind sensitive old dragon if ever there was one....
    Blessings Antoinette


    She is a very wise Dragoness your Mother Antoinette. I shall consult with her partner.

    Phoenix-Arachne
    shiloh


    http://www.birthofgaia.com/t235-thuban-fleet-disclosures#3358


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm

    devakas wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Thank-you devakas. I listened to several of those Vedas lectures -- and they were quite good.

    We should thank those who left for us.

    I intend to listen to more of them. I think there is benefit and virtue in most spiritual paths.

    it will sink in if you will listen to more than once. This is the magic when you will start hearing. sences will start improving. Everytime as new and revealing. 'hearing' right meaning (sound) will improve and it is explained why. In short the divine sound > word > meaning > object > your consciousness. if you could realize the perception by senses and control them you will concure illiusion gradualy. This is ever increasing process of divine through sound. Try.

    On the other hand -- shouldn't we identify both truth and error??

    divine does not have error, we humans do.

    Shouldn't we seek the truth -- even if it is inconvenient and painful??

    if it is given you will. Krishna said - I gave intellect enough to everyone to understand me. The problem is with our rebelious ego. It only sometimes painfully sharp logic to realize...

    Or -- is the truth SO overrated?? This world is filled with lies and liars.

    Yes humans are all in love to themselves. There is no charity as it is in spiritual world. btw there are cast structure as charity as the service to Krishna as voluntarely realized love. Unconditional love to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Spirit creates matter. Matter should not be worshiped.

    Deception seems to be at the center of Politics, Religion, Business, Sports, War, News, etc, etc, etc. Has the Human Family made their final decision for all eternity?? Has probation closed?? Will all of our reincarnational records and dark secrets soon appear on the internet??? Now wouldn't THAT be a revolting development??!! Did Humanity Reject Their Creator in Antiquity -- and Follow Another God?? Is Everyone Happy With the Past Few Thousand Years?? Are You All Better Off Now Than You Were in the Garden of Eden??
    Benyan tree looks like a huge big tree of spiritual world. If you could imagine that this tree is next to water and see the reflection in the water as shadow with roots upside down. The material world is this shadow were living entities incarnate. If one can realize this, will know ..... :) what to do.

    we were lied and speculated and not taught. Mantras have power. Only everybody identifies as a body not a soul and wants to satisfy body.
    Raven wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you Raven for adding diversity to this thread. When I attempt to read your posts -- and then review my own material -- I see it in a different light. I wonder how many people are deeply into the Thuban material?? I wonder how many beings in this solar system are deeply into the Thuban material?? I wonder how many beings throughout the universe are deeply into the Thuban material?? I think there is an appropriate variety of material within this thread. This all continues to be a mental and spiritual workout -- as a preparation for what MIGHT be in our future. I haven't had a chance to properly digest the posts on this thread over the past couple of days -- but I will consider all of them carefully. I continue to be challenged regarding discerning where the truth ends -- and the lies begin. I have to simply consider a wide variety of possibilities on an ongoing basis. What if the Creator of the Human Race -- also created the Physical Reptilians and Greys??!! What if Physical Reptilians and Greys were precursors to the Human Being?? For purposes of simplicity, I am considering the following four categories:

    1. Interdimensional Reptilian 'Souls' in 'Heaven', 'Purgatory', and 'Hell'.

    2. Reptilian Physicality animated by Interdimensional Reptilian 'Souls'.

    3. Grey Physicality animated by Interdimensional Reptilian 'Souls'.

    4. Human Physicality animated by Interdimensional Reptilian 'Souls'.

    I am NOT a true believer in this line of thought. I am simply modeling an alternative point of view -- so as to better understand the more mainstream points of view -- as strange as that might seem. I keep sensing a Renegade Creation -- followed by a Power Struggle in Eden -- followed by Hell on Earth. The sad reality of the past several thousands of years were probably NOT part of the Creator's plan. What if the Teachings of Jesus have been rejected by Humanity for tens of thousands of years -- or at least for much longer than two thousand years?? I KNOW that the Secret Government has a Cliff Notes Version of Life, the Universe, and Everything -- Which Contains the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth -- but I doubt that the contents will ever be revealed. As an outsider, I lean strongly toward openness -- but if I were an insider, I might lean strongly toward secrecy. Everything is relative to 'who you are' and 'where you are'. If one considers various possibilities and theories -- this does not mean that they embrace these possibilities and theories. I don't necessarily embrace the contents of this thread. This is sort of a 'Walk on the Wild Side'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkwD261MHsc In real-life, I do NOT walk on the wild side. Just the opposite. But yet you criticize. I KNOW you do.

    Thank-you devakas for your detailed responses. I keep wondering about the Perfection of God. Why does God have to be Perfect?? Does theology require this position?? Is it reality?? I'm frankly seeing a Problematic and Imperfect Humanity AND Divinity -- at least within this particular Solar System. I have NO idea what's going on throughout the universe -- and I'm not sure I wish to know. As of this moment, I feel as if I am at war with both Divinity and Humanity -- yet I wish to have a right relationship with both. I keep seeing a fragmented mess -- which might be VERY difficult to clean up.

    Dear orthodoxymoron!

    It is of little consequence in the cosmic sense, as to how you 'see' the Thuban cosmology.
    What matters, is you LIVING your life and understanding as you think or believe the aspects of your Living to relate to the Beingness and Existence of the entire cosmos itself; and 'bits and pieces', which you do in fact understand or can 'make sense' of.
    The old saying of 'Walking your Talk' is cosmically much more relevant to the notion of 'karma' and 'righteousness versus sinfulness' than most adherents of whatever philosophy might contemplate or believe.

    So, and as you apparently appreciated Dragon input into your thread here, we can further attempt to ease some of your fears and misunderstandings regarding your extensive search for 'truth and wisdom' amidst the information overload as currently experienced by the terran civilisation in consciousness and the 'raison d'etre' for the human beingness, purpose and incarnational presence in this part of the Milky Way or Ourobean galaxy.

    This particular article was composed or 'downloaded' from the Cosmic Twinlogos at the time of the Sendai, Japan tsunami and the Fukushima catastrophy. This essay, might so prove to carry some validity regarding your search for your Sophia or Lady Wisdom Goddess as your own individualised and 'tailormade' DragonQueenBee in baseperfect image to the YinYang FatherMother or AbbaBaab Creator-Creation Dyadic Monad itself.
    These 'serpent hissing words' so CAN help you to find and manifest your selfmade and selffound 'Vertias Eikona', which means 'True Image' as the archetype of Veronica's Charity shown towards the Passion of Jesus de Nasseenes in 31AD.
    You have to try to actually read this essay though, should you 'really' try to understand this 'data share' from the Dragon Den aka Noah's Ark.


    shiloh wrote:The Great War of the Memes from December 21st, 2010 to April 8th, 2012 to January 1st, 2014


    On December 21st, 2010; a Great War for the Freedom of the Cosmic Selfhood began in the Universe.

    There is much symbolic meaning and 'hints' in the physical evolvements within the contexts of the global scenarios unfolding.

    An example is the Libertatis of Libya and the archetypical superposition for the label of the 'Exodus under Moses' onto the manouvers of various human groups, nations, cliques and 'elites' to change their environments, often considered 'oppressive' and 'not free' in their approach to 'freedom of expression' in regards to the cosmic identity of the participators.

    This message shall detail what is occurring in the timeline of the 'normal' politico-socio-economic-militaristic world and in a superimposition onto the warpzone of the World Logos and as shared in many other postings and many forums.

    The countdown of the days in the warpzone of the 'Warped Human Minds' will release the archetypical 'Monsters of the ID'; all energized and potentialised by their human creators as manifested thoughtforms or memeplexes; spanning throughout the human mental evolvement upon Gaia as the harbouring environment for all the planetary offsprings, encompassing its physical- and metaphysical forms and morphogenetic expressions.

    There must so eventuate a 'war in the heavens' and a 'war in the hells' and as conjured to the surface of human perception by the human dualistic mind in its paradigm of the Cartesian Dualism of the so called Mind-Body divide.

    Both, the angelic realms of the beneficers of the spirit and the demonic worlds of pleasures of the body (there is nothing 'wrong' with the pleasures of the body btw, but this can be a form of abuse), will emerge to face their own human creators in many forms and guises of dreams and visions and in 'strange encounters'.

    However, the 'War of the Memes' will not reurgitate the expected chasm between the 'good and the evil' or the conflict between the darkness and the light.

    No, at this final battle for the cosmic liberty for a planetary civilisation trapped in its own lack of reasoning with a sense for deeper purpose and meaningfulness; the heavens will war against their angels and hell will stand divided against its very self.

    The War of the Thoughtforms will release all hidden fears and temptations and will allow all suppressed emotions, harboured within an oppressed humanity in an evolution period of 9,360,360 days (and nights), to erupt in thoughts and deeds and actions.

    The battlezones for the Armageddon of the Human Mind were drawn in the warpzone of the Cosmic Logos; the Universal Mind and Intelligence encompassing all of creation and including all creative endeavours of its subsets or sublogii for a programmed (or encoded) starting nexus on December 8th, 2004 and a double mirrored timespan to April 1st, 2012 with its halfway point dividing the Shadowmaker from its Shadow on August 4th, 2008.

    A new human race will be born from the old human race and this birth is the 'prize' and the 'spoils' attainable by the 'survivors' of the War of the Memes.

    The new starhuman race will be very few in number, as only the old humans, who can harmonize and accomodate the battles between the memeplexes will become enabled to resonate in an accelerated emotional information matrix.

    The battle zone of the meme war engages the absorption potential of the 'Last Supper' of the Human Evening in a 'Heavenly Feast' of a Starhuman New Dawn.

    This can be labeled as the 'Wholesome Eucharist' of the 'Lion of Judah' as the 'World Logos'.

    The Cosmic Logos or the 'Words of God' is also the "Sword of Dog' in the waveparticle duality for an enveloping wavefunction of the Universe of observation and experience.

    The new starhuman race of archetyped dragons or 'Crowned Serpents' will emerge from the participation in a 'Wedding Feast' or the 'Dragonomy' between the Particular Bridegrooms of the Individuated old humans and the One Bride as the collective old humanity.

    So to emerge from the meme war victoriously, requires the absorption and harmonisation of all of the old memeplexes or thoughtforms; namely all of the human mental creations of angels and devils and demons and monsters of the abysses.

    All of the warring factions, might they be Seraphim Michael versus Devil Satanicus Rex or Abaddon versus Archon Beelzebub or Cherubim Gabriel versus Raphael or Archangel Uriel versus Archdemon Belial - all will have to be consumed by the starhuman aspirants.

    All acolytes for the dragonomies must form a 'sacred union' between their own heness and sheness and will so be necessitated to 'matrimonize' himself in herself or vice versa. In this manner the shadow of the cosmic twinship becomes integrated in the starhuman merkabah; details about which can be found on many linked information channels.

    The individuated dragonomy so represents the 'Second Coming' of the 'First Self' in a revisitation of the Older by the Younger or the Ancient by the Newer. This 'First Self' can be said to be a birthday or many birthdays of previous experiences or some hybridisation of parallel lifetimes as retrieved from the wavefunction of the Universe as the One Body of the Bride of the Resurrection as ther 'Sword of the Dog'.

    When the wavefunction of the universe as the One Bride of the World Logos couples with the wavefunction of the universe as the Many Bridegrooms as the HeShes and the SheHes; then the old human hes and shes receive a new merkabah in the holofractalisation of the quantum template of the wavefunction of the universe as 'One Wavefunction' monadised in the dyad of the doubling or the manifestation of the shadows.

    The older Cartesian dualism of the Mind-Body schisma for any old human man or any old human woman so becomes reset in a doubling of the 'Mirror of the Cosmic Selfhood' and is replaced by a newer MindBody-BodyMind dyad, which unifies the sexual polarities without diminishing the potential for the sexual coupling between a He and a She.

    A Starhuman or a Dragon as a member of the new cosmic race so can also be called 'A Dyadic One'.
    The dyadic Ones are so defined in a selfmirroring or a potential shapeshifting from the HeShe to to SheHe and so can couple in sexual polarities to any other dyadic one willing to engage in dragonplay and as a function of the individuated merkabah self-definitions; the latter which can also engage the merkabah extensions in supporting structures, which are enabled to utilize the spaceinherent consciousness of particular environments.

    In symbolic terminology, the monadisation or unification of the wave-particle duality in its doubling can also be called the closing of the generations in the FatherMother informing or delegating to the Sondaughter and passing the 'Words of the God' to the 'Sword of the Dog' in the GrandSonGranddaughter in the graduation ceremony of the 'Heavenly Feast' when Old Dad celebrates the Homecoming Queen of Old Mum and finally becomes 'blessed' in their shared grandparenthood - the aim of purpose for the story from the beginning of the spacetimematters.

    So when the Father told the dates to the Son and the Son told the dates to the Grandson; then the GrandSon shared then story with the Granddaughter and the Granddaughter shared the new information with her daughter and then the Mother Gaia also found out what the story was all about and about her own queenly self.

    So the end of this message shares the encoded program in cryptic-scriptural 'Words of the God' as the lawmaker and via the channelings of the Son to the Holy Ghost as the GrandSon the Holy Spirit as the GrandDaughter GOT a sniff of it when She saw it in a mirror and She and passed the messages on to the Daughter of the Mother and as the Mother is the Executioner of the Law of the Father as the 'Sword of the Dog'; all hells and heavens have broken loose and will be rolled up like scrolls of the antiquity they have become.



    TBC; I gotta check the heat in the kitchen of the 'Word of Psalms' being the 'Sword of Plasma'.

    For anyone interested, please check the links periodically as this is a witness to the War of the Memes in progress and is concurrent with the evolvements in the old world now ready to become mummified in the atrophy of its ignorances.

    March 10th-11th, 2011

    Friday, March 11th, 2011


    The external human world is defined in the energy of the scientist, say in people constructed by molecular biochemistry and the physicality of material chemistry interacting within a universe defined in the transformation of this energy in say the classical world of geometry in Einstein's relativity {E=mc²} and the quantum information of Planck {E=hf}.

    The classical macroworld then becomes holofractalised to a quantum microworld in a holographic universe and is correlated and linked by a model of thermodynamics, say in the form of an expanding universe as a Black Body radiator. The notion of Kinetic temperature then relates to permutation counts of energy selfstates (called Entropy or state of disorder) in both a classically statistical Boltzmann-Stefan-Maxwell distribution of such energy states and a quantum stochastic Bose-Einstein- and Fermi-Dirac formulation of this under the auspices of {E=kT}.

    A unifying relationship between classical statistics of Entropy (Shannon Information) and the quantum energy of a higher dimensional nonclassical statistics has become a new premise of the physical sciences. This unification describes the 3-dimensional statistics of the Heisenberg Action {EnergyxTime=h=MomentumxDisplacement} in the 'normal' world of 3 space dimensions of length, width and breadth coupled to a time dimension as being equivalent in its physics to a statistics on the surface or event horizon of a Black Hole (or White Hole connected by a wormhole or a Einstein-Rosen-Bridge).

    The surface of the Black Hole so becomes the data collector for a 3-dimensional spacial world as a 2-dimensional manifold and corollarily, the physicalised 4-dimensional spacetime of the universe can be said to become equivalent to a data collecting 3-dimensional surface of a Riemannian hypersphere and as a boundary to a 5-dimensional metaphysical universe with 4 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. This is often termed a Kaluza-Klein or de Sitter-Maldacena topology in hyperspacetime.

    I shall not delve further into the technicalities in this thread, but a general familiarity with the hyperphysics is necessary to allow a deeper realisation of what this War of the Memes represents in the form of the information or the data constituing the cosmology.



    The internal human world is not defined by the materialist science apart from a subjective premise of the Mind-Body duality and where the Human Mind is modeled to originate or emerge from the physical functioning of the Human Brain as objective physical reality.

    As the hyperspace physics has shown however; that the objective world of the external can also be defined in the data collection of information of an enveloping higher dimensional surface, say the 3-dimensional surface of a 'Mother Black Hole' herself residing in a 4-dimensional hyperspace; the reduction of the subjective reality of the Human Mind as emerging from the objective reality of the Human brain has become untenable.

    Quantum Relativity then indicates, that the so called subjective Internal World of the Human Mind must be prior to the objective External World of the Human Brain.

    This is the simple question of: 'Where does the universe come from?"

    As the existing physical objective reality exists in space and in time and allows the dynamics of matter, defined in the label mass; the existence of the cosmology is interwoven with the nature of what space and time represent in their deepest essence or energy.

    Then, because all the 'contents' of the universe, from galaxies to microbes and atoms, are defined in the concept of Energy; the only way this Energy could emerge from something not defined in space and time and mass must be a 'higher dimensional' or zero-dimensional construct of say a 'metaenergy' or a 'hyperenergy'.

    The subjective inner worlds of the Human Mind so can be said to be 'hyperenergetic' or 'metaenergized' and these more 'modern' sounding labels are collectively known as 'Spirit' or 'Spiritual Energy'. To be technically precise; 'Spirit' can be termed Electro-Magnetic Monopolar Radiation or EMMR.

    EMMR differs from the familiar Electro-Magnetic Radiation or EMR (radio waves; Infrared; Visible Light; Ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays) in NOT requiring mass- or inertia coupling to so called Coulombic electric charges like say the fusion protons in stars; which when accelerated produce EMR.

    The EMMR is generated by the acceleration, not of electric inertia-linked charges but by the acceleration of magnetic charges of the hyperspacetime in which the 'normal' (Minkowski) spacetime is embedded.

    Whilst the EMR is the effect of Electrified Matter; the EMMR is the effect of Magnetified Nonmatter as a form of Magneticity commonly called 'Consciousness'.

    Technically, the 'Magneto Charges' define 'Consciousness' as requiring space to exist in and so there exists consciousness, wherever there is space.

    The mathematical details will not concern us here, but are found in the archives of the OmniScience/Quantum Relativity on the definitions for the source energy as the modular duality in membrane symmetry in 12-dimensional omnispacetime.

    The creation of the universe so becomes the emergence of Space from nonspace and allows the rigorous definition of an evolving consciousness in an expanding cosmology.

    The more an empty universe can accumulate information in a sense of order or negentropy; the more selfconscious this universe becomes in the collection of the data bits.

    This is a simple summation or data integral in that all subsets of information bases are themselves embued with an evolving consciousness based on the inherent 'spirit' of the original quantum universe (as a wormhole) being the Building Block or template for a discretized selfreplication of say a source consciousness often named God.

    So the conglomeration of data bits becomes a self interaction of the source energy as a hyperenergetic spectrum of the EMMR or the 'Spirit of God' or the 'Spirit of Creation'.

    Selfreplication of the data bits in say the construction of bodyforms, able to harbour brains and biovital living cellular families; then can evolve to complex selfstates like a Human Being; who then has the potential to understand the nature of the source energy aka the creator.

    In this manner then a previous selfstate of existence; namely the Being NOT in space and being either Unconscious or Omniconscious in a Null=Infinity or Nothingness=Eternity Nonunity; can become coupled or resolved in the remembrance of the 'Godlike' Thinkers.

    The emergence and birth of the universe, so becomes birth of consciousness in the self reproduction of an original unitary wormhole singularity which created its own Consciousness as the Space it occupies.

    What does this mean in context of the memeplexes; the thoughtforms ever thought and constructed in the history of a space defined cosmology?

    Every thoughtform created by the Human Brains is Real!

    Devils and demons and angels and flying pink elephants and the Spaghetti Monster of the skeptical society - all exist in the metaphysical worlds of the hyperenergy. They all have been thought of, caricatured, painted or digitalised, photoshopped, feared and laughed about.

    The memes are so defined in reductionistic omniscientific terminology as the generated thoughtforms of the Thinkers, say the creator human minds.



    Due to the nature of 'hiddenness' of the hyperspace reality in the restriction of the five-sensual physical apapratus of the human brain; the memeplexes remain invisible to the human sensors. They can be 'felt' however and this is a consequence the space the memes occupy.

    Because they occupy 'invisible space' they nevertheless engage the space inherent consciousnesds of the space they inhabit.

    The space they inhabit was memeplexed by their human creators in that the human consciousness of the creativity gave the thoghtforms FORM or a morphogenetic gestalt in their Imagination creating the Images.

    In short, the memes are hyperenergized creations interpenetrating the human worlds of the external manifestations of human interactions and communications.

    The War of the Memes so becomes a 4-dimensional spacetime realism mapped or induced from a 5-dimensional hyperspacetime realism.

    All the events and occurrences on Old planet Gaia-Earth are blueprinted manifestations of the memeplexes coupled irrevokably to the human minds which created them.

    The civil wars and revolts in Egypt, Libya and the many other places found on Gaia become a playground for the invisible memes hyperenergized by the fears and emotions of the lower dimensional environments, which created them in Images of the Imaginations.

    The physicality of the memes is found in the technical details of what 'space inherent consciousness is.

    This basic spaceplenum can be accelerated to create the EMMR in the formulation of the boundary conditions for what is known as the nuclear confinement limit and as its range of interaction.

    Just as the angular or centripetal acceleration of subatomic particles in a fusion star (the sun) creates light and other EMR for the star to shine; so does the angular quantum acceleration of the space source quantum (the wormhole as basic building block for the discretization of the cosmic light matrix) manufacture the 'spirit' or the EMMR.

    This quantum acceleration can be labeled 'Awareness' and when coupled to any subset of 'spacebits'; the amount of space so accelerated defines the 'consciousness state' of the interaction.

    In logistical terminology then, the 'normal' 4D spacetime world is a worldd of consciousness units interacting with themselves. If particular complexified data collectors like humans interact and communicate; then their moving about in space engages not only their own selfstates of hyperenergy collected as say memories and experiences; but they also interact with the consciousness located in the spaces they are visiting and occupy in their dynamical manouvers.

    So many memes created by human ancestors can be found at many places and also become subject to the 'conjuring magic' of any human thinker who can construct the logistics for the 'tapping' of the universal wavefunction in the wave-particle duality described before in general terms.

    The War of the Memes then can be fought in many places; externally in emotional human interactions, representing technically the acceleration of the consciousness in say extremes of feelings in the subjectivity; and internally in the moods of elation, joy, hyperactivity, depression, melancholy or many other such labels for the expression of how one feels.

    When the subjective consciousness becomes hyperenergized past certain individual boundaries or energy thresholds; then the objectification of the EMMR as the 'Spirit of the Moment' can manifest in outcomes of creativity and impulsivity, either constructive or destructive; either the pressing of buttons of war machines or the creation of a poem or a symphony.

    The memes are alive and cannot be destroyed or uncreated. A thought can be forgotten, but a thought cannot become unthought.

    So the War of the Memes can never end in an external setting of any universe or as a logical consequence of any cosmology, however selfconsistently and elegantly constructed.



    The War of the Memes can only be harmonized and the battle can be won from the internal setting of the individual data collector as a shard of the original creator source energy.

    The original creator is defined in the Creator-Creation dyad as the Shadowed Unity in spacetimematter from the Unified CreatorCreation or FatherMother from the 'no oneness exists' except in the 'All is Nothing' paradox.

    Here then the internal world becomes relative to the creation as Her own BODY as THE ONE thing and the external world becomes the UNSEEN MIND who created the Creation as His own 'Lost Bodyself'.

    However relative to the creator, He becomes the MIRROR for HER so She can look at Herself and not to feel lost and alone as the only one (universe) any longer.

    The creator is also WITHIN the creation as the things She cannot see as being Inside of Her and the masterplan of the Logos engages the data collectors within Her as the Universal Body to Realise Who they are as scattered shards of the original creator source energy.

    The agency to convey the 'communications' from the One Creator wave Around the Universe of Her to the 'sharded' waveforms defining the individuated data collectors, is the EMMR or the 'Spirit'.

    KNOWING who they are; allows any data collector to holofractalise their individuated merkabahs or body forms to expand to any scale within Her Majesty's Oneness and to so to expand in spacial consciousness.

    Doing this however will by definition 'eat the space' where the memes are and so the consciousness of the 'rememberers' can indeed end the war of the Memes in swallowing them up in Daughter Black Holes like the encompassing Mother Black Hole of her Highness.

    Any Old Human, who can indeed expand hisher own base consciousness to understand the story and the process; will become 'SEALED' to the memes trying to disturb and play their games in the emotional accelerations the Mental Armageddon of the specified countdown of the war of the memes.

    Very very few old humans will be able to understand the story within the warpzone; but a remnant of recallers will accelerate their consciousness enough to resonate with the World Logos who has contracted His bodyform of the resurrection to encompass the Gaian Cocoon as a 'Bubble Womb' so 4 million kilometers in diameter.

    When the warpzone completes itself in the nexus points detailed later in this thread; then the World Logos Resonance Energy will Open the SEALS of the sealed remnanted ones and will so enter the old human bodies to reconfigure their merkabahs in the sharing or hybridisation of his waveformed BodyMind.

    In quantum mechanical terms, this is simply a fourier expansion of sinusoidal waveforms or the tuning of amplitudes in frequency modulations as every old human body is coupled to a mindwave and those minds can be superimposed onto each other.

    There exist multittudinous mislabelings of confused interpretations of this topic; like 'rapture' and 'ascension' and 'nirvana' and 'heaven' and messiahs drifting down from clouds to save believers.

    The confused translations are most often induced by devious memeplexes; which were created by thinkers of the past.

    So the 'sealed ones' are not a number count; but every 'Sealed One;' will manifest 12x12,000=144,000 aspects of herhimself WITHIN.

    And those 144,000 aspects will assist in the processing of the memes eaten up by the sealed ones.



    Sunday, March 13th, 2011

    There are a number of tools and definitions required to understand the decoding of the timelines as encrypted in the scriptures. Without those 'keys' the translation of the dates and daycounts basically allows a random and arbitrary superposition onto any arbitrary chronology as envisioned by the decoder.

    The prophetic timelines encoded and of relevance in this treatise are the 'Days of Noah' in Genesis and the 'Egyptian Captivity of Israel' in Exodus and the 'Sieges of Israel and Judah' in Ezekiel and the '70-Weeks' and the 'Cleansing of the Sanctuary' in Daniel and the 'Times and a Time and half a Time' in Revelation.

    All of these engage a 'Week of Confusion' or WOC; where Noah builds the ark and Ezekiel is astonished and where this 'week' is a cycle of time divided into two halves like a 24 hour period becomes divided in a 12 hour day and a 12 hour night in say four 'watches' at the 0, 6,12,18 hour markers in UCT/GMT notation.

    The nexus dates given in the following so become the 4th day in such a 'week cycle' as the 3½ midweek day for the 'seven day' period in one of a number of superimposed deccodings.



    The 3½ 'Days' also represent a HalfCycle for a 'Full Cycle' of Sevens; as in 7 'Ancient Platonic Years' of 360 12-Hour Days and 12-Hour Nights each.

    The 'Hour of the Beast' in Revelation so becomes a proportionality for 'How many days in such a year' as to 'How many hours in such a day' in the 24/1=360/15 or 24x15=360, also comprising 42 'Ancient Months' of 30 days each in 42x30=1260 as the encompassing 'encoding' for the 'A Time and Times and Half a Time' as found in Daniel and in Revelation.

    The relevant scriptural verses are referenced at the end of this message thread in red for the pertaining passages and with other coloured comments added in {Brackets}.



    The 'Preparation' of the 'StarHuman' serpentinian race is prepared in the 9,360,360 days (Mayan Kin) in 25,627.795 'Civil (Gregorian) Years' and so spans exactly 65=13x5 Mayan Baktuns as 'Five Great Mayan Ages' or 'Longcounts' of 13 Baktuns or 13x144,000=1,872,000 Kin each.

    The final 13 baktuns begin on August 11th, 3114 BC as 0.0.0.0.0=4 Ahau 8 Cumku and end on December 21st, 2012 or 13.0.0.0.0=4 Ahau 3 Kankin as 9,360,000 Days to which is added a finalising 'Grand Platonic Circle year' to calibrate all the calendars at December 16th, 2013 or 13.0.1.0.0=13 Ahau 18 Mac.


    The transformation of a type of cosmic civilisation like that of the 'old humanity' residing on planet earth into a evolved cosmic civilisation, say a 'new humanity' inhabiting a terraformed planet earth requires a period of transitional evolutionary adaptation.

    This can be compared to the metamorphosis of the butterfly genus/family; order lepidoptera; class insecta; phylum arthropoda; kingdom animalia from the four stages of embryo-larvae-pupa-imago from the caterpillar-larvae stage into the butterfly-imago stage via the transit stage of the pupa-chrysalis ergo the cocoonisation of the caterpillar insectoid.


    In the form of the genus homo, the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens can be modelled to have entered the embryonic stage with the advent of Cro Magnon Man so 26,000 (civil) years ago.
    Using 400 year intervals of 146,097 days under utility of a a certain calendrical counting of time ; the embryonic conception can be 'dated' to an extrapolated calendrical date of Saturday, February 21st, 23,615BC-G and precisely 9,360,008 days (and a precessional daycount as 25,626.83149 Gregorian years) from Friday, December 21st, 2012AD in a weekcount of 1,337,144.

    The Julian daycount began on January 1st 4713 BC-Julian and the Gregorian daycount of 365.2425 days per year commenced on October 5th, 1582, replacing the Julian year of 365.25 days.
    A Mean Tropical Year has 365.24219 days and where a mean solar day has precisely 24x3600=86,400 SI seconds.


    The Tropical Year is referential to the seasons (equinoxes and solstices) and differs from the star-referential Sidereal Year (of 365.256363 mean solar days) in so 0.014173 'mean solar days' in the addendum 1 1/26,000 or 1.000039 of so 1224.55 seconds (20' 24.5128") per year and which accumulate to about 363.2 mean days (and so about a year) per precessional cycle.
    Due to orbital- and rotational changes and precession a year is decreasing at the present astronomical configuration by about 5 milliseconds/year or 130 seconds or so 2 minutes in a 26,000 precessional cycle.



    The Gregorian year of 365.2425 days differs from the tropical year of 365.24219 days and so the Gregorian calendar will accumulate an error of about 0.00031x26,000~8.1 days per precessional cycle.
    To account for this, a 'creation-initialisation week of 8 days' is added to the 64 cycles in 9792 8=9,800=7x1,400=7x7x200=8x52x72=2(22x52x72)=2x702 in the 13x5x144,000=9,360,000 (Mayan) day-kin count, which so begins on the superposed and extrapolated Gregorian Day (G) Day#-7=Saturday, February 22nd, 23,615BC-G and becomes mirrored in the 7th day Day#7=Saturday, March 8th, 23,615BC-G for the Conception of the human Embryo to be born from its Chrysalis 64 cycles later.


    The first cycle is initiated on Day#9,792=Friday, December 21st, 23,589BC-G and the last and 64th cycle is initiated on Day#9,213,903=Friday, December 21st, 1612AD-Gregorian and ends precisely 146,097 days or 400 Gregorian years later on Friday, December 21st, 2012AD to commence a now precessional count in the birth of the Imago of the ancient human Embryo established by the beginning of the first cycle.


    Cycle0=#-136,305=JD#-7,040,022=Friday, December 21st, 23,989BC-GLeap
    ...
    Day#-7=JD#-6,903,724=Creation-Day#1=Saturday, February 22nd, 23,615BC-G=Human Embryo in Image
    Day#-6=JD#-6,903,723=Creation-Day#2=Sunday, February 23rd, 23,615BC-G
    Day#-5=JD#-6,903,722=Creation-Day#3=Monday, February 24th, 23,615BC-G=Human Larvae in Image
    Day#-4=JD#-6,903,721=Creation-Day#4=Tuesday, February 25th, 23,615BC-G
    Day#-3=JD#-6,903,720=Creation-Day#5=Wednesday, February 26th, 23,615BC-G=Human Pupa in Image
    Day#-2=JD#-6,903,719=Creation-Day#6=Thursday, February 27th, 23,615BC-G
    Day#-1=JD#-6,903,718=Creation-Day#7=Friday, February 28th, 23,615BC-G=Human Imago in Image



    Day#0=JD#-6,903,717=Creation-Day#8=Saturday, March 1st, 23,615BC-G=Human Path in Image-Mirror

    Day#1=JD#-6,903,716=Sunday, March 2nd, 23,615BC-G=Human Conception in Imagonation
    Day#2=JD#-6,903,715=Monday, March 3rd, 23,615BC-G
    Day#3=JD#-6,903,714=Tuesday, March 4th, 23,615BC-G=Human Conception in Pupasation
    Day#4=JD#-6,903,713=Wednesday, March 5th, 23,615BC-G
    Day#5=JD#-6,903,712=Thursday, March 6th, 23,615BC-G=Human Conception in Larvaeation
    Day#6=JD#-6,903,711=Friday, March 7th, 23,615BC-G
    Day#7=JD#-6,903,710=Saturday, March 8th, 23,615BC-G=Human Conception in Embryonisation
    ...
    Day#295=JD#-6,903,422=Sunday, December 21st, 23,615BC-G
    Day#660=JD#-6,903,057=Monday, December 21st, 23,614BC-G
    Day#1,026=JD#-6,902,691=Wednesday, December 21st, 23,613BC-GLeap
    Day#2,487=JD#-6,901,230=Monday, December 21st, 23,609BC-GLeap
    Day#3,948=JD#-6,899,769=Saturday, December 21st, 23,605BC-GLeap
    Day#5,409=JD#-6,898,308=Thursday, December 21st, 23,601BC-GLeap


    Day#6,139=JD#-6,897,578=Saturday, December 21st, 23,599BC-G
    Day#6,504=JD#-6,897,213=Sunday, December 21st, 23,598BC-G
    Day#6,870=JD#-6,896,847=Tuesday, December 21st, 23,597BC-GLeap
    Day#7,235=JD#-6,896,482=Wednesday, December 21st, 23,596BC-G


    Day#7,600=JD#-6,896,117=Thursday, December 21st, 23,595BC-G

    Day#7,965=JD#-6,895,752=Friday, December 21st, 23,594 BC-G


    Day#8,331=JD#-6,895,386=Sunday, December 21st, 23,593BC-GLeap
    Day#8,696=JD#-6,895,021=Monday, December 21st, 23,592BC-G


    Day#9,061=JD#-6,894,656=Tuesday, December 21st, 23,591BC-G
    Day#9,426=JD#-6,894,291=Wednesday, December 21st, 23,590BC-G

    Cycle1=#9,792=JD#-6,893,925=Friday, December 21st, 23,589BC-GLeap=Human Embryo Initialized from Conception
    Cycle2=#155,889=JD#-6,747,828=Friday, December 21st, 23,189BC-G
    Cycle3=#301,986=JD#-6,601,731=Friday, December 21st, 22,789BC-G
    Cycle4=#448,083=JD#-6,455,634=Friday, December 21st, 22,389BC-G
    Cycle5=#594,180=JD#-6,309,537=Friday, December 21st, 21,989BC-G
    Cycle6=#740,277=JD#-6,163,440=Friday, December 21st, 21,589BC-G
    Cycle7=#886,374=JD#-6,017,343=Friday, December 21st, 21,189BC-G
    Cycle8=#1,032,471=JD#-5,871,246=Friday, December 21st, 20,789BC-G
    Cycle9=#1,178,568=JD#-5,725,149=Friday, December 21st, 20,389BC-G
    Cycle10=#1,324,665=JD#-5,579,052=Friday, December 21st, 19,989BC-G
    Cycle11=#1,470,762=JD#-5,432,955=Friday, December 21st, 19,589BC-G
    Cycle12=#1,616,859=JD#-5,286,858=Friday, December 21st, 19,189BC-G
    Cycle13=#1,762,956=JD#-5,140,761=Friday, December 21st, 18,789BC-G
    Cycle14=#1,909,053=JD#-4,994,664=Friday, December 21st, 18,389BC-G
    Cycle15=#2,055,150=JD#-4,848,567=Friday, December 21st, 17,989BC-G
    Cycle16=#2,201,247=JD#-4,702,470=Friday, December 21st, 17,589BC-G
    Cycle17=#2,347,344=JD#-4,556,373=Friday, December 21st, 17,189BC-G=Human Embryo to Larvae
    Cycle18=#2,493,441=JD#-4,410,276=Friday, December 21st, 16,789BC-G
    Cycle19=#2,639,538=JD#-4,264,179=Friday, December 21st, 16,389BC-G
    Cycle20=#2,785,635=JD#-4,118,082=Friday, December 21st, 15,989BC-G
    Cycle21=#2,931,732=JD#-3,971,985=Friday, December 21st, 15,589BC-G
    Cycle22=#3,077,829=JD#-3,825,888=Friday, December 21st, 15,189BC-G
    Cycle23=#3,223,926=JD#-3,679,791=Friday, December 21st, 14,789BC-G
    Cycle24=#3,370,023=JD#-3,533,694=Friday, December 21st, 14,389BC-G
    Cycle25=#3,516,120=JD#-3,387,597=Friday, December 21st, 13,989BC-G
    Cycle26=#3,662,217=JD#-3,241,500=Friday, December 21st, 13,589BC-G
    Cycle27=#3,808,314=JD#-3,095,403=Friday, December 21st, 13,189BC-G
    Cycle28=#3,954,411=JD#-2,949,306=Friday, December 21st, 12,789BC-G
    Cycle29=#4,100,508=JD#-2,803,209=Friday, December 21st, 12,389BC-G
    Cycle30=#4,246,605=JD#-2,657,112=Friday, December 21st, 11,989BC-G
    Cycle31=#4,392,702=JD#-2,511,015=Friday, December 21st, 11,589BC-G
    Cycle32=#4,538,799=JD#-2,364,918=Friday, December 21st, 11,189BC-G

    Day#4,680,000=JD#-2,223,717=Day#-4,677,065=Tuesday, July 27th, 10,802BC-G
    =Halfway-Point (for Giza Pyramid/Sphinx - Angkor Temple Projections)
    Day#4,680,001=JD#-2,223,718=Day#-4,677,064=Wednesday, July 28th, 10,802 BC-G

    Cycle33=#4,684,896=JD#-2,218,821=Friday, December 21st, 10,789BC-G=Human Larvae to Pupasation
    Cycle34=#4,830,993=JD#-2,072,724=Friday, December 21st, 10,389BC-G
    Cycle35=#4,977,090=JD#-1,926,627=Friday, December 21st, 9,989BC-G
    Cycle36=#5,123,187=JD#-1,780,530=Friday, December 21st, 9,589BC-G
    Cycle37=#5,269,284=JD#-1,634,433=Friday, December 21st, 9,189BC-G
    Cycle38=#5,415,381=JD#-1,488,336=Friday, December 21st, 8,789BC-G
    Cycle39=#5,561,478=JD#-1,342,239=Friday, December 21st, 8,389BC-G
    Cycle40=#5,707,575=JD#-1,196,142=Friday, December 21st, 7,989BC-G
    Cycle41=#5,853,672=JD#-1,050,045=Friday, December 21st, 7,589BC-G
    Cycle42=#5,999,769=JD#-903,948=Friday, December 21st, 7,189BC-G
    Cycle43=#6,145,866=JD#-757,851=Friday, December 21st, 6,789BC-G
    Cycle44=#6,291,963=JD#-611,754=Friday, December 21st, 6,389BC-G
    Cycle45=#6,438,060=JD#-465,657=Friday, December 21st, 5989BC-G
    Cycle46=#6,584,157=JD#-319,560=Friday, December 21st, 5589BC-G
    ...
    Cycle47=#6,730,254=JD#-173,463=Friday, January 31st, 5188BC-Julian
    Cycle48=#6,876,351=JD#-27,366=Friday, January 28th, 4788BC-Julian
    Cycle49=#7,022,448=JD#118,731=Friday, January 25th, 4388BC-Julian=Human Puppy to Imago
    Cycle50=#7,168,545=JD#264,828=Friday, January 22nd, 3988BC-Julian
    Cycle51=#7,314,642=JD#410,925=Friday, January 19th, 3588BC-Julian
    Cycle52=#7,460,739=JD#557,022=Friday, January 16th, 3188BC-Julian
    Cycle53=#7,606,836=JD#703,119=Friday, January 13th, 2788BC-Julian
    Cycle54=#7,752,933=JD#849,216=Friday, January 10th, 2388BC-Julian
    Cycle55=#7,899,030=JD#995,313=Friday, January 7th, 1988BC-Julian
    Cycle56=#8,045,127=JD#1,141,410=Friday, January 4th, 1588BC-Julian
    Cycle57=#8,191,224=JD#1,287,507=Friday, January 1st, 1188BC-Julian
    Cycle58=#8,337,321=JD#1,433,604=Friday, December 29th, 789BC-Julian
    Cycle59=#8,483,418=JD#1,579,701=Friday, December 26th, 389BC-Julian
    Cycle60=#8,629,515=JD#1,725,798=Friday, December 23rd, 12-Julian
    Cycle61=#8,775,612=JD#1,871,895=Friday, December 20th, 412-Julian
    Cycle62=#8,921,709=JD#2,017,992=Friday, December 17th, 812-Julian
    Cycle63=#9,067,806=JD#2,164,089=Friday, December 14th, 1212-Julian
    Cycle64=#9,213,903=JD#2,310,186=Friday, December 21st, 1612-Gregorian
    Cycle65/0=#9,360,000=JD#2,456,283=Friday, December 21st, 2012-Gregorian=Human Imago
    ...
    Cycle65/360=#9,360,360=JD#2,456,643=Monday, December 16th, 2013
    Cycle65/361=#9,360,361=JD#2,456,644=Tuesday, December 17th, 2013=Day1*of the Hour of 15=360/24
    ...
    Cycle65/365=#9,360,365=JD#2,456,648=Saturday, December 21st, 2013=Day5* of the Hour of 15=360/24
    ...
    Cycle65/375=#9,360,375=JD#2,456,658=Tuesday, December 31st, 2013=Day15* of the Hour of 15=360/24
    Cycle66/1*=#9,360,376=JD#2,456,659=Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 = New Cosmic Light-Matrix Established!


    Defining the scriptural chronos is completely arbitrary in the linearity of any calendrical timeflow; but once a particular 'Mirror Day' becomes defined; this specification will align and correlate all dates encoded in the scrolls and scriptures of 'prophecy'.

    The greater timeline of Daniel gives the doubling of the 1335 days in 2x1335=2670=2300+370 and so envelopes all of the 'end times' as defined in the 'Season' or 'Cycle' of the 'Sevens'.

    The Warpzone so is defined in 2670 days or 7.310..'Civil Years' and with the 1335th day being the Mirror Day of the 'Blessings' as per Daniel.12.

    Defining this Mirror Day then will uniquely define the Timeline of the World Logos as the 'warptime of the logistics' in the doubling of the 12-Hours of day and night as a Day.

    The 'Mirror of Daniel' is defined in August 4th, 2008 as the 1938th 'anniversary' for the destruction of Jerusalem under the Roman General Titus on August 4th, 70 AD and as the 1980th 'anniversary' or 'Jubilee' of the World Logos on August 4th 28AD in the River Jordan as the encoded 'Baptism of Jesus of Nazareth' by John the Baptizer and describing the 'Blessing from Heaven ' in the symbol of the Dove.

    Defining this 'Day of the Blessings' as the 1335th day of the Midpoint of the warpzone; then uniquely fixes the Beginning of the Warptime as December 8th, 2004 and in the beginning of the 'Abomination of Desolation' and the 'Pollution of the Sanctuary' as per the Book of Daniel.

    Corollarily; the warptime must then end on March 31st, 2012 as the 2670th Day, stipulating April 1st, 2012 as the 'Day for the Impregnation of Gaia', followed in a gestation of 265 days to December 21st, 2012 for the Rebirth of Old Gaia as New Gaia Serpentina - Serpentina meaning 'In A Serpent' or ''In A Present'.

    Following this Birth, Serpentina 'weans' a new race of starhumans for the 360-Circle Year to calibrate the ancient indigenous calendars of the lunar- and solar cyclicities and seasons with the 'modern precision' ones, the latter utilizing scientific measurements for the 'temporal duration' of time as a function of frequency.

    Using such a calibration for a Mirror day as stipulated in the 'prophecies' then allows any extended timeframe, comprised of such 2670 day periods to be constructed as an alternating sequence of (370+2300) (2300+370) (370+2300) ...and mirroring the longer parts of the '2300 days of Daniel's Sanctuary' alternating with the shorter part of the '370 days of Noah's Flood'.

    A 8-cycle period then can mirror a 'First Coming' in a 'Mirror Coming' or 'Second Coming' of the 'World Logos'; the 'first' manifestation being a Oneness in Individuality of MANY in the ONE and the 'second' manifestation becoming the ONE in the MANY as the Particularisation of the Wave in the Quantum Duality of the Mind-Body dualism described earlier.

    The historical occurrences of 28 BC to 32 AD so are mapped on a parallel timeline from 1953 to 2012 and as encoded in ancient monuments like pyramids and indigenous calendars.

    In regards to the 'Life, Death and Resurrection' of Jesus of Nazareth as the individual incarnation as the 'Word of Gods' so becomes the 'Words of God' in the 'Sword of God' in the apocalypse of the 'Words of Dog', namely Gaia the executioner for the Legislature and Jurisdiction of the cosmic lawmaker.

    The 1st Time-Loop of 2670=370+2300 Days manifests from:
    Day-18689=Saturday, October 8th, 28BC/Thursday, October 8th, 1953 to Day-16020=Monday, January 28th, 20BC/Saturday, January 28th, 1961

    The 2nd Time-Loop of 2670=2300+370 Days manifests from:
    Day-16019=Tuesday, January 29th, 20BC/Sunday, January 29th, 1961 to Day-13350=Thursday, May 21st, 13BC/Tuesday, May 21st, 1968

    The 3rd Time-Loop of 2670=370+2300 Days manifests from:
    Day-13349=Friday, May 22nd, 13BC/Wednesday, May 22nd, 1968 to Day-10680=Sunday, September 12th, 6BC/Friday, September12th, 1975

    The 4th Time-Loop of 2670=2300+370 Days manifests from:
    Day-10679=Monday, September 13th, 6BC/Saturday, September 13th, 1975 to Day-8010=Wednesday, January 3rd, 3AD/Monday, January 3rd, 1983

    The 5th Time-Loop of 2670=370+2300 Days manifests from:
    Day-8009=Thursday, January 4th, 3AD/Tuesday, January 4th, 1983 to Day-5340=Saturday, April 26th, 10AD/Thursday, April 26th, 1990

    The 6th Time-Loop of 2670=2300+370 Days manifests from:
    Day-5339=Sunday, April 27th, 10AD/Friday, April 27th, 1990 to Day-2670=Tuesday, August 17th, 17AD/Sunday, August 17th, 1997

    The 7th Time-Loop of 2670=370+2300 Days manifests from:
    Day-2669=Wednesday, August 18th, 17AD/Monday, August 18th, 1997 to Day#0=Friday, December 8th, 24AD/Wednesday, December 8th, 2004

    The 8th Time-Loop of 2670=2300+370 Days manifests from:
    Day#1=Saturday, December 9th, 24AD/Thursday, December 9th, 2004 to Day#2670=Monday, March 31st, 32AD/Saturday, March 31st, 2012
    ...

    Day#1335=Wednesday, August 4th, 28AD/Monday, August 4th, 2008

    ...

    Day#2670=Monday, March 31st, 32AD/Saturday, March 31st, 2012

    Day#2671=Tuesday, April 1st, 32AD/PalmSunday, April 1st, 2012=Impregnation for the 'New Jerusalem'

    ...

    Day#2935=Sunday, December 21st, 32AD/Friday, December 21st, 2012 = Birthday for the StarHumanity as the New Jerusalem

    ...

    Day#3295=Wednesday, December 16th, 33AD/Monday, December 16th, 2013 = Maturing of the New Jerusalem

    ...

    Day#3310=Thursday, December 31st, 33AD/Tuesday, December 31st, 2013

    Day#1=Friday, January 1st, 34AD/Wednesday, January 1st, 2014 = New Year Day for StarHuman Civilization


    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Image10The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Big_201170203352746The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Wimage10
    Abraxasinas, September 5th, 2011

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:55 pm

    Thank-you Raven. I read your previous post -- and found it quite interesting and beneficial -- even though I do not follow astrology. But really, thinking about life, the universe, and everything -- in an astrological context -- is sort of cool. I will presently read your last post -- but I frankly cannot spend too much time with the Thuban material. I must remain close to my 'home-base'. I felt the same way with Brook's Egyptology. This is not a minimalization of your perspectives. It is simply a defense mechanism which keeps me from becoming 'Lost in Space'. I keep wondering about a 'Federalist Papers' -- '1928 Book of Common Prayer' -- 'Sacred Classical Music' -- 'Astronomica' version of 'Thuban'. As I have previously mentioned -- this thread leans in that direction. This is NOT an Alex Jones, David Icke, Ron Paul, Sherry Shriner, David Rockefeller, Lord Rothschild, President, Queen, or Pope thread -- yet it includes all of the above. I'd be interested to know if anyone else in the Solar System is taking a similar approach?? I'm continuing to see an Internal Royal Matriarchy -- and an External Patriarchy -- with the Queen of England and the Current Queen of Heaven (for this Solar System) at the Top of the Pyramid. This is merely speculation -- but this is my current story -- and I'm sticking to it -- for now.

    I continue to be fascinated with the combination of the first four episodes of 'V' (2009) watched without a break -- followed immediately by watching 'Battlestar Galactica: The Plan' -- with 'Archangelic Queens of Heaven and the United States of the Solar System' clearly in mind. To me, the effect is chilling. Once again, I continue to fly-blind. Yes, I know there is an 'information overload' -- but I am not viewing this information from the 'Top of the Pyramid' -- and I probably would NOT like the view. This is all a type of Sirius Entertainment -- with potentially serious implications and ramifications. I once spoke with a 'Rufus Look-Alike' ('Dogma') aspiring science-fiction writer about the possibility that we are all prisoners (without realizing that we are incarcerated). This was before I really started getting science-fictional -- and I hadn't even seen 'Dogma'. Several times, there was an official-looking Humvee 'waiting' outside as we spoke. 'Rufus' seemed to be somewhat concerned about this. As I have mentioned previously -- I have encountered at least two or three 'Dogma' individuals -- which made me feel a bit like the 'Last Scion'. Don't look now -- but the Excrementals are taking over the planet. BTW -- 'Rufus' showed me some really cool sci-fi comics. I wish I could find the source on the internet -- so I could post some of them here! Look at the image (with Hermann Oberth) on page 236 of 'Astronomica' (the small-print version) -- and then look at the second image below. Nuff Said.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Fhd999DGA_Linda_Fiorentino_011
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 LFoDB7sIynfGRRgsczqCf3va86j
    Aquaries1111 wrote:45.1
    Treaty of the Divine Masculine (link)
    THE HIGHEST CONCORDING PARTIES, in recognition and respect to the Divine Remedy offered by the Divine Creator and demonstrated through the Covenant of the Supreme Patron to End the War in Heaven thereby establishing conditions by which War on Earth may also be Ended and in the recognition of the End of Hell, the Uniting of all Spirits do Come Now with these Presents and with one another Agree to this Covenant of the Divine Masculine:

    45.2
    The Divine Masculine deities party to the Treaty (link)
    Let it be known to all past, present and future, we here named come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

    We are known as Adad, We are known as Aegir, We are known as Aengus, We are known as Aesir, We are known as Agni, We are known as Ahura Mazda, We are known as Aksobhya, We are known as Allah, We are known as Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami, We are known as Amen-Ra, We are known as An, We are known as Anu, We are known as Anubis, We are known as Apsu, We are known as Apollo, We are known as Archons, We are known as Ares, We are known as Arsan Duolai, We are known as Asklepios, We are known as Aten, We are known as Atum, We are known as Avalokitesvara, We are known as Baal, We are known as Balder, We are known as Belenua, We are known as Brahma, We are known as Chemosh, We are known as Dagda, We are known as Dagon, We are known as Dharma, We are known as Diancecht, We are known as Dumuzi, We are known as Dyaus Pitar, We are known as Ea, We are known as El, We are known as Enki, We are known as Enlil, We are known as Freyr, We are known as Father, We are known as Ganesa, We are known as Geb, We are known as Gobniu, We are known as God, We are known as Hades, We are known as Heimdall, We are known as Helios, We are known as Hephaistos, We are known as Heryshaf, We are known as Hoder, We are known as Huitzilpochtli, We are known as Il, We are known as Imra, We are known as Indra, We are known as Iskur, We are known as Itzam Na, We are known as Jagannath, We are known as Janus, We are known as Jupiter, We are known as Kama, We are known as Kuan Ti, We are known as Lebien-Pogil, We are known as Lenus, We are known as Loki, We are known as Lug, We are known as Lucifer, We are known as Lynx, We are known as Mande, We are known as Manjusri, We are known as Marduk, We are known as Mars, We are known as Melqart, We are known as Mimir, We are known as Min, We are known as Mon, We are known as Mot, We are known as Na Cha, We are known as Nergal, We are known as Ninurta, We are known as Njord, We are known as Nuadu, We are known as Nut, We are known as Ometecuhtli, We are known as Osiris, We are known as Othin, We are known as Pak Tai, We are known as Pan, We are known as Peter, We are known as Pon, We are known as Poseidon, We are known as Ptah, We are known as Quikinn.a'Qu, We are known as Radha, We are known as Sabaoth, We are known as Satan, We are known as Saturn, We are known as Seth, We are known as Skanda, We are known as Sin, We are known as Sucellos, We are known as Surya, We are known as Susano-Wo, We are known as Telepinu, We are known as Tesub, We are known as Tezcatlipoca, We are known as Thor, We are known as Tiwaz, We are known as Tlaloc, We are known as Ull, We are known as Utu, We are known as Vairacocha, We are known as Varuna, We are known as Vayu, We are known as Visnu, We are known as Vulcanus, We are known as Wodan, We are known as Xipe Totec, We are known as YHVH, We are known as Zeus; and

    46.1
    Treaty of the Divine Feminine (link)
    THE HIGHEST CONCORDING PARTIES, in recognition and respect to the Divine Remedy offered by the Divine Creator and demonstrated through the Covenant of the Supreme Patron and the Treaty of the Divine Masculine to End the War in Heaven thereby establishing conditions by which War on Earth may also be Ended and in the recognition of the End of Hell, the Uniting of all Spirits do Come Now with these Presents and with one another Agree to this Covenant of the Divine Feminine:

    46.2
    The Divine Feminine deities party to the Treaty (link)
    Let it be known to all past, present and future, we here named come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

    We are known as Amaterasu-o-mi-kami, We are known as Anat, We are known as Antu, We are known as Aphrodite, We are known as Artemis, We are known as Asherah, We are known as Ashtoreth, We are known as Astarte, We are known as Atargatis, We are known as Athena, We are known as Bastet, We are known as Bes, We are known as Brigit, We are known as Ceres, We are known as Chalchiuhtlicue, We are known as Cihuacoatl, We are known as Cipactli, We are known as Coatlicue, We are known as Coventina, We are known as Cybil, We are known as Danu, We are known as Demeter, We are known as Disani, We are known as Durga, We are known as Eileithyia, We are known as Epona, We are known as Ereskigal, We are known as Fjorgyn, We are known as Freyja, We are known as Frigg, We are known as Gaia, We are known as Hathor, We are known as Hebat, We are known as Hekate, We are known as Hera, We are known as Hestia, We are known as Hsi Wang Mu, We are known as Idunn, We are known as Inana, We are known as Ishtar, We are known as Isis, We are known as Juno, We are known as Kali, We are known as Kuan Yin, We are known as Kybele, We are known as Laksmi, We are known as Leto, We are known as Ma, We are known as Maia, We are known as Mary, We are known as Mari, We are known as Matres, We are known as Maya, We are known as Minerva, We are known as Morgan, We are known as Nammu, We are known as Neith, We are known as Nerthus, We are known as Ninhursaga, We are known as Parvati, We are known as Persephone, We are known as Pistis, We are known as Prthivi, We are known as Rhea, We are known as Sakhmet, We are known as Sarasvati, We are known as Sati, We are known as Semele, We are known as Sibyl, We are known as Siti, We are known as Tara, We are known as Taweret, We are known as Tiamat, We are known as Tin Hau, We are known as Venus, We are known as Vesta; and

    46.3
    Gift, Grant and Conveyance of Rights, Powers and Symbols of Authority (link)
    In recognition of our united, solemn unbreakable oath and binding to the Covenant and the proposition of a United Heaven, let it be known to all past, present and future that we have hereby given, granted and conveyed all our powers, all our customs, all our rights and property, all our symbols and instruments of power, all sacred objects, texts, scriptures and sanctuaries and all claims of authority to the highest holy Covenant of One Heaven and to the proper authority and structure of the United States of Spirits. Therefore:

    (i) From this moment, when the leadership of One Heaven or its designated representatives on Earth speak or promulgate one (1) or more instruments, they do so with the highest valid authority and the complete conveyance of all rights, property, uses, customs, symbols, and powers of authority of the collective Divine Feminine; and

    (ii) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities, henceforth automatically derives any and all authority solely from the Society of One Heaven and its valid designates and any existing sacred oaths, pledges and vows are carried over to respecting and obeying the highest holy Covenant of One Heaven; and

    (iii) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities are solemnly bound by their sacred oaths, pledges and vows to honor and respect any and all instruments legitimately promulgated under the Seal of the Society of One Heaven or a valid designate; and

    (iv) Any and all spiritual or temporal bodies that publicly or privately claim authority from or allegiance to one (1) or more Divine Feminine deities are solemnly bound by the laws of property, trusts and ownership to obey any order, deed, command, edict, direction, request promulgated by the Society of One Heaven concerning any and all property administered on behalf of the Society of One Heaven by the spiritual or temporal body and its officers; and

    (v) Any claim or claims contrary to the above mentioned clauses are hereby null and void from the beginning, having no force of law.

    46.4
    Agreement and Conditions of Treaty (link)
    Let it be known to all past, present and future; let no man or woman, soul or form claim this agreement and solemn oath otherwise:

    (i) We, the Divine Feminine hereby swear allegiance to the proposition of a United Heaven and the end of war between spirits; and

    (ii) We, the Divine Feminine hereby recognize the authority of this document, the Covenant of One Heaven above all other sacred covenants, agreements, pacts, deeds and instruments; and

    (iii) We, the Divine Feminine hereby pledge ourselves to the goals and objectives of peace in Heaven and on Earth; and

    (iv) Upon a most solemn and most ancient oath above all oaths, We Divine Feminine Deities pledge our very existence, our names and all spirits and flesh under our command that We shall not permit any spirit, man or woman to obstruct the fulfilment of this most sacred Covenant.

    So as it is above, it shall be below.

    46.5
    Ratification of Treaty (link)
    By Agreement of the Highest Contracting Parties, this Treaty and Covenant shall be Ratified throughout all Heaven, spiritual dimensions and the Universe by the Day of Agreement and Understanding and shall be Ratified by any remaining temporal forces residing in or upon the conquered and occupied land, sea and atmosphere of the Society of One Heaven by the Day of Judgment:

    Ratification by Day of Agreement and Understanding

    By this Covenant, the Day of Agreement and Understanding is UCA E8:Y3208:8:A1:S1:M27:D1, [Wed, 21 Dec 2009].

    Ratification by Day of Agreement and Understanding shall be when this Treaty and Covenant is ratified throughout all Heaven, spiritual dimensions and the Universe by the Highest Office Holders of One Heaven representing the Supreme Command of Occupational Forces in and on Earth and when at least two (2) spirits conveyed into circumscribed living flesh bear witness to the event.

    Ratification by Day of Judgment

    By this Covenant, the Day of Judgment is UCA E8:Y3210:A0:S1:M27:D6, [Wed, 21 Dec 2011].

    Ratification by Day of Judgment shall be when this Treaty and Covenant is ratified by the Highest Office Holders of existing societies, faiths and associations that claim their existence, authority and power from the supernatural and spiritual either through their tacit, competent and honorable consent, or through their dishonor demonstrating the delinquency of their flesh and therefore the right through power to represent their spirit to ratify the Covenant and Treaty on their behalf.

    Article 45 - Treaty of the Divine Masculine
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/45.html
    Article 46 - Treaty of the Divine Feminine
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/46.html
    Article 47 - Treaty of the Divine Apostles
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/47.html
    Article 48 - Treaty of Angels, Saints and Demons
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/48.html
    Article 49 - Treaty of Spirit States
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/49.html
    Article 50 - Treaty of The Sun
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/50.html
    Article 51 - Treaty of The Earth
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/51.html
    Article 52 - Treaty of The Moon
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/52.html
    REGARDING ALL OF THOSE NAMES -- ARE "WE" ALL ONE??
    I Don't See Michael, Gabriel, Thoth, or Jesus -- But I Do See Lucifer, Ra, Peter, Isis, and Mary.
    The Name Lists are Fascinating. Notice the Additional Lists Below.
    Notice that Jesus Christ is Listed Merely as a 'Divine Apostle'!!
    47.2

    The Divine Apostles party to the Treaty

    Let it be known to all past, present and future, We, here named, come freely together for the first time in the history of civilization and the existence of the homo sapien species to obsignate this most sacred Treaty and Covenant; and

    We are known as Aaron, We are known as Abraham, We are known as Adad, We are known as Adonis, We are known as Attis, We are known as Baba Rabban, We are known as Bacchus, We are known as Buddha, We are known as Christos, We are known as Daniel, We are known as David, We are known as Dionysus, We are known as Elijah, We are known as Enoch, We are known as Esus, We are known as Ezekiel, We are known as Gideon, We are known as Heracles, We are known as Hosea, We are known as Herakles, We are known as Hermes, We are known as Horus, We are known as Indra, We are known as Isaiah, We are known as Jacob, We are known as Jeremiah, We are known as Jesus Christ, We are known as John the Baptist, We are known as John of Patmos, We are known as Joshua, We are known as Krishna, We are known as Maitreya, We are known as Malachi, We are known as Mercurius, We are known as Mithra, We are known as Moses, We are known as Muhammad the Prophet, We are known as Prometheus, We are known as Sabbatai Tzvi, We are known as Samuel, We are known as Rebbe Schneerson, We are known as Quetzalcoatl, We are known as Tammuz, We are known as Zechariah, We are known as Zohar;

    48.3

    Treaty of the Demons

    By the Treaty of the Divine Masculine, the Treaty of the Divine Feminine, the Treaty of the Divine Apostles, it shall be tasked upon the greatest of spirits, these great heroes, who return to the Father, the Mother, the Light, the One, to find and bring all to the One. That their names shall be spoken in reverence, not curses. And so, by the word of the Absolute, the All, the Unique Collective Awareness, their names are listed - the heroes of the new Heaven - the One Heaven, the prodigal sons and daughters that are welcomed. By these words, it is commanded by the word of the Absolute. By these words, We call them by their known names - We call:

    We call Abaddon to come home, We call Abalam to come home, We call Adramelech to come home, We call Agaliarept to come home, We call Agares to come home, We call Ahriman to come home, We call Aim to come home, We call Akvan to come home, We call Alal to come home, We call Alloces to come home, We call Allu to come home, We call Amaymon to come home, We call Amdusias to come home, We call Ammit to come home, We call Anzu to come home, We call Amon to come home, We call Amy to come home, We call Andhaka to come home, We call Andras to come home, We call Andrealphus to come home, We call Andromalius to come home, We call Apep (Apophis) to come home, We call Apollyon to come home, We call Armaros to come home, We call Asag to come home, We call Asakku to come home, We call Asb'el to come home, We call Asmodeus to come home, We call Astaroth to come home, We call Astarte to come home, We call Asura to come home, We call Azazel to come home, We call Azi to come home, We call Balam to come home, We call Bagat to come home, We call Baphomet to come home, We call Barbas to come home, We call Barbatos to come home, We call Bathin to come home, We call Behemoth to come home, We call Belial to come home, We call Beleth to come home, We call Bull man to come home, We call Bune to come home, We call Belphegor to come home, We call Berith to come home, We call Bianakith to come home, We call Bifrons to come home, We call Botis to come home, We call Buer to come home, We call Bali Raj to come home, We call Biule to come home, We call Caacrinolaas to come home, We call Caim to come home, We call Cerberus to come home, We call Charun to come home, We call Cheitan to come home, We call Cimejes to come home, We call Corson to come home, We call Crocell to come home, We call Culsu to come home, We call Dantalion to come home, We call Danjal to come home, We call Dasa to come home, We call Decarabia to come home, We call Demogorgon to come home, We call Duma to come home, We call Dajjal to come home, We call Elathan to come home, We call Eligos to come home, We call Ethniu to come home, We call Euryale to come home, We call Exdemoneus to come home, We call Familiars to come home, We call Fleuretty to come home, We call Fobos to come home, We call Focalor to come home, We call Foras to come home, We call Forneus to come home, We call Furcas to come home, We call Furfur to come home, We call Gaap to come home, We call Gader'el to come home, We call Gaki to come home, We call Glasya-Labolas to come home, We call Göap to come home, We call Gorgon to come home, We call Gremory to come home, We call Grigori to come home, We call Gusion to come home, We call Guzalu to come home, We call Haagenti to come home, We call Haborim to come home, We call Halphas to come home, We call Hanan'el to come home, We call Hantu to come home, We call Haures to come home, We call Humbaba to come home, We call Incubus to come home, We call Ipos to come home, We call Iblis to come home, We call Jikininki to come home, We call Judas to come home, We call Kabhanda to come home, We call Kasdaye to come home, We call Kirara to come home, We call Kitsune to come home, We call Kobal to come home, We call Kokb'ael to come home, We call Krampus to come home, We call Labal to come home, We call Labasu to come home, We call Lamia to come home, We call Legion to come home, We call Lechies to come home, We call Lempo to come home, We call Leonard to come home, We call Leraje to come home, We call Leviathan to come home, We call Lilim to come home, We call Lilith to come home, We call Lillu to come home, We call Liothe to come home, We call Lix Tetrax to come home, We call Lucifuge Rofocale to come home, We call Malphas to come home, We call Mammon to come home, We call Maricha to come home, We call Marax to come home, We call Marbas to come home, We call Marchosias to come home, We call Mastema to come home, We call Mathim to come home, We call Medusa to come home, We call Melchiresa / Melki-resha to come home, We call Mephistopheles to come home, We call Merihem to come home, We call Meshinka Destrega Sham to come home, We call Mictlantecuhtli to come home, We call Moloch to come home, We call Murmur to come home, We call Mutis to come home, We call Naberius to come home, We call Naberus to come home, We call Naphula to come home, We call Neqa'el to come home, We call Ninurta to come home, We call Nix to come home, We call Onoskelis to come home, We call Oray to come home, We call Orcus to come home, We call Oriax to come home, We call Ornias to come home, We call Orobas to come home, We call Ose to come home, We call Paimon to come home, We call Pazuzu to come home, We call Penemue to come home, We call Phenex to come home, We call Pithius to come home, We call Procell to come home, We call Pruflas to come home, We call Purson to come home, We call Quina to come home, We call Rahab to come home, We call Rahovart to come home, We call Raiju to come home, We call Rakshasa to come home, We call Rangda to come home, We call Raum to come home, We call Razakel to come home, We call Rûberzahl to come home, We call Ronove to come home, We call Rumjal to come home, We call Rusalka to come home, We call Sabnock to come home, We call Saleos to come home, We call Samael to come home, We call Satanachia to come home, We call Scox to come home, We call Seere to come home, We call Semyazza to come home, We call Shaitan to come home, We call Shax to come home, We call Shedim to come home, We call Sidragasum to come home, We call Sitri to come home, We call Sthenno to come home, We call Stolas to come home, We call Succubus to come home, We call Surgat to come home, We call Tannin to come home, We call Teeraal to come home, We call Thammuz to come home, We call Tzitzimime to come home, We call Uvall to come home, We call Valefor to come home, We call Vapula to come home, We call Vassago to come home, We call Vepar to come home, We call Vine to come home, We call Volac to come home, We call Xaphan to come home, We call Xezbeth to come home, We call Yeqon to come home, We call Yeter'el to come home, We call Zagan to come home, We call Zepar to come home, We call Ziminar to come home.

    I simply do not have enough time, energy, and wisdom to do what I know I need to do. I'm a mess -- because I care -- and this must never be forgotten. Part of my 'to-do list' involves carefully studying this website. http://one-heaven.org/home.php I'm not endorsing it -- but I am recommending that some of us study it -- especially regarding the varieties of law presented therein. Consider spending some quality time with Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He's one of my favorites. Please watch as many Sheen videos as you can find -- and you will gain a real education. What if Popes dressed, acted, and taught in a manner similar to that of Fulton Sheen?? Just as an aside -- I tend to have problems with Royal and Papal Headgear -- such as Crowns and Dagon-Fishead Headgear. Why wear any headgear at all?? I also tend to have a problem with thrones. But I LOVE robes!! It was fun wearing robes and applying pancake-makeup at the Crystal Cathedral!! Consider this series regarding the 'New Mass' (14 parts). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdfUm_c8gCs&feature=relmfu Here is a related interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJjhjA0epuk&feature=fvwrel Here is another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ_Ci4XeS6c&feature=relmfu I believe that everyone should study the Roman Catholic Church -- even if they don't believe in God. The Roman Catholic Church is a Central Historical Organization which affects all of us in various ways. I'm obviously NOT an expert in this area. I am simply a casual observer. Protestants should study Catholicism to know what they're protesting against. I still sometimes think of myself as being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist!! Perhaps I was in a previous incarnation. Consider overdosing on Malachi Martin, Fulton Sheen, and Graham Maxwell (SDA). What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say??? Here is a Fulton Sheen website. http://www.fultonsheen.com/Archbishop_Fulton_Sheen_Photos_1.cfm I continue to wonder what a seamless integration of the '1928 Book of Common Prayer', the '1962 Missale', and Sacred Classical Music -- might look like and sound like -- without any additional baggage. I'm NOT saying this is what I want. I'm simply saying that this might be an interesting conceptual study. I would be VERY interested to notice where support and opposition might arise. I continue to worry about 'The Pope Said It -- I Believe It -- and That Settles It For Me' Theology.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=wVQjNS_njlc&feature=endscreen
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX2NZTcqreY&feature=related
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPZstkceT10&feature=related
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z3-F71abro&feature=related
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHSlj-pPIA&feature=relmfu
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrUd97Xddw&feature=relmfu
    7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyvnHfvdVc&feature=relmfu
    8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW7Ti9bkqi8&feature=relmfu
    9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlVp_LNA6JA&feature=related
    10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgQ_YQCZRFM&feature=relmfu
    11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEHGWrXZMb8&feature=relmfu
    12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgneJNCuRFY&feature=related

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 41282_435943311784_68178156784_4952981_4292538_n
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFGjEXH4is&feature=related
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT6eVLPI7sw&feature=related
    I really need to stop posting -- and start writing some positive sci-fi -- so I might generate some revenue. Publish or Perish. I need new teeth, new transportation, and a new house. I think I might like to drive a Prius fitted with a back-window solar-panel. I think I might like to live and work in a decommissioned missile-silo (with a Cray and a Fisk) powered mostly by solar-panels and wind-power. I think I might like to drive a solar-powered FIZU. Is It Finished?? I certainly hope so. Still no FOIA results. Why am I NOT surprised? Hope Springs Eternal. I just wanted to see how far up the rabbit-hole goes!! The U.S. Postal Service just confirmed that my mail has been tampered with. It wasn't all in my head. Just meet with me at the Federal Building. Anyway -- I don't think I've had sufficient reliable information to make responsible decisions. When confronted with the absolute truth -- my editorial slant might be VERY different. I get the distinct impression that neither Divinity or Humanity wishes for me to know the absolute truth. I've simply been trying to be helpful -- which seems to be a threat to National Security -- or something like that. BTW -- the Ucadia stuff is VERY interesting -- but I remain VERY wary. Nuff Said. Namaste and Godspeed.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Nasa_ufo1The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 UFO-Alien-Photos
    "Oops!! My Bad!!"
    magamud
    magamud


    Posts : 1280
    Join date : 2012-06-17

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  magamud Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:57 pm

    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:00 am

    Thank-you magamud. The man was mad -- and the man was right -- but does the man know who ordained the powers that be?? As I've said so many times, there are aspects of the Secret Government and the Secret Space Program which are sort of cool -- but the whole thing seems to be a mess (possibly by design)?! This solar system really needs to be based upon Responsibility-Based Ethics, Law, and Law-Enforcement. Then we can deal with exotic technology. Solar System Governance is Foundational -- and really, this doesn't have to be particularly complex. In fact, the simpler and more minimalist the better. I continue to lean toward a 5,000 Justice Solar System Supreme Court System (with the absolutely BEST Justices in the solar system). I continue to lean toward a 5,000 PhD-Representative United States of the Solar System -- based upon the best aspects of the UN Charter and the US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights). Unfortunately, this idealistic conceptualization would be instantly infiltrated and subverted if implemented. Some things never change -- but we need to at least go through the motions of making things better -- don't we???

    IHS = ISIS / HORUS / SET = GABRIEL / MICHAEL / LUCIFER?????

    ISIS???
    We are known as Amaterasu-o-mi-kami, We are known as Anat, We are known as Antu, We are known as Aphrodite, We are known as Artemis, We are known as Asherah, We are known as Ashtoreth, We are known as Astarte, We are known as Atargatis, We are known as Athena, We are known as Bastet, We are known as Bes, We are known as Brigit, We are known as Ceres, We are known as Chalchiuhtlicue, We are known as Cihuacoatl, We are known as Cipactli, We are known as Coatlicue, We are known as Coventina, We are known as Cybil, We are known as Danu, We are known as Demeter, We are known as Disani, We are known as Durga, We are known as Eileithyia, We are known as Epona, We are known as Ereskigal, We are known as Fjorgyn, We are known as Freyja, We are known as Frigg, We are known as Gaia, We are known as Hathor, We are known as Hebat, We are known as Hekate, We are known as Hera, We are known as Hestia, We are known as Hsi Wang Mu, We are known as Idunn, We are known as Inana, We are known as Ishtar, We are known as Isis, We are known as Juno, We are known as Kali, We are known as Kuan Yin, We are known as Kybele, We are known as Laksmi, We are known as Leto, We are known as Ma, We are known as Maia, We are known as Mary, We are known as Mari, We are known as Matres, We are known as Maya, We are known as Minerva, We are known as Morgan, We are known as Nammu, We are known as Neith, We are known as Nerthus, We are known as Ninhursaga, We are known as Parvati, We are known as Persephone, We are known as Pistis, We are known as Prthivi, We are known as Rhea, We are known as Sakhmet, We are known as Sarasvati, We are known as Sati, We are known as Semele, We are known as Sibyl, We are known as Siti, We are known as Tara, We are known as Taweret, We are known as Tiamat, We are known as Tin Hau, We are known as Venus, We are known as Vesta;

    HORUS???
    We are known as Aaron, We are known as Abraham, We are known as Adad, We are known as Adonis, We are known as Attis, We are known as Baba Rabban, We are known as Bacchus, We are known as Buddha, We are known as Christos, We are known as Daniel, We are known as David, We are known as Dionysus, We are known as Elijah, We are known as Enoch, We are known as Esus, We are known as Ezekiel, We are known as Gideon, We are known as Heracles, We are known as Hosea, We are known as Herakles, We are known as Hermes, We are known as Horus, We are known as Indra, We are known as Isaiah, We are known as Jacob, We are known as Jeremiah, We are known as Jesus Christ, We are known as John the Baptist, We are known as John of Patmos, We are known as Joshua, We are known as Krishna, We are known as Maitreya, We are known as Malachi, We are known as Mercurius, We are known as Mithra, We are known as Moses, We are known as Muhammad the Prophet, We are known as Prometheus, We are known as Sabbatai Tzvi, We are known as Samuel, We are known as Rebbe Schneerson, We are known as Quetzalcoatl, We are known as Tammuz, We are known as Zechariah, We are known as Zohar;

    SET???
    We are known as Adad, We are known as Aegir, We are known as Aengus, We are known as Aesir, We are known as Agni, We are known as Ahura Mazda, We are known as Aksobhya, We are known as Allah, We are known as Ame-No-Minaka-Nushi-No-Kami, We are known as Amen-Ra, We are known as An, We are known as Anu, We are known as Anubis, We are known as Apsu, We are known as Apollo, We are known as Archons, We are known as Ares, We are known as Arsan Duolai, We are known as Asklepios, We are known as Aten, We are known as Atum, We are known as Avalokitesvara, We are known as Baal, We are known as Balder, We are known as Belenua, We are known as Brahma, We are known as Chemosh, We are known as Dagda, We are known as Dagon, We are known as Dharma, We are known as Diancecht, We are known as Dumuzi, We are known as Dyaus Pitar, We are known as Ea, We are known as El, We are known as Enki, We are known as Enlil, We are known as Freyr, We are known as Father, We are known as Ganesa, We are known as Geb, We are known as Gobniu, We are known as God, We are known as Hades, We are known as Heimdall, We are known as Helios, We are known as Hephaistos, We are known as Heryshaf, We are known as Hoder, We are known as Huitzilpochtli, We are known as Il, We are known as Imra, We are known as Indra, We are known as Iskur, We are known as Itzam Na, We are known as Jagannath, We are known as Janus, We are known as Jupiter, We are known as Kama, We are known as Kuan Ti, We are known as Lebien-Pogil, We are known as Lenus, We are known as Loki, We are known as Lug, We are known as Lucifer, We are known as Lynx, We are known as Mande, We are known as Manjusri, We are known as Marduk, We are known as Mars, We are known as Melqart, We are known as Mimir, We are known as Min, We are known as Mon, We are known as Mot, We are known as Na Cha, We are known as Nergal, We are known as Ninurta, We are known as Njord, We are known as Nuadu, We are known as Nut, We are known as Ometecuhtli, We are known as Osiris, We are known as Othin, We are known as Pak Tai, We are known as Pan, We are known as Peter, We are known as Pon, We are known as Poseidon, We are known as Ptah, We are known as Quikinn.a'Qu, We are known as Radha, We are known as Sabaoth, We are known as Satan, We are known as Saturn, We are known as Seth, We are known as Skanda, We are known as Sin, We are known as Sucellos, We are known as Surya, We are known as Susano-Wo, We are known as Telepinu, We are known as Tesub, We are known as Tezcatlipoca, We are known as Thor, We are known as Tiwaz, We are known as Tlaloc, We are known as Ull, We are known as Utu, We are known as Vairacocha, We are known as Varuna, We are known as Vayu, We are known as Visnu, We are known as Vulcanus, We are known as Wodan, We are known as Xipe Totec, We are known as YHVH, We are known as Zeus;

    I continue to speculate about at least three Archangelic Queens of Heaven in conflict with each other. I have no idea about specific historical and reincarnational manifestations. I really don't. What about Israel = Isis + Ra + El?? I mean no disrespect and no hatred toward anyone -- including toward those who might be considered 'bad' or 'evil'. I might be quite 'bad' or 'evil' myself -- historically and reincarnationally. Again, I have no idea. I simply suspect an imperfect Divinity and Humanity -- involved in various levels of conflict and trouble -- for thousands, millions, or even billions, of years. Who knows what the REAL history is??? I do NOT wish to be rebellious toward God -- but I wish to make sure that I am obedient to the RIGHT God -- and NOT toward an Imposter God -- or a Corrupted God. I realize that sounds blasphemous -- but we can't be too careful regarding such things -- can we?? I continue to recommend Bible-Study -- but read the First Five Books and the Last Five Books of the Bible -- and tell me there's no problem -- and that everything is fine. Be Honest. Don't Lie. I continue to be amazed by Religious Imagination and Rationalization. Please study this thread. I don't represent it as being the truth -- but merely as being a unique study-guide. I try to be both revealing and forgiving. I mostly wish for the trouble to end -- even though I highly doubt that will happen anytime soon. I suspect that there were certain expectations regarding me personally -- and that I have frustrated these expectations -- and that I have been highly disappointing. I seem to be resisting the Pentateuch, the Pauline-Epistles, and the Book of Revelation -- as I continue to be exceedingly irresponsible and non-productive. What a monumental disappointment I turned out to be -- right??? Sorry for the trouble and inconvenience. I have no idea what to do at this point. In many ways, all seems to be lost. Should I just shut-up and get with the New World Order Program??? Should I join the Masons??? Should I become a devout Roman Catholic??? Should I cease to exist??? What doth the Lord require of me??? Loud-mouths repeatedly 'tell the truth' but they are shut-up or ignored. ET and the PTB seem to do as they please -- without consequences. If I were on their level -- it might all make sense -- in some twisted way -- but from the bottom of the pyramid it all seems so insane.
    Aquaries1111 wrote:
    Thank-you A1. I'll have a look at the '144' tomorrow. Check out 'Legal Epistemology'. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1183363 Just a note about my occasional use of words such as 'damn' or 'hell' -- these are biblical words -- and convey deep theological meaning. I have been modeling a particular personality which requires these words as 'stage props'. I don't talk like this in public -- and very rarely in private. On a lighter note:

    On a heavier note -- the SDA Church took the money and ran -- regarding the Health-Care Business -- instead of following the high road of Prevention and Natural Treatment -- envisioned by the founders of the SDA Church. Follow the Money. 'Health-Care As Usual' is More Corrupt Than Hell Itself. 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'!! Other Religious Medical Institutions are No Better -- but the SDA Church Knew Better -- Big Time. Shame On Them. I'm VERY sad about life, the universe, and everything -- as I stumble off into the night -- sobbing "It Might've Been!!! The Creator is the Destroyer -- and the Wheels of Justice Grind Exceedingly Fine!!! Many Are Called -- and Few Are Chosen!!! Crime Does Not Pay On Judgment Day!!! The Hour of His Judgment Has Come!!! End of Line!!!"
    Aquaries1111 wrote:Oxy,

    Listen to this:

    UNIVERSITY OF UCADIA-WEDNESDAYS 9PM EST
    EPISODE62 - UNIVERSITY OF UCADIA-WEDNESDAYS 9PM ES..

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=90342&pageNumber=2&pageSize=15
    Thank-you A1. I've been rather lax regarding studying UCADIA. I'm frankly a bit worried and creeped-out by the following section:

    Article 48 - Treaty of Angels, Saints and Demons
    http://one-heaven.org/covenant/article/48.html

    48.3

    Treaty of the Demons

    By the Treaty of the Divine Masculine, the Treaty of the Divine Feminine, the Treaty of the Divine Apostles, it shall be tasked upon the greatest of spirits, these great heroes, who return to the Father, the Mother, the Light, the One, to find and bring all to the One. That their names shall be spoken in reverence, not curses. And so, by the word of the Absolute, the All, the Unique Collective Awareness, their names are listed - the heroes of the new Heaven - the One Heaven, the prodigal sons and daughters that are welcomed. By these words, it is commanded by the word of the Absolute. By these words, We call them by their known names
    (which includes Moloch) --

    We call Abaddon to come home, We call Abalam to come home, We call Adramelech to come home, We call Agaliarept to come home, We call Agares to come home, We call Ahriman to come home, We call Aim to come home, We call Akvan to come home, We call Alal to come home, We call Alloces to come home, We call Allu to come home, We call Amaymon to come home, We call Amdusias to come home, We call Ammit to come home, We call Anzu to come home, We call Amon to come home, We call Amy to come home, We call Andhaka to come home, We call Andras to come home, We call Andrealphus to come home, We call Andromalius to come home, We call Apep (Apophis) to come home, We call Apollyon to come home, We call Armaros to come home, We call Asag to come home, We call Asakku to come home, We call Asb'el to come home, We call Asmodeus to come home, We call Astaroth to come home, We call Astarte to come home, We call Asura to come home, We call Azazel to come home, We call Azi to come home, We call Balam to come home, We call Bagat to come home, We call Baphomet to come home, We call Barbas to come home, We call Barbatos to come home, We call Bathin to come home, We call Behemoth to come home, We call Belial to come home, We call Beleth to come home, We call Bull man to come home, We call Bune to come home, We call Belphegor to come home, We call Berith to come home, We call Bianakith to come home, We call Bifrons to come home, We call Botis to come home, We call Buer to come home, We call Bali Raj to come home, We call Biule to come home, We call Caacrinolaas to come home, We call Caim to come home, We call Cerberus to come home, We call Charun to come home, We call Cheitan to come home, We call Cimejes to come home, We call Corson to come home, We call Crocell to come home, We call Culsu to come home, We call Dantalion to come home, We call Danjal to come home, We call Dasa to come home, We call Decarabia to come home, We call Demogorgon to come home, We call Duma to come home, We call Dajjal to come home, We call Elathan to come home, We call Eligos to come home, We call Ethniu to come home, We call Euryale to come home, We call Exdemoneus to come home, We call Familiars to come home, We call Fleuretty to come home, We call Fobos to come home, We call Focalor to come home, We call Foras to come home, We call Forneus to come home, We call Furcas to come home, We call Furfur to come home, We call Gaap to come home, We call Gader'el to come home, We call Gaki to come home, We call Glasya-Labolas to come home, We call Göap to come home, We call Gorgon to come home, We call Gremory to come home, We call Grigori to come home, We call Gusion to come home, We call Guzalu to come home, We call Haagenti to come home, We call Haborim to come home, We call Halphas to come home, We call Hanan'el to come home, We call Hantu to come home, We call Haures to come home, We call Humbaba to come home, We call Incubus to come home, We call Ipos to come home, We call Iblis to come home, We call Jikininki to come home, We call Judas to come home, We call Kabhanda to come home, We call Kasdaye to come home, We call Kirara to come home, We call Kitsune to come home, We call Kobal to come home, We call Kokb'ael to come home, We call Krampus to come home, We call Labal to come home, We call Labasu to come home, We call Lamia to come home, We call Legion to come home, We call Lechies to come home, We call Lempo to come home, We call Leonard to come home, We call Leraje to come home, We call Leviathan to come home, We call Lilim to come home, We call Lilith to come home, We call Lillu to come home, We call Liothe to come home, We call Lix Tetrax to come home, We call Lucifuge Rofocale to come home, We call Malphas to come home, We call Mammon to come home, We call Maricha to come home, We call Marax to come home, We call Marbas to come home, We call Marchosias to come home, We call Mastema to come home, We call Mathim to come home, We call Medusa to come home, We call Melchiresa / Melki-resha to come home, We call Mephistopheles to come home, We call Merihem to come home, We call Meshinka Destrega Sham to come home, We call Mictlantecuhtli to come home, We call Moloch to come home, We call Murmur to come home, We call Mutis to come home, We call Naberius to come home, We call Naberus to come home, We call Naphula to come home, We call Neqa'el to come home, We call Ninurta to come home, We call Nix to come home, We call Onoskelis to come home, We call Oray to come home, We call Orcus to come home, We call Oriax to come home, We call Ornias to come home, We call Orobas to come home, We call Ose to come home, We call Paimon to come home, We call Pazuzu to come home, We call Penemue to come home, We call Phenex to come home, We call Pithius to come home, We call Procell to come home, We call Pruflas to come home, We call Purson to come home, We call Quina to come home, We call Rahab to come home, We call Rahovart to come home, We call Raiju to come home, We call Rakshasa to come home, We call Rangda to come home, We call Raum to come home, We call Razakel to come home, We call Rûberzahl to come home, We call Ronove to come home, We call Rumjal to come home, We call Rusalka to come home, We call Sabnock to come home, We call Saleos to come home, We call Samael to come home, We call Satanachia to come home, We call Scox to come home, We call Seere to come home, We call Semyazza to come home, We call Shaitan to come home, We call Shax to come home, We call Shedim to come home, We call Sidragasum to come home, We call Sitri to come home, We call Sthenno to come home, We call Stolas to come home, We call Succubus to come home, We call Surgat to come home, We call Tannin to come home, We call Teeraal to come home, We call Thammuz to come home, We call Tzitzimime to come home, We call Uvall to come home, We call Valefor to come home, We call Vapula to come home, We call Vassago to come home, We call Vepar to come home, We call Vine to come home, We call Volac to come home, We call Xaphan to come home, We call Xezbeth to come home, We call Yeqon to come home, We call Yeter'el to come home, We call Zagan to come home, We call Zepar to come home, We call Ziminar to come home.

    Consider all of the above in light of 'Dante's Inferno' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M6RmsglpQ4 and the 'Book of Enoch'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfyE6h3FTYM The 'Ancient Egyptian Deity' told me that there is a lot of truth in these two sources -- but I took everything they said with a Sea of Salt. 'Paradise Lost' might be worth rereading at this point.

    Frank O'Collins (who I enjoy listening to) is somewhat critical of the Human Race, the Catholic Church, the Powers That Be, etc and et al -- yet this 'Treaty of the Demons' speaks of reverencing demons -- who are to be viewed as being heroes -- to be welcomed as prodigal sons and daughters -- into the One Heaven. I have attempted to be open-minded and polite -- but this seems to be insanity. What the hell is going on here??!! Is this a 'Deal with the Devil'?? Jesus Christ is listed as being some sort of a Divine Apostle -- with no mention of any sort of 'reverence' (not that Jesus expects reverence, worship, and praise). I will study the UCADIA material carefully -- but something seems to be VERY wrong here.

    I'm expecting nothing but sinister-bullshit, false-flags, economic-disasters, earth-changes, unnecessary-wars, alien-deceptions, supernatural-events, fast-talkers, etc, etc, etc -- in the coming years. I will positively-reinforce the territory I've already covered -- but I am NOT optimistic about the future. Not at all. Once again -- my Grand Strategy is to mostly be a Do-Nothing Researcher and Writer. It's a nasty task -- but someone has to do it -- and it might as well be me. I think I might've been too understanding and accomodating regarding the dark-side. I wish to give everyone a fair-shake -- but I do NOT wish to be taken advantage of. I think I've mostly been attempting to determine who my True Friends and Enemies are -- terrestrially and extraterrestrially.

    I think I'm going to spend a lot of time with the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer', the 'Federalist Papers', the 'Gods of Eden', and the 'Desire of Ages' -- while listening to Sacred Classical Music -- including Gregorian Chant and Organ Improvisation. I'm not suggesting that everyone do this. It just seems to be something I need to do at this point in my life -- as a mental and spiritual exercise -- on an ongoing basis -- as a point of reference and stabilizing influence. I am very interested in 'church' -- but I don't see myself attending church anytime soon. I think I might need to 'beat upon the rocks of who knows what' just a bit longer. We all have our crosses to bear.

    BTW -- that 'Ritus Verum 144 Truths' video was chilling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYHcGpR7wd8&feature=player_embedded I frankly listen more closely to Frank's description of the problems than I do to his proposed solutions. It's pretty much the same way I view the work of Sherry Shriner. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/09/25/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner Do Frank and Sherry spend a lot of time discussing the Teachings Attributed to Jesus?? What do they say about the Teachings Attributed to Jesus?? Both of them are extremely intelligent -- but I continue to wonder what they are really all about? Often, things are not what they seem to be.

    I will continue to consider the madness from the general context of the Roman Empire and Church. I'm really NOT hostile toward the Roman Catholic Church -- but I think I've angered a lot of people. I can sense it. I'm simply imagining what a Roman Empire and Church should and could be -- so in a sense, I'm really a friend -- in a strange sort of way. You must understand that I sometimes read literature which claims that Jesuit Priests are demon-possessed -- and that Roman Catholics are mostly lost-souls. I'm rather mild -- because I believe that the church literally has to deal with Lucifer, Satan, Demons, Aliens, and Hell -- and that this has a lot to do with what I object to in the Roman Catholic Church -- historically and presently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY-l7MhfcPw My meddling is NOT personal regarding various church leaders -- including the Pope and the Black-Pope. I simply think that we would be shocked by what they have to deal with on a daily basis. I'm really rather idealistic regarding the church. I might be guilty of 'crazy-talk' -- but please don't call it 'hate-speech'.

    I still think they should install that 1875 Cavaille-Coll Designed Pipe-Organ in St. Peter's -- and create the strongest sacred music program in the solar system -- but it would need to be 'their' idea. A Fisk would be cool -- but there are probably a dozen great organ builders who could approximate the Cavaille-Coll concept in modernity. Organists and Choirmasters should probably be Ministers of Music -- with both Music and Theology Degrees -- and they should be well-paid (with benefits). Most every church-member should probably have some sort of musical training -- even if they are tone-deaf. Once again, I am leaning toward Liturgical Discipline and Orthodoxy -- rather than Doctrinal Discipline and Orthodoxy. I guess I am somewhat Liturgically Conservative and Doctrinally Liberal -- but the Clergy and Theologians should be Biblical Scholars of the First Order -- and they should make their case with eloquence, dignity, and respect. What do you think about John Shelby Spong?? Did he go about things the right way -- or did he make serious mistakes and blunders??? I continue to lean toward Thoughtful Positive-Reinforcement -- rather than Pompous and Supercilious Positive-Thinking and Self-Esteem. You know what I'm talking about.

    Once again, I do NOT have access to insiders and inside-information. I am passively modeling several political and theological possibilities. I am NOT surrounded by Experts, Libraries, Archives, Museums, Greys, and Crays. I have a $300 Laptop, a dog named Jake Sully, and a Messy House -- with NO prospects. I guess I have a little bit of the 'little-guy' thing going on -- with a HUGE inferiority-complex. One more thing. I still don't know what we're really dealing with. I feel useless, helpless, and mostly hopeless. I am VERY worried about Syria, Disclosure, and Resets. Bad-Things and Good-Things can BOTH be used for Evil and Nefarious Purposes and Ends. Even the Very Best People, Beings, and Systems can be infiltrated and subverted. Some things never change.

    Should the border of the United States of the Solar System be where the Heliosheath meets the Termination Shock (or at least the current distance between the Sun and Heliosheath)?? I tend to think so -- but I am open to other possibilities.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaUV-atOfOY
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vCD4MMz-Qc&feature=related
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0KIKFiygWY&feature=related
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ-pZp1FQPE&feature=related
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogr_tZ1JRU&feature=fvwrel
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdyTsD1QaQ&feature=related
    7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18etkOILqjI&feature=related

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Ocollins_coat_of_arms_01The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Ocollins_coat_of_arms_02
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 0
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyle-notre_dame
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 RU6098_GARGOYLE_WALL_MNTThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyle_by_flumpoThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyles+notre+dameThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 2735971-green-gargoyle-figure-on-grunge-backgroundThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 GAR24_002The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyle-4d43b261e3c01_hiresThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Wall_hound_gargoyle
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 GargoyleThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 SalisburyCathedral_Gargoyle1The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyle_DSC0805The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 T-gargoyles.jpgThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyle_12The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Gargoyle12The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 GargoylesThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Heliosphere

    Consider taking a closer look at the following -- as a group:

    1. Frank O'Collins.
    2. Jordan Maxwell.
    3. Santos Bonacci.
    4. Bill Cooper.
    5. Alex Collier.
    6. Sherri Shriner.
    7. Leo Zagami.
    8. Malachi Martin.
    9. Ralph Ellis.
    10. Orthodoxymoron. (I couldn't resist!!)
    11. Genesis.
    12. Exodus.
    13. Deuteronomy.
    14. Psalms.
    15. Proverbs.
    16. Matthew.
    17. Mark.
    18. Luke.
    19. John.
    20. Acts.
    21. Hebrews.
    22. Revelation.

    I have no idea how accurate these sources are (including me). I have no idea what the agendas are (including my own). Take everything with a Sea of Salt. Focus upon:

    1. Responsibility.
    2. Freedom.
    3. Constitution.
    4. Law.
    5. God.
    6. Government.
    7. Character of God.
    8. Law of God.
    9. Kingdom of God.
    10. Heaven.
    11. Hell.
    12. Purgatory.
    13. Love.
    14. Money.
    15. Sirius.
    16. Babylon.
    17. Egypt.
    18. Greece.
    19. Rome.
    20. Persia.
    21. England.
    22. America.
    23. Germany.
    24. Israel.
    25. Archangels.
    26. Angels.
    27. Demons.
    28. Aliens.
    29. Osiris.
    30. Isis.
    31. Ra.
    32. Horus.
    33. Jesus.
    This list could really be endless -- but this should keep some of you busy for a while!! Actually, if you're not one of the lucky ones who gets paid to read my tripe -- I tend to doubt that you will spend much time on this. This isn't fun stuff. Not at all. This is SO much bigger than I can possibly comprehend -- and I am VERY afraid of what we're facing. Things could be so many ways -- and go in so many directions. How to disappear in America? Work hard to get to the top of the Red-List. Just kidding -- or am I? Seriously, I'm sensing that no one is safe -- and that there is no place to hide. Both the Rulers and the Ruled seem to be in deep trouble -- but what do I know?? Too much -- and too little -- simultaneously. 'They' probably don't know what to do with me -- and I frankly don't know what to do with myself. Thinking we know -- and knowing -- are two VERY different things. I KNOW that I don't know. I'm going to need the WHOLE TRUTH before I agree to anything or sign anything. I like the general principles and concepts of the United States of the Solar System -- and I have tried to model a USSS within this thread -- but I would need to know a helluva lot more regarding the true state of affairs in this world, solar system, galaxy, and universe -- before I sign-off on anything -- including a United States of the Solar System. My 'demand' in the old Project Avalon -- was a demand for an end to the evil and corruption in this solar system -- along with the conviction that a United States of the Solar System MIGHT be a remedy -- or a partial remedy -- to the nasty predicament in which we find ourselves. Perhaps I was too definite and direct in that particular post -- but how should one attempt to change things for the better in this neck of the woods?? I am VERY worried that I have Really screwed-up this incarnation (in general) and this thread (in particular). BOTH Divinity and Humanity need to speak with me -- and be honest with me -- regarding this matter. Don't play games with me. I'm already quite angry and upset. I feel as if I am being laughed-at and taken-advantage-of. Your silence has NOT pacified me. You probably hoped that I would go away -- or go crazy.

    A BIG Thank-You to those who conversed with me -- but I craved a particular type of detailed, technical, and rational conversation -- which never materialized. I have had to manufacture this conversation within the relative privacy of my mind -- and to some, that makes me crazy. Crazy world we live in. People who think deeply about saving the world are deemed crazy -- and a threat to National Security (whatever the hell that means). Once again, it seems as if the New World Order (or equivalent), a One World Government, and a One Solar-System Government have been in full force for thousands of years -- but no one bothered to tell us in a direct and honest manner. It seems as if we've been waiting for the NWO and the AntiChrist -- when they were (and are) already here. The problems didn't start with Greada or Vatican II. They go way, way, way back into antiquity. I'm really tired of sticking my neck out -- and now it might be time to just watch -- while preparing for just about anything. I like the idea of a generalized disaster-preparedness on an ongoing basis -- rather than engaging in fearmongering and making horrific predictions. I have no doubt that we are heading toward some sort of a bumpy ride -- but I certainly don't know the particulars. The eschatological factional-fighting should be interesting. What really happened recently on the backside of the sun?? Is there a star war occurring within this solar system -- and possibly beyond?? I am terrified by powerful forces in conflict with each other. Thinking about this makes me wish to live underground in complete silence. This quest has become way too frightening for me -- and I am VERY sorry if I have caused anyone to experience unnecessary emotional and spiritual distress. I was merely trying to help -- by preemptively dealing with various upsetting possibilities. I continue to advocate subsurface living and working for a significant portion of the population -- throughout the solar system -- for ecological and survival purposes -- but this will obviously take decades to implement.

    I continue to seek a royal-model middle-way for Christians. What would various Christian churches have to say about the 1928 Book of Common Prayer -- complete with the liturgy in use between 1928 and 1979?? Is it Catholic enough for Roman Catholics? What would Novus Ordo Catholics say?? What would the Sedevacantists and Latin Mass Catholics say?? What would Orthodox Christians say?? What would Lutherans say?? What would Anglicans say?? What would Liberal Episcopalians say?? What would the Queen say?? What would the Pope say?? What would the Archbishop of Canterbury say?? What would MegaChurch Christians say?? What would Evangelicals say?? Consider reading 'Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail' -- and note particularly the chapter by David and LaVonne Neff. I'm not an expert in this area -- but I keep asking questions -- which never seem to get answered. I hope some of my wanderings will benefit someone at some point. What do you think about this series of videos?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYapd_KST7E&list=UUXkl-vz7DAVCzd7hpMMhSHg&feature=plpp_play_all Here's an article some of you might find interesting: 'What's wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?' by Robin G. Jordan http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/09/whats-wrong-with-1928-book-of-common.html This article was originally published on The Heritage Anglican Network blog on December 18, 2008.

    Introduction:
    In this article I seek to answer from a Reformed perspective the question, "What's wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer?". Classical Anglican Evangelicalism had disappeared from the Protestant Episcopal Church by 1900. The 1928 Prayer Book was adopted at the time the Anglo-Catholic and Broad Church movements were the dominant schools of thought in the Protestant Episcopal Church and the book reflects their doctrinal emphases. At the 1925 General Convention Anglo-Catholics and Broad Churchmen united to remove the Thirty-Nine Articles from the American Prayer Book. They adopted a resolution dropping the Articles from the Prayer Book. However, they were thwarted by the denomination’s Constitution that required an amendment of the Constitution to abolish the Articles. The resolution, which required the ratification of a successive General Convention, was quietly dropped at the 1928 General Convention.

    The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was the first major revision of the American Prayer Book. It goes far toward undoing the work that was accomplished for the Anglican Church at the Reformation. Many things rejected by the sixteenth century Reformers because of their inconsistency with biblical and Reformation doctrine, are introduced into the American Prayer Book.

    Morning and Evening Prayer:
    The 1928 Book of Common Prayer dilutes the American Prayer Book’s doctrine of sin. The ten penitential sentences that had survived the 1892 revision of the American Prayer Book are reduced to three each in Morning and Evening Prayer and placed under the season of Lent. This eliminates an important evangelistic element from Morning and Evening Prayer. Samuel Luenberger draws to our attention:

    “The text of our sentences are so compiled that they let one discern for himself the way to overcome sin through repentance. The following texts from the twelve quotations occupy a particularly important position: Ezekiel 18:27; Psalm 51:3.9, and 17; Joe; 2:13, etc.

    “The very first quotation from Ezekiel 18 shows the way to prevail over sin:

    “When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” [1]

    In its use of Sentences for the Seasons the 1928 Book of Common Prayer imitates the 1928 English Revised Book of Common Prayer and the 1929 Scottish Book of Common Prayer, both which are much more Catholic in tone than 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

    The Evangelicals in the Church of England and the British Parliament rejected the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book because it modified the doctrine of the Church of England, and replaced the biblical-Reformation theology of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with unreformed Catholic doctrine. The upper house of Convocation would defy Parliament and authorized its use in Dioceses where the Ordinary consented to its use. The Scottish Episcopal Church has historically been more High Church and Catholic than the Church of England, preserving such customs as the wearing of eucharistic vestments during the Communion Service and the elevation of the consecrated host during the Prayer of Consecration. The 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration included an Epiclesis invoking the Holy Spirit upon the bread and the wine so that the eucharistic elements should “become” the Body and Blood of Christ. Like the 1928 Prayer of Consecration, the 1929 Scottish Prayer of Consecration is derived from the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration.

    The 1928 Prayer Book permits the substitution of a short Invitation for the Exhortation in Morning and Evening Prayer with its view of man “in a strictly evangelical-Reformation way as one who wishes to disguise his sinfulness and lives with a propensity for avoiding God.” [2]

    A short Absolution taken from the medieval Sarum breviary may be used in lieu of Cranmer’s fuller Absolution. This short Absolution, as well as a simplified Confession, is offered as an alternative at both Morning and Evening Prayer in the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book. As we shall see, the short Absolution is one of number of features that the 1928 Prayer Book shares with these books.

    The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the first Lord’s Prayer or the second Lord’s Prayer at Morning Prayer. In the 1552 Prayer Book the first Lord’s Prayer forms a part of a sequence that begins with the penitential sentences. Cranmer’s Absolution does not make sense if the first Lord’s Prayer is omitted. The 1928 Prayer Book permits the omission of the Exhortation, the Confession, the Absolution, and the first Lord’s Prayer at Evening Prayer. This represents a significant departure from the Reformed form of Evening Prayer of the 1552 Prayer Book and a return to the unreformed Catholic form of the medieval Sarum breviary and the 1549 Prayer Book.

    Invitatories for optional use in the form of medieval Antiphons are prefixed to the Venite. Cranmer had omitted Invitatories from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer because they were interpolated between the successive verses of the Venite and other passages of Scripture and broke the continual course of the reading of the Scripture. (See The Preface in the 1552 Prayer Book). With the Sentences for the Seasons that replace the penitential sentences, they give further emphasis to the Seasons. In the 1928 Prayer Book observance of the Church Year overshadows repentance at Morning and Evening Prayer. This is just one of a number of ways that the 1928 Prayer Book minimizes the gravity of sin.

    The Holy Communion
    The revised Order for the Holy Communion includes elements that quite definitely bring it into line with the medieval Roman Mass. Among the changes that 1928 Prayer Book introduced are the following:

    1. The opening rubrics of the 1928 Order for Holy Communion direct the priest to stand before the Holy Table, his back turned to the congregation. This is how the priest stood at the medieval Roman Mass. This position, commonly referred to as the “eastward position,” is associated with the unreformed Catholic and Roman doctrinal views that presbyters are a sacrificing priesthood and the Mass is a sacrifice.

    2. The rubrics direct the priest to offer the bread and wine and then place them upon the Holy Table at the Offertory. An offering of the bread and wine during the Prayer of Consecration had already been incorporated into the American Prayer Book with the adoption of the Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration in 1789. The two offerings of the bread and wine, one at the Offertory and the other during the Canon or Prayer of Consecration are taken from the medieval Roman Mass and are associated with the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Transubstantiation.

    3. The Prayer for the State of Christ’s Church contains a petition for the departed. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

    4. After the Sursum Corda the rubrics direct the priest to “turn to the Holy Table” with his back turned to the congregation—the eastward position associated with the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

    5. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration closely follows the pattern of the medieval Roman Canon, except the latter has no Epiclesis.

    6. The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration represents a modification of the theology of the 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Prayer of Consecration. 1764 Scottish Non-Juror Communion Office was the work of two elderly Scottish Non-Juror bishops. They were the last of the surviving Usagers, a Scottish Non-Juror church party that taught that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. They believed that Christ had not offered himself as an atoning sacrifice for our redemption on the cross but at the Last Supper. He had only been slain on the cross.

    “The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. Our Lord instituted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist when He began to offer Himself for the sins of all men, i.e. immediately after eating His Last Passover. He did not offer the Sacrifice upon the Cross; it was slain there but was offered at the Institution of the Eucharist.” [3]

    Bishop Thomas Deacon in his Comprehensive View describes a proper celebration of the Eucharist from this standpoint. The priest, he writes

    “does as Christ did...he next repeats our Saviour’s powerful words “This is my Body,” “This is my Blood” over the Bread and Cup. The effect of the words is that the Bread and Cup are made authoritative Representations or symbols of Christ’s crucified Body and of His Blood shed; and in consequence they are in a capacity of being offered to God as the great Christian Sacrifice....God accepts the Sacrifice and returns it to us again to feast upon, in order that we may be thereby partakers of all the benefits of our Saviour’s Death and Passion. The Bread and Cup become capable of conferring these benefits on the priest praying to God the Father to send the Holy’ Spirit upon them. The Bread and Cup are thereby made the Spiritual, Life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, in Power and Virtue.” [4]

    The theology of the 1928 Prayer of Consecration is far removed from the Reformed theology of the 1552 and 1662 Prayers of Consecration or even the theology of the 1549 Canon. In the latter prayer the Epiclesis precedes the Words of Institution and there is no Oblation, or offering of the bread and wine.

    6. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine that, as both Martin Bucer and Stephen Gardiner drew to Cranmer’s attention, suggest that the bread and wine undergo some kind of change other than a change in use. For this reason and the following reason the invocation of the Holy Spirit was dropped by Cranmer from the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. An invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine is a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book.

    7. Bucer also objected to the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects. There was no warrant for the practice in the Bible. It also represented a departure from Biblical practice. In the Bible the Holy Spirit is invoked only upon people. The Holy Spirit also descends only upon people. Now where do we find in Scripture the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon inanimate objects.

    The blessing of Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 refers to the Jewish practice of blessing God over a cup of wine as a form of thanksgiving and not to the blessing of the wine itself. This is clear from Luke 22:17-20:

    “And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.”

    And 1 Corinthians 11:23-26:

    “For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.”

    It is not an example of Jesus pronouncing God’s blessing upon an inanimate object—a cup of wine.

    In the 1552 Communion Service in the prayer, “Almighty God oure heavenly father, whiche of thy tender mecye…,” the priest humbly asks God that those receiving the bread and wine may be partakers of Christ’s Body and Blood. In the 1552 Baptismal Office in the prayer, “Almightie euerliving God, whose most dearely beloued sonne Jesus Christ…,” the priest humbly asks God that all his servants who are to be baptized in the water, may receive the fullness of his grace and ever remain in the number of his faithful and elect children. There is no invocation of the Holy Spirit or God’s blessing upon the bread and wine or the water in the font.

    8. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Jesus commanded the disciples to celebrate and make a memorial before God with the bread and wine or to offer them to God. Jesus instructed the disciples to eat the bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him. He said nothing about celebrating and making a memorial before God as if God needed to be reminded of what he had done. Paul speaks of proclaiming Christ’s death with the bread and the cup until he comes again. But he is not speaking of proclaiming to God but to our fellow men.

    9. The 1928 Prayer of Consecration contains the words: “…with these thy gifts, which we now offer unto thee….” It also contains the words: “And though we be unworthy to offer unto Thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech Thee to accept this our bounden duty and service.” The Reformers rejected the doctrine that the priest offers a sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood. Cranmer therefore removed from the 1552 Prayer Book all expressions that taught a presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, and all expressions that implied the offering of them as a sacrifice. For this reason Cranmer removed the word “Altar,” and all words in the Prayer of Consecration relating to any offering of a sacrifice by the priest. The Reformers also discarded eucharistic vestments such as the chasuble.

    10. The rubrical permission to sing a hymn immediately before the distribution of the Communion permits the singing of the Agnes Dei. Coming where it does, it suggests a presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine as a result of the words of Consecration, and for this reason it was removed by Cranmer from the 1552 Prayer Book. This suggestion is further strengthened by the placement of the Lord’s Prayer and the Prayer of Humble Access immediately before the distribution of the Communion. For the same reason they were moved by Cranmer to different positions in the 1552 Prayer Book, the Lord’s Prayer to a position immediately after the distribution of the Communion and the Prayer of Humble Access to a position immediately after the Sanctus.

    Baptism
    The 1928 Book of Common Prayer also changes the baptismal theology of the American Prayer Book.

    1. The opening sentence of the Exhortation of the Baptismal Office “forasmuch as all men are born and conceived in sin” has been omitted.

    2. The 1928 Prayer Book drops the Flood Prayer that had been in the Book of Common Prayer since the 1549 Prayer Book and in the American Prayer Book since 1789. The Flood Prayer teaches that God has “sanctified the element of water to the mystical washing away of sin” through Our Lord’s baptism in the River Jordan. For this reason the form for the private baptism of infants in the 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662 Prayer Books does not contain a blessing of the water used in baptism.

    One cannot make even the slightest alteration in a text without affecting the doctrine of the text. Dropping the Flood Prayer that stresses God’s sanctification of the element of water for the purpose of baptism is as serious an alteration of doctrine in the 1928 Prayer Book as the addition of prayers for the departed.

    3. The biblical language of the Prayer for the Baptismal Candidate has been watered down.

    4. The 1928 Prayer Book recasts the prayer “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…” along the lines of the Prayer of Consecration in the service of Holy Communion. This recasting emphasizes the priestly blessing of the water in the font. This is also a feature of the 1928 English Revised Prayer Book and the 1962 Canadian Prayer Book.

    The rubrics of 1928 Prayer Book do permit private baptism even by a baptized layperson in cases of dire emergency without a blessing of the water since its omission would have gone against Catholic tradition but its inclusion does not counterbalance the recasting of “Almighty, everliving God, whose most dearly beloved Son, etc…”.

    5. The signing of the newly baptized with the cross upon the forehead, a practice that Evangelicals view as without warrant in the Bible, to which they have long objected, and which was optional in the 1892 Office of Baptism, is made mandatory.

    6. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer gives liturgical expression to the unreformed Catholic doctrine that a bishop in a line of succession going back to the apostles, through the imposition of hands, has the power to confer upon an ordinand in turn the power to convert the substance of the eucharistic elements into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ (Transubstantiation) and to impart to the element of water the power to regenerate the human soul (Baptismal Regeneration).

    The Thirty-Nine Articles rejects the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are sharply divided over the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. The Privy Council, the highest judicial authority for the Church of England at the time, ruled against Bishop Henry Philpotts and the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in the Gorham decision in 1850. The Privy Council ruled that Baptismal Regeneration was not a doctrine of the Church of England and Bishop Philpotts should not have denied a living to George Gorham in the Diocese of Exeter because Gorham did not believe that the grace of regeneration invariably accompanied the act of baptism.

    Baptismal Regeneration was one of the latent Catholic doctrines in the 1789 Book of Common Prayer that, with the growth and increased influence of Tractarianism in the then Protestant Episcopal Church, prompted Bishop George David Cummins and conservative Evangelical clergy and laypersons to leave the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1873 and to form the Reformed Episcopal Church.

    The Catechism
    The 1928 Book of Common Prayer replaces the Prayer Book Catechism with two Offices of Instruction. The Second Office articulates a view of Confirmation, which has no real basis in the Bible and is not found in the Reformed Prayer Book of 1552, the classical Anglican Prayer Book of 1662, or the first two American Prayer Books of 1789 and 1892. It is a sacramental view of Confirmation that differs from the catechetical view of Confirmation that was held by the English Reformers and is given liturgical expression in these four Prayer Books. It is also a view of Confirmation over which Anglicans are sharply divided.

    Confirmation
    The 1928 Prayer Book omits the preface to the Office of Confirmation that was a feature of the 1662, 1789, and 1892 Offices of Confirmation and which emphasizes the catechetical nature of Confirmation. The presentation of the candidates for Confirmation to the bishop is modeled upon that of the presentation of candidates for ordination. The 1928 Prayer Book includes Acts 8 as an optional reading. This particular reading and what it means is the subject of much heated debate.

    Burial of the Dead
    The biblical language of the Burial Office has been diluted. The Burial Office includes a number of prayers for the departed.

    Ordination
    In the Ordinal there is a significant change in the form of the question put to the deacon concerning the Bible. Instead of being asked, “Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments?” the candidate is asked “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contains all Doctrine required as necessary for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?” The candidate is no longer required to affirm a blanket belief in the teachings of the Bible.

    Consecration of a Church or Chapel
    In the Form for the Consecration of a Church or Chapel any reference to God’s anger or wrath has been expunged

    Conclusion
    From a Reformed perspective the 1928 Book of Common Prayer suffers from a number of serious theological defects. This rules out the use of the 1928 Prayer Book in public worship in an Anglican church that is Reformed in its doctrine. If prayers and liturgical material is used from the 1928 Prayer Book, great care should be taken to see that their doctrine conforms with the biblical-Reformation doctrine of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the 1661 Ordinal.

    Anglicans have long recognized how we pray reflects and shapes what we believe. What good does it do to preach one thing when the liturgy that we are using and the worship practices that we have adopted teach another? Both our preaching and our liturgy and worship practices need to convey the same message.

    Endnotes:
    [1] Samuel Leuenberger, Archbishop Cranmer’s Immortal Bequest The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England: An Evangelistic Liturgy, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) 152.
    [2] Leuenberger, 153.
    [3]Henry Broxap, The Late Non-Jurors, “Appendix II Non Juror Doctrine and Ceremonies” (Cambridge 1928), 1, appendix on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/nonjurors/broxapapp2.pdf

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 AngelBW
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Altar-420x0
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Bio_300x228_tkc_isis
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 317470
    1. Anna = Isis = Gabriel?? ( www.amazon.god ??!!)
    2. Marcus = Set = Lucifer = Ra??
    3. Chad = Horus = Michael??

    Think about it. I'm going to think about it -- while rewatching both seasons of 'V' (2009-10) -- while wearing my Fedora and drinking my coffee. I am of peace. Always.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb5pLp-FcRg&feature=related
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDPGWKfdgwM&feature=related
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yWrM9fMGCc&feature=related
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50BZMNhe0j4&feature=related
    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEWGy6gP1jw&feature=related
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugWCRliG4Rg&feature=related
    7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DctBngNTMsU
    8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFkogeYx3uo
    9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A6_blpqpU
    10. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=90342&pageNumber=2&pageSize=15
    11. http://www.alexcollier.org/
    12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel (Look closely at church history between 700AD and 1200AD!!)
    13. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2012/10/02/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:19 am

    Consider Christendom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom What Would Jesus Say?? What Did Jesus Say?? Has Christendom Said What Jesus Said?? Does Christendom Say What Jesus Said?? What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say??

    Christendom,[1] or the Christian world,[2] has several meanings. In a cultural sense it refers to the worldwide community of Christians, adherents of Christianity. In a historical or geopolitical sense the term usually refers collectively to Christian majority countries or countries in which Christianity dominates[1] or was a territorial phenomenon.“Christendom is originally a medieval concept steadily to have evolved since the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the gradual rise of the Papacy more in religio-temporal implication practically during and after the reign of Charlemagne; and the concept let itself to be lulled in the minds of the staunch believers to the archetype of a holy religious space inhabited by Christians, blessed by God, the Heavenly Father, ruled by Christ through the Church and protected by the Spirit-body of Christ; no wonder, this concept, as included the whole of Europe and then the expanding Christian territories on earth, strengthened the roots of Romance of the greatness of Christianity in the world.”[3]

    Terminology and Usage:

    The term Christendom is developed from the Latin word Christianus. The Christian world is also known collectively as the Corpus Christianum. The Latin term Corpus Christianum is often translated as the Christian body, meaning the community of all Christians. The Christian polity, embodying a less secular meaning, can be compatible with the idea of both a religious and a temporal body: Corpus Christianum. The Corpus Christianum can be seen as a Christian equivalent of the Muslim Ummah. The Kingdom of God is also frequently used, denoting that the Christian world is within (or among) people.[4]

    "Christendom" is used in this article to denote the global community of Biblical Christianity. Christendom as such is set on the appellation of religious aspects. However, the word is also used with its other meaning to frame-true Christianity. A more secular meaning can denote that the term Christendom refers to Christians considered as a group, the "Political Christian World", as an informal cultural hegemony that Christianity has traditionally enjoyed in the West. In its most broad term, it refers to the world's Christian majority countries, which, share little in common aside from the predominance of the faith. Unlike the Muslim world, which has a geo-political and cultural definition that provides a primary identifier for a large swath of the world, Christendom is more complex. It may be a cultural notion, but has very little weight in international discourse; very few political observers really discuss Christendom, while the Muslim World tends to comprise of a civilization in itself. For example, the Americas and Europe are considered part of Christendom, but this region is further subdivided into the West (representing the North Atlantic) and Latin America. It is also less geographically cohesive than the Muslim world, which stretches almost continuously from North Africa to South Asia.

    Early Christendom

    In the beginning of Christendom, early Christianity was a religion spread in the Greek/Roman world and beyond as a 1st century Jewish sect,[5] which historians refer to as Jewish Christianity. It may be divided into two distinct phases: the apostolic period, when the first apostles were alive and organising the Church, and the post-apostolic period, when an early episcopal structure developed, whereby bishoprics were governed by bishops (overseers).

    The post-apostolic period concerns the time roughly after the death of the apostles when bishops emerged as overseers of urban Christian populations. The earliest recorded use of the terms Christianity (Greek Χριστιανισμός) and Catholic (Greek καθολικός), dates to this period, the 2nd century, attributed to Ignatius of Antioch c. 107.[6] Early Christendom would close at the end of imperial persecution of Christians after the ascension of Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan in AD 313 and the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

    Late Antiquity and Middle Ages
    First Seven Ecumenical Councils

    "Christendom" has referred to the medieval and renaissance notion of the Christian world as a sociopolitical polity. In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government founded upon and upholding Christian values, whose institutions are spread through and over with Christian doctrine. In this period, members of the Christian clergy wield political authority. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy varied but, in theory, the national and political divisions were at times subsumed under the leadership of the church as an institution. This model of church-state relations was accepted by various Church leaders and political leaders in European history.[7][full citation needed]

    The Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire.[8] Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 proclaiming toleration for the Christian religion, and convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 whose Nicene Creed included belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". Christianity became the state religion of the Empire in 392 when Theodosius I prohibited the practice of pagan religions with the Edict of Thessalonica.[9]

    As the Western Roman Empire disintegrated into feudal kingdoms and principalities, the concept of Christendom changed as the western church became one of five patriarchal of the Pentarchy and the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire developed. The Byzantine Empire was the last bastion of Christendom.[10] Christendom would take a turn with the rise of the Franks, a Germanic tribe who converted to the Christian faith and entered into communion with Rome. On Christmas Day 800 AD, Pope Leo III made the fateful decision to switch his allegiance from the emperors in Constantinople and crowned Charlemagne,[11][unreliable source?] the king of the Franks, as the Emperor of what came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. The Carolingian Empire created a definition of Christendom in juxtaposition with the Byzantine Empire, that of a distributed versus centralized culture respectively.[12]

    After the collapse of Charlemagne's empire, the southern remnants of the Holy Roman Empire became a collection of states loosely connected to the Holy See of Rome. Tensions between Pope Innocent III and secular rulers ran high, as the pontiff exerted control over their temporal counterparts in the west and vice versa. The pontificate of Innocent III is considered the height of temporal power of the papacy. The Corpus Christianum described the then current notion of the community of all Christians united under the Roman Catholic Church. The community was to be guided by Christian values in its politics, economics and social life.[13] Its legal basis was the corpus iuris canonica (body of canon law).[14][15][16][17] In the East, Christendom became more defined as the Byzantine Empire's gradual loss of territory to an expanding Islam and the muslim conquest of Persia. This caused Christianity to become important to the Byzantine identity. After the East-West Schism which divided the Church religiously, there had been the notion of a universal Christendom that included the East and the West. The Byzantines divided themselves in the Byzantine rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the eastern rite of the Catholic Church. The political reunion with the west, after the East-West schism, was put asunder by the Fourth Crusade when Crusaders conquered the Byzantine capital of Constantinople and hastened the decline of the Byzantine Empire on the path to its destruction.[18][19][20] With the breakup of the Byzantine Empire into individual nations with nationalist Orthodox Churches, the term Christendom described Western Europe, Catholicism, Orthodox Byzantines, and other Eastern rites of the Church.[21][22]

    The Catholic Church's peak of authority over all European Christians and their common endeavours of the Christian community — for example, the Crusades, the fight against the Moors in the Iberian Peninsula and against the Ottomans in the Balkans — helped to develop a sense of communal identity against the obstacle of Europe's deep political divisions. But this authority was also sometimes abused, and fostered the Inquisition and anti-Jewish pogroms, to root out divergent elements and create a religiously uniform community.[citation needed] Ultimately, the Inquisition was done away with by order of the Pope Innocent III.[23]

    Christendom ultimately was led into specific crisis in the late Middle Ages, when the kings of France managed to establish a French national church during the 14th century and the papacy became ever more aligned with the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Known as the Western Schism, western Christendom was a split between three men, who were driven by politics rather than any real theological disagreement for simultaneously claiming to be the true pope. The Avignon Papacy developed a reputation of corruption that estranged major parts of Western Christendom. The Avignon schism was ended by the Council of Constance.[24]

    Before the modern period, Christendom was in a general crisis at the time of the Renaissance Popes because of the moral laxity of these pontiffs and their willingness to seek and rely on temporal power as secular rulers did. Many in the Catholic Church's hierarchy in the Renaissance became increasingly entangled with insatiable greed for material wealth and temporal power, which led to many reform movements, some merely wanting a moral reformation of the Church's clergy, while others repudiated the Church and separated from it in order to form new sects. The Italian Renaissance produced ideas or institutions by which men living in society could be held together in harmony. In the early 16th century, Baldassare Castiglione (The Book of the Courtier) laid out his vision of the ideal gentleman and lady, while Machiavelli cast a jaundiced eye on "la verita effetuale delle cose" — the actual truth of things — in The Prince, composed, humanist style, chiefly of parallel ancient and modern examples of Virtù. Some Protestant movements grew up along lines of mysticism or renaissance humanism (cf. Erasmus). The Catholic Church fell into general neglect under the Renaissance Popes, whose inability to govern the Church properly set the climate for what would ultimately become the Protestant Reformation.[25]

    Reformation and Modern Era

    Developments in western philosophy and European events brought change to the notion of the Corpus Christianum. The Hundred Years' War accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a centralized state. The rise of strong, centralized monarchies[26] denoted the European transition from feudalism to capitalism. By the end of the Hundred Years' War, both France and England were able to raise enough money through taxation to create independent standing armies. In the Wars of the Roses, Henry Tudor took the crown of England. His heir, the absolute king Henry VIII establishing the English church.[27]

    In modern history, the Reformation and rise of modernity in the early 16th century entailed a change in the Corpus Christianum. In the Holy Roman Empire, the Peace of Augsburg of 1555 officially ended the idea among secular leaders that all Christians must be united under one church. The principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose the region is, his religion") established the religious, political and geographic divisions of Christianity, and this was established with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which legally ended the concept of a single Christian hegemony in the territories of the Holy Roman Empire, despite the Catholic Church's doctrine that it alone is the one true Church founded by Christ. Subsequently, each government determined the religion of their own state. Christians living in states where their denomination was not the established one were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will. With the Treaty of Westphalia, the Wars of Religion came to an end, and in the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 the concept of the sovereign national state was born.[citation needed]

    Christian Literature and Christian Poetry

    Christian literature is writing that deals with Christian themes and incorporates the Christian world view. This constitutes a huge body of extremely varied writing. Christian poetry is any poetry that contains Christian teachings, themes, or references. The influence of Christianity on poetry has been great in any area that Christianity has taken hold. Christian poems often directly reference the Bible, while others provide allegory.

    Christian Art

    Christian art is art produced in an attempt to illustrate, supplement and portray in tangible form the principles of Christianity. Virtually all Christian groupings use or have used art to some extent. The prominence of art and the media, style, and representations change; however, the unifying theme is ultimately the representation of the life and times of Jesus and in some cases the Old Testament. Depictions of saints are also common, especially in Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

    An illuminated manuscript is a manuscript in which the text is supplemented by the addition of decoration. The earliest surviving substantive illuminated manuscripts are from the period AD 400 to 600, primarily produced in Ireland, Constantinople and Italy. The majority of surviving manuscripts are from the Middle Ages, although many illuminated manuscripts survive from the 15th century Renaissance, along with a very limited number from Late Antiquity.

    Most illuminated manuscripts were created as codices, which had superseded scrolls; some isolated single sheets survive. A very few illuminated manuscript fragments survive on papyrus. Most medieval manuscripts, illuminated or not, were written on parchment (most commonly of calf, sheep, or goat skin), but most manuscripts important enough to illuminate were written on the best quality of parchment, called vellum, traditionally made of unsplit calfskin, though high quality parchment from other skins was also called parchment.

    Iconography

    Christian art began, about two centuries after Christ, by borrowing motifs from Roman Imperial imagery, classical Greek and Roman religion and popular art. Religious images are used to some extent by the Abrahamic Christian faith, and often contain highly complex iconography, which reflects centuries of accumulated tradition. In the Late Antique period iconography began to be standardised, and to relate more closely to Biblical texts, although many gaps in the canonical Gospel narratives were plugged with matter from the apocryphal gospels. Eventually the Church would succeed in weeding most of these out, but some remain, like the ox and ass in the Nativity of Christ.

    An icon is a religious work of art, most commonly a painting, from Eastern Orthodox Christianity or one of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Christianity has used symbolism from its very beginnings.[28] In both East and West, numerous iconic types of Christ, Mary and saints and other subjects were developed; the number of named types of icons of Mary, with or without the infant Christ, was especially large in the East, whereas Christ Pantocrator was much the commonest image of Christ.

    Christian symbolism invests objects or actions with an inner meaning expressing Christian ideas. Christianity has borrowed from the common stock of significant symbols known to most periods and to all regions of the world. Religious symbolism is effective when it appeals to both the intellect and the emotions. Especially important depictions of Mary include the Hodegetria and Panagia types. Traditional models evolved for narrative paintings, including large cycles covering the events of the Life of Christ, the Life of the Virgin, parts of the Old Testament, and, increasingly, the lives of popular saints. Especially in the West, a system of attributes developed for identifying individual figures of saints by a standard appearance and symbolic objects held by them; in the East they were more likely to identified by text labels.

    Each saint has a story and a reason why he or she led an exemplary life. Symbols have been used to tell these stories throughout the history of the Church. A number of Christian saints are traditionally represented by a symbol or iconic motif associated with their life, termed an attribute or emblem, in order to identify them. The study of these forms part of iconography in Art history. They were particularly

    Architecture

    Christian architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Christianity to the present day, influencing the design and construction of buildings and structures in Christian culture.

    Buildings were at first adapted from those originally intended for other purposes but, with the rise of distinctively ecclesiastical architecture, church buildings came to influence secular ones which have often imitated religious architecture. In the 20th century, the use of new materials, such as concrete, as well as simpler styles has had its effect upon the design of churches and arguably the flow of influence has been reversed. From the birth of Christianity to the present, the most significant period of transformation for Christian architecture in the west was the Gothic cathedral. In the east, Byzantine architecture was a continuation of Roman architecture.

    Philosophy

    Christian philosophy is a term to describe the fusion of various fields of philosophy with the theological doctrines of Christianity. Scholasticism, which means "that [which] belongs to the school", and was a method of learning taught by the academics (or school people) of medieval universities c. 1100–1500. Scholasticism originally started to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology. Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology in itself but a tool and method for learning which places emphasis on dialectical reasoning.

    Science, and particularly geometry and astronomy, was linked directly to the divine for most medieval scholars. Since God created the universe after geometric and harmonic principles, to seek these principles was therefore to seek and worship God.

    The Byzantine Empire, which was the most sophisticated culture during antiquity, suffered under muslim conquests limiting its scientific prowess during the Medieval period. Christian Western Europe had suffered a catastrophic loss of knowledge following the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But thanks to the Church scholars such as Aquinas and Buridan, the West carried on at least the spirit of scientific inquiry which would later lead to Europe's taking the lead in science during the Scientific Revolution using translations of medieval works.

    Medieval technology refers to the technology used in medieval Europe under Christian rule. After the Renaissance of the 12th century, medieval Europe saw a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth.[29] The period saw major technological advances, including the adoption of gunpowder and the astrolabe, the invention of spectacles, and greatly improved water mills, building techniques, agriculture in general, clocks, and ships. The latter advances made possible the dawn of the Age of Exploration. The development of water mills was impressive, and extended from agriculture to sawmills both for timber and stone, probably derived from Roman technology. By the time of the Domesday Book, most large villages in Britain had mills. They also were widely used in mining, as described by Georg Agricola in De Re Metallica for raising ore from shafts, crushing ore, and even powering bellows.

    Significant in this respect were advances within the fields of navigation. The compass and astrolabe along with advances in shipbuilding, enabled the navigation of the World Oceans and thus domination of the worlds economic trade. Gutenberg’s printing press made possible a dissemination of knowledge to a wider population, that would not only lead to a gradually more egalitarian society, but one more able to dominate other cultures, drawing from a vast reserve of knowledge and experience.

    During the Renaissance, great advances occurred in geography, astronomy, chemistry, physics, math, manufacturing, and engineering. The rediscovery of ancient scientific texts was accelerated after the Fall of Constantinople, and the invention of printing which would democratize learning and allow a faster propagation of new ideas. Renaissance technology is the set of artifacts and customs, spanning roughly the 14th through the 16th century. The era is marked by such profound technical advancements like the printing press, linear perspectivity, patent law, double shell domes or Bastion fortresses. Draw-books of the Renaissance artist-engineers such as Taccola and Leonardo da Vinci give a deep insight into the mechanical technology then known and applied.

    Renaissance science spawned the Scientific Revolution; science and technology began a cycle of mutual advancement. The Scientific Renaissance was the early phase of the Scientific Revolution. In the two-phase model of early modern science: a Scientific Renaissance of the 15th and 16th centuries, focused on the restoration of the natural knowledge of the ancients; and a Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, when scientists shifted from recovery to innovation.

    Demographics

    Christianity is the predominant religion in Europe, Russia, the Americas, Oceania, the Philippines, Eastern Indonesia, Southern Africa, Central Africa and East Africa.[30] There are also large Christian communities in other parts of the world, such as Central Asia, where Christianity is the second-largest religion after Islam. The United States is the largest Christian country in the world by population, followed by Brazil and Mexico.[31]

    Many Christians not only live under, but also have an official status in, a state religion of the following nations: Argentina (Roman Catholic Church),[32][33] Armenia (Armenian Apostolic Church),[34] Bolivia (Roman Catholic Church),[35] Costa Rica (Roman Catholic Church),[36] Denmark (Church of Denmark),[37] El Salvador (Roman Catholic Church),[38] England (Church of England),[39] Greece (Church of Greece), Iceland (Church of Iceland),[40] Liechtenstein (Roman Catholic Church),[41] Malta (Roman Catholic Church),[42] Monaco (Roman Catholic Church),[43] Romania (Romanian Orthodox Church), Norway (Church of Norway),[44] Vatican City (Roman Catholic Church),[45] Switzerland (Roman Catholic Church, Swiss Reformed Church and Christian Catholic Church of Switzerland) and Georgia (Georgian Orthodox Church).

    The estimated number of Christians in the world ranges from 1.5 billion[46] to 2.2 billion people.[46][47] Composed of around 34,000 different denominations,[citation needed] Christianity is the world's largest religion.[48] Christians have composed about 33 percent of the world's population for around 100 years.

    A religious order is a lineage of communities and organizations of people who live in some way set apart from society in accordance with their specific religious devotion, usually characterized by the principles of its founder's religious practice. In contrast, the term Holy Orders is used by many Christian churches to refer to ordination or to a group of individuals who are set apart for a special role or ministry. Historically, the word "order" designated an established civil body or corporation with a hierarchy, and ordinatio meant legal incorporation into an ordo. The word "holy" refers to the Church. In context, therefore, a holy order is set apart for ministry in the Church. Religious orders are composed of initiates (laity) and, in some traditions, ordained clergies.

    In the Roman Catholic Church, religious institutes and secular institutes are the major forms of institutes of consecrated life, similar to which are societies of apostolic life. They are organisations of laity and/or clergy who live a common life under the guidance of a fixed rule and the leadership of a superior. (ed., see Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies for a particular listing.)

    Anglican religious orders are communities of laity and/or clergy in the Anglican churches who live under a common rule of life. (ed., see Category:Anglican organizations for a particular listing)

    Canon Law and Christian Ethics

    Within the framework of Christianity, there are at least three possible definitions for Church law. One is the Torah/Mosaic Law (from what Christians consider to be the Old Testament) also called Divine Law or Biblical law. Another is the instructions of Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospel (sometimes referred to as the Law of Christ or the New Commandment or the New Covenant). A third is canon law which is the internal ecclesiastical law governing the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican Communion of churches.[49] The way that such church law is legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely among these three bodies of churches. In all three traditions, a canon was initially a rule adopted by a council (From Greek kanon / κανών, Hebrew kaneh / קנה, for rule, standard, or measure); these canons formed the foundation of canon law.

    Christian ethics in general has tended to stress the need for grace, mercy, and forgiveness because of human weakness and developed while Early Christians were subjects of the Roman Empire. From the time Nero blamed Christians for setting Rome ablaze (64 AD) until Galarius (311 AD), persecutions against Christians erupted periodically. Consequently, Early Christian ethics included discussions of how believers should relate to Roman authority and to the empire.

    Under the Emperor Constantine I (312-337), Christianity became a legal religion. While some scholars debate whether Constantine's conversion to Christianity was authentic or simply matter of political expediency, Constantine's decree made the empire safe for Christian practice and belief. Consequently, issues of Christian doctrine, ethics and church practice were debated openly, see for example the First Council of Nicaea and the First seven Ecumenical Councils. By the time of Theodosius I (379-395), Christianity had become the state religion of the empire. With Christianity in power, ethical concerns broaden and included discussions of the proper role of the state.

    Render unto Caesar… is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s". This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The gospels say that when Jesus gave his response, his interrogators "marvelled, and left him, and went their way." Time has not resolved an ambiguity in this phrase, and people continue to interpret this passage to support various positions that are poles apart. The traditional division, carefully determined, in Christian thought is the state and church have separate spheres of influence.

    Thomas Aquinas thoroughly discussed that human law is positive law which means that it is natural law applied by governments to societies. All human laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law was in a sense no law at all. At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. This could result in some tension.[50] Hardly a single portion of ethics does Aquinas present to us but is enriched with his keen philosophical commentaries. Late ecclesiastical writers followed in his footsteps.

    Christian Democracy

    Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in 19th-century Europe, largely under the influence of Catholic social teaching. In a number of countries, the democracy's Christian ethos has been diluted by secularisation. In practice, Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social and moral issues and progressive on fiscal and economic issues. In places, where their opponents have traditionally been secularist socialists and social democrats, Christian democratic parties are moderately conservative, whereas in other cultural and political environments they can lean to the left.

    Women in Christianity

    Attitudes and beliefs about the roles and responsibilities of women in Christianity vary considerably today as they have throughout the last two millennia — evolving along with or counter to the societies in which Christians have lived. The Bible and Christianity historically have been interpreted as excluding women from church leadership and placing them in submissive roles in marriage. Male leadership has been assumed in the church and within marriage, society and government.[51]

    Some contemporary writers describe the role of women in the life of the church as having been downplayed, overlooked, or denied throughout much of Christian history. Paradigm shifts in gender roles in society and also many churches has inspired reevaluation by many Christians of some long-held attitudes to the contrary. Christian egalitarians have increasingly argued for equal roles for men and women in marriage, as well as for the ordination of women to the clergy. Contemporary conservatives meanwhile have reasserted what has been termed a "complementarian" position, promoting the traditional belief that the Bible ordains different roles and responsibilities for women and men in the Church and family.

    Major Christian Denominations

    A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity. Worldwide, Christians are divided, often along ethnic and linguistic lines, into separate churches and traditions. Various denominations, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, make particular distinctions in their literature.[52] Technically, divisions between one group and another are defined by church doctrine and church authority. Centering on language of professed Christianity and true Christianity, issues that separate one group of followers of Jesus from another include:

    Apostolic succession,
    Biblical authority,
    Biblical criticism,
    Biblical inerrancy,
    Biblical infallibility,
    Biblical inspiration,
    Biblical interpretation,
    Papal primacy, and
    Views of Jesus (Christology).

    Christianity is composed of, but not limited to, five major branches of Churches: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, and Old Catholicism. Some listings include Anglicans among Protestants while others list the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox separately. The Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorians) and the Old Catholic churches are also distinct Christian bodies of historic importance, but much smaller in adherents and geographic scope. Each of these five branches has important subdivisions. Because the Protestant subdivisions do not maintain a common theology or earthly leadership, they are far more distinct than the subdivisions of the other four groupings. Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian groupings including each of the multitude of Protestant subdivisions.

    See also: East–West Schism, History of the East–West Schism, History of the Roman Catholic Church, History of the Eastern Orthodox Church, History of Protestantism, History of the Anglican Communion, and History of Oriental Orthodoxy

    Catholicism is the largest denomination, comprising just over half of Christians worldwide.

    In Christendom, the largest denominations are:

    1.Roman Catholicism – 1.2 billion
    2.Protestantism – 540 million
    3.Eastern Orthodoxy – 300 million
    4.Anglicanism – 115 million
    5.Oriental Orthodoxy – 75 million
    6.Nontrinitarianism – 26 million
    7.Nestorianism – 1 million
    8.Old Catholicism - .4 million

    In the interaction between Christendom and other belief systems,[53] men and women when not at war with their neighbors have always made an effort to understand the Other (not least because understanding is a strategy for defense, but also because for as long as there is dialogue wars are delayed). Such interactions have led to various interfaith dialogue events. History records many examples of interfaith initiatives and dialogue throughout the ages. In the field of comparative religion, the interactions connects fundamental ideas in Christianity with similar ones in other religions. Christianity and other religions appear to share some elements. Regarding Christianity's relationship with other world beliefs, Christianity and other beliefs have differences and similarities in connection with each other.

    Christianity and Judaism

    Global distribution of Jewry in 2006; percentage of the top nation (Israel - 5,313,800).
    Although Christianity and Judaism share historical roots, these two religions diverge in fundamental ways. Though Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes continuities and convergences between the two religions, there are many other areas in which the faiths diverge.

    Muslim World

    Christianity and Islam share their origins in the Abrahamic tradition, as well as Judaism. Islam accepts Jesus and his miracles and other aspects of Christianity as part of its faith - with some differences in interpretation, and rejects other aspects.

    Buddhism and Christianity

    There has been much speculation regarding a possible connection between both the Buddha and the Christ, and between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism originated in India about 500 years before the Apostolic Age and the origins of Christianity.

    Hindu World

    The declaration Nostra Aetate officially established inter-religious dialogue between Catholics and Hindus. It has promoted common values between religions. There are over 17.3 million Catholics in India, which represents less than 2% of the total population and is the largest Christian Church within India. However, the Holy See has expressed concern with regards to religious violence in the state of Orissa, which is closely related to the ideology of Hindutva.

    Secular World and Humanism

    Atheists, agnostics and nonreligious, by the Dentsu Institute (2006) and Zuckerman (2005)
    Irreligion is an absence of religion, indifference to religion, and/or hostility to religion. Secularism, in one sense, may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings and freedom from the imposition of religion upon the people. In its most prominent form, secularism is critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma rather than on reason and the scientific method. Humanism refers to a philosophy centered on humankind. Much of Humanism's life stance upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism (Christian mythology).

    See Also:

    Main Outline of Christianity, Christian Apologetics, Criticism of Christianity General Ecumenism, Christianity and other religions, Christian Flag, Crusade, Christian pilgrimage, The Good News, The City of God History History of Christianity, Constantinian shift, Constantine I and Christianity Roman Catholic Church Papism, Church militant and church triumphant, Union of Christendom, Catholic Church and ecumenism, Political Catholicism, Interdict "Western" concepts Western world, Western nationalism Muslim world Caliphate, Ummah, Mohammadan Church and State Freedom of religion, Caesaropapism, Ecumene, Dominionism, Res publica christiana Other Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire (Holy Roman Emperor)

    Footnotes

    1.^ a b See Merriam-Webster.com : dictionary, "Christendom"
    2.^ Marty, Martin E. The Christian World: A Global History. Modern Library chronicles, 29. New York: Modern Library, 2007.
    3.^ Silen Debnath, Secularism:Western and Indian, ISBN 8126913665, 9788126913664, Atlantic Publishers, New Delhi
    4.^ Kingdom is within: "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within [or among] you." Luke 17:20-21
    5.^ Acts 3:1; Acts 5:27–42; Acts 21:18–26; Acts 24:5; Acts 24:14; Acts 28:22; Romans 1:16; Tacitus, Annales xv 44; Josephus Antiquities xviii 3; Mortimer Chambers, The Western Experience Volume II chapter 5; The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion page 158.
    6.^ Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon; Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Magnesians 10, Letter to the Romans (Roberts-Donaldson tr., Lightfoot tr., Greek text). However, an edition presented on some websites, one that otherwise corresponds exactly with the Roberts-Donaldson translation, renders this passage to the interpolated inauthentic longer recension of Ignatius's letters, which does not contain the word "Christianity."
    7.^ Chisholm, H. (1910). The Encyclopædia Britannica: A dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information. New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Co. Pg. 700.
    8.^ The church in the Roman empire before A.D. 170, Part 170 By Sir William Mitchell Ramsay
    9.^ Boyd, William Kenneth (1905). The ecclesiastical edicts of the Theodosian code, Columbia University Press.
    10.^ The art of war in world history: from antiquity to the nuclear age By Gérard Chaliand. Page 25
    11.^ West, W. M. (1904). The ancient world from the earliest times to 800 A.D. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pg. 551+
    12.^ The rise of Western Christendom: triumph and diversity, A.D. 200-1000: Parts 200-1000. Page 443
    13.^ Shaping a global theological mind By Darren C. Marks. Page 45
    14.^ Somerville, R. (1998). Prefaces to Canon Law books in Latin Christianity: Selected translations, 500-1245 ; commentary and translations. New Haven [u.a.: Yale Univ. Press
    15.^ VanDeWiel, C. (1991). History of canon law. Leuven: Peeters Press.
    16.^ Canon law and the Christian community By Clarence Gallagher. Gregorian & Biblical BookShop, 1978.
    17.^ Catholic Church., Canon Law Society of America., Catholic Church., & Libreria editrice vaticana. (1998). Code of canon law, Latin-English edition: New English translation. Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America.
    18.^ Mango, C. (2002). The Oxford history of Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    19.^ Angold, M. (1997). The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A political history. New York: Longman.
    20.^ Schevill, F. (1922). The history of the Balkan Peninsula: From the earliest times to the present day. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Pg. 124.
    21.^ Schaff, P. (1878). The creeds of Christendom: With a history and critical notes. New York: Harper.
    22.^ "Christendom". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
    23.^ "Inquisition". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
    24.^ Stump, P. H. (1994). The reforms of the Council of Constance, 1414-1418. Leiden: E.J. Brill
    25.^ The Cambridge Modern History. Vol 2: The Reformation (1903).
    26.^ This was presaging the modern nation-state
    27.^ The Anglican Domain: Church History
    28.^ "Symbolism". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
    29.^ Alfred Crosby described some of this technological revolution in his The Measure of Reality : Quantification in Western Europe, 1250–1600 and other major historians of technology have also noted it.
    30.^ Encyclopædia Britannica table of religions, by region; retrieved November 2007
    31.^ [1] Largest Christian Population in the world; retrieved April 2009
    32.^ Argientine - Religion. argentina.gov.ar. (cf., juridical status different from the rest of churches in line with the National Constitution)
    33.^ "Argentina". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    34.^ "Gov. Pataki Honors 1700th Anniversary of Armenia's Adoption of Christianity as a state religion". Aremnian National Committee of America. Retrieved 2009-04-11.
    35.^ "Bolivia". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    36.^ "Costa Rica". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    37.^ "Denmark". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    38.^ "El Salvador". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    39.^ "Church and State in Britain: The Church of privilege". Centre for Citizenship. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    40.^ "Iceland". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    41.^ "Liechtenstein". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    42.^ "Malta". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    43.^ "Monaco". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    44.^ "Norway". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    45.^ "Vatican". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2008-05-11.
    46.^ a b Adherents.com Adherents.com Christians: Number of Christians in the world at the Wayback Machine (archived April 4, 2008)
    47.^ Global Christianity
    48.^ "Major Religions Ranked by Size". Adherents. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
    49.^ "Canon law". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.
    50.^ Burns, "Aquinas's Two Doctrines of Natural Law."
    51.^ Blevins, Carolyn DeArmond, Women in Christian History: A Bibliography. Macon, Georgia: Mercer Univ Press, 1995. ISBN 0-86554-493-X
    52.^ While the generally-accepted definition of "Christendom" is sometimes intended, The Watchtower and other publications of Jehovah's Witnesses more often intend the term to indicate merely professed Christianity as distinct from true Christianity. Although they self-identify as Christian, Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be no part of "Christendom". They explain their use of the term: "What is the definition of “Christendom” as used in Watch Tower publications? Most often the term “Christendom” is used in the Society’s publications in the more restricted way in which the word is first defined in the dictionary: “Christianity”; actually, professed Christianity, in contrast to the true Christianity of the Bible. This focuses primarily on the religious aspects. However, the word is sometimes used in our publications in its enlarged second meaning: “the portion of the world in which Christianity prevails.” ("Questions From Readers", The Watchtower, August 1, 1981, page 31) For details, see "True Christianity Is Flourishing", The Watchtower, March 1, 2004, page 7 As retrieved 2009-04-09, "While Christendom's theologians, missionaries, and churchgoers continue to grapple with the gathering storm of controversy in their churches, true Christianity is flourishing worldwide. Indeed, true Christians [...] invite you to join Jehovah's Witnesses in united Christian worship of the only true God, Jehovah."; and Watchtower, April 1, 2001, page 18, "Equally striking is the contrast between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christendom today. [...] The very features that Christendom lacks abound among Jehovah’s Witnesses!"; Also The Watchtower, April 15, 1962, page 229, "It is out of date to define Christendom as meaning Christianity. True Christians today do not confuse Christendom with Christianity or make them identical."
    53.^ These belief systems include various non-Christian life stances, world views, ideologies, philosophies, and religions.

    References:

    20th century sources
    The Return of Christendom, By a Group of Churchmen. New York: Macmillan Co, 1922.
    White, Andrew Dickson. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom: In Two Volumes. V. 1-2. New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1903. (ed., Volume One; Volume Two)
    Cole, F. G. Mother of All Churches A Brief and Comprehensive Handbook of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church. London: Skeffington, 1908.
    19th century sources
    Hull, Moses. Encyclopedia of Biblical Spiritualism; Or, A Concordance to the Principal Passages of the Old and New Testament Scriptures Which Prove or Imply Spiritualism; Together with a Brief History of the Origin of Many of the Important Books of the Bible. Chicago: M. Hull, 1895. (ed., reprint version is available)
    Bosanquet, Bernard. The Civilization of Christendom, And Other Studies. London: S. Sonnenschein, 1893.
    Church Club of New York. The History of Teachings of the Early Church, As a Basis for the Re-Union of Christendom; Lectures. Church Club lectures. New York: E. & J.B. Young, 1893.
    Egar, John Hodson. Christendom; Ecclesiastical and Political, from Constantine to the Reformation. New York: J. Pott, 1887.
    The Churches of Christendom. Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1884.
    Charles, Elizabeth Rundle. Sketches of the Women of Christendom. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co, 1880.
    Naville, Ernest. The Christ: Seven Lectures. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880.
    Cox, George W. Latin and Teutonic Christendom: An Historical Sketch. London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1870.
    Girdlestone, Charles. Christendom; Sketched from History in the Light of Holy Scripture. London: Published for the Author by Sampson Low, Son, & Marston, 1870.
    Thomson, John Radford. Symbols of Christendom. 1867.
    Allies, T. W. The Formation of Christendom. London: Burns & Oates, 1865.
    Stearns, George. The Mistake of Christendom; or, Jesus and His Gospel Before Paul and Christianity. Boston: B. Marsh, 1857.
    Johnson, Richard, The Renowned History of the Seven Champions of Christendom. W. Baynes and son, 1824.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Progessive-Christianity4
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Hinduism-and-Christianity
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 11460_G_1280934005764
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 J0409424
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Eartheart wrote:The one thing I care about here is the ascension of humanity, in that I have faith and can have some patience. Though this 3D matrix is getting more insane by the minute.
    The physical ascension of some scattered individuals around the globe has already started – I assume that most of them are elderly people that have to go home urgently – and we are keeping the portals open for them and help them go through, while leaving their earthly fears back. Great returnStarseeds!!! sunny

    This process is very debilitating for us now as gate openers. But the next wave to ascend will be the PATeam and then the ID split and magnetic pole reversal can be triggered. It is now only a matter of a few days, even hours, as linear time does not play any role anymore. We are abolishing it now in the NOW/simultaneity of All-That-Is.
    flower
    I keep getting the feeling that Ascension = Extermination of Male and Female Human Physicality = Return to Pre-Human Physicality or No Physicality Whatsoever. I am obviously very upset with Human History -- but I suspect nefarious manipulation from the sidelines. It seems as if the Human Experiment has been tainted -- and that Humanity has NOT received a fair trial. On the other hand -- I don't know how bad Humanity might really be -- historically and presently. I keep imagining a highly refined Humanity living throughout the solar system -- and constructively interacting with physical and spiritual beings from throughout the universe -- but it seems as if the Galactic PTB have decided to pull the plug. That's what it feels like to me. Unfortunately, I don't think we are being told the truth about our past, present, and future. It seems as if the Lab-Rats cannot be told too much about the experiment they are being used for. This whole stupid mess might have some rhyme and reason -- but what is it?? I have to keep speculating -- and I reveal only a small portion of what I think about -- and I am scaring the hell out of myself -- which might actually be a good thing.
    Honestly study the Bible from Genesis to Revelation -- straight through. A lot of it is inspirational -- but a lot of it is NOT a pretty picture. I believe most of the Bible -- but I wish that I didn't -- and I wish I could only deal with the good parts. I enjoyed attending the Crystal Cathedral -- even though I knew it was just a band-aid on a compound-fracture. Is the 1928 Book of Common Prayer pretty much the same sort of thing?? I SO wish to be idealistic -- but I keep getting roughed-up by brutal gangs of facts -- and I fear that we are about to get roughed-up by brutal gangs of Dracs. The Horror.

    I continue to use the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the Federalist Papers as points of reference and middle-ways as I contemplate the church and state aspects of Solar System Governance. Please give this thread some serious study -- to see if it might have some validity. I tend to think that extrapolations from this thread might be most beneficial and productive. Should this solar system be viewed as being one BIG business?? The bottom-line is usually the bottom-line -- right?? I tend to think that eliminating war and violence would boost the bottom-line. Would an Anna-Administered United States of the Solar System be good for business?? When I say 'Anna' I mean a very tough, very smart, and very ethical 'Anna'. I would like to see a completely idealistic version of 'V' which might explore the United States of the Solar System concept. Think about it.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Einstein
    orthodoxymoron
    orthodoxymoron


    Posts : 13402
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:23 am

    Consider Ethics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics You academics and mystics might not appreciate Wikipedia -- but I continue to learn a great deal from it -- and I like the 'freshness' and summaries. I realize this approach constitutes 'pseudo-research' -- but remember that this thread is Political and Theological Science Fiction -- which attempts to approximate the way things might really be -- behind the scenes. I think that University Class I spoke of previously might simply be this thread -- discussed by the students -- with these discussions being recorded and transcribed -- with each student writing a 50 page report at the end of the semester. Then, the discussions and reports might be published by the university. Attendance, Participation, and Papers would determine the final grades. I think I might receive more of an education than the students. Are there any schools which might like to take a chance with me?? Just help me turn this thread into a doctoral disertation -- and upon completion (along with a week-long oral-exam) grant me a doctorate in Solar System Studies and Governance!!! Then, give me that one class to teach -- with immediate tenure!! Just kidding!! In Politics and Religion are we really dealing with Ethical-Deception v Unethical-Deception?? Are we dealing with the Corrupt Ruling the Stupid?? What if -- after all of my questing -- I ended up as hard and cynical as those at the Top of the Pyramid??

    Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.[1] It comes from the Greek word ethos, which means "character".

    Major areas of study in ethics may be divided into 3 operational areas:[1]
    Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
    Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
    Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;

    Each of these areas include many further sub-fields of study.

    Meta-ethics

    Meta-ethics is a field within ethics that seeks to understand the nature of normative ethics. The focus of meta-ethics is on how we understand, know about, and what we mean when we talk about what is right and what is wrong.

    Meta-ethics came to the fore with G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica from 1903. In it he first wrote about what he called the naturalistic fallacy. Moore was seen to reject naturalism in ethics, in his Open Question Argument. This made thinkers look again at second order questions about ethics. Earlier, the Scottish philosopher David Hume had put forward a similar view on the difference between facts and values.

    Studies of how we know in ethics divide into cognitivism and non-cognitivism; this is similar to the contrast between descriptivists and non-descriptivists. Non-cognitivism is the claim that when we judge something as right or wrong, this is neither true nor false. We may for example be only expressing our emotional feelings about these things.[2] Cognitivism can then be seen as the claim that when we talk about right and wrong, we are talking about matters of fact.

    The ontology of ethics is about value-bearing things or properties, i.e. the kind of things or stuff referred to by ethical propositions. Non-descriptivists and non-cognitivists believe that ethics does not need a specific ontology, since ethical propositions do not refer. This is known as an anti-realist position. Realists on the other hand must explain what kind of entities, properties or states are relevant for ethics, how they have value, and why they guide and motivate our actions.[3]

    Normative ethics

    Traditionally, normative ethics (also known as moral theory) was the study of what makes actions right and wrong. These theories offered an overarching moral principle one could appeal to in resolving difficult moral decisions.

    At the turn of the 20th century, moral theories became more complex and are no longer concerned solely with rightness and wrongness, but are interested in many different kinds of moral status. During the middle of the century, the study of normative ethics declined as meta-ethics grew in prominence. This focus on meta-ethics was in part caused by an intense linguistic focus in analytic philosophy and by the popularity of logical positivism.

    In 1971 John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, noteworthy in its pursuit of moral arguments and eschewing of meta-ethics. This publication set the trend for renewed interest in normative ethics.

    Virtue Ethics

    Socrates

    Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, and is used to describe the ethics of Socrates, Aristotle, and other early Greek philosophers. Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) was one of the first Greek philosophers to encourage both scholars and the common citizen to turn their attention from the outside world to the condition of humankind. In this view, knowledge having a bearing on human life was placed highest, all other knowledge being secondary. Self-knowledge was considered necessary for success and inherently an essential good. A self-aware person will act completely within his capabilities to his pinnacle, while an ignorant person will flounder and encounter difficulty. To Socrates, a person must become aware of every fact (and its context) relevant to his existence, if he wishes to attain self-knowledge. He posited that people will naturally do what is good, if they know what is right. Evil or bad actions are the result of ignorance. If a criminal were truly aware of the mental and spiritual consequences of his actions, he would neither commit nor even consider committing those actions. Any person who knows what is truly right will automatically do it, according to Socrates. While he correlated knowledge with virtue, he similarly equated virtue with happiness. The truly wise man will know what is right, do what is good, and therefore be happy.[4]

    Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "self-realizationism." In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with his nature and realizes his full potential, he will do good and be content. At birth, a baby is not a person, but a potential person. To become a "real" person, the child's inherent potential must be realized. Unhappiness and frustration are caused by the unrealized potential of a person, leading to failed goals and a poor life. Aristotle said, "Nature does nothing in vain." Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents in order to be content and complete. Happiness was held to be the ultimate goal. All other things, such as civic life or wealth, are merely means to the end. Self-realization, the awareness of one's nature and the development of one's talents, is the surest path to happiness.[5]

    Aristotle asserted that man had three natures: vegetable (physical/metabolism), animal (emotional/appetite) and rational (mental/conceptual). Physical nature can be assuaged through exercise and care, emotional nature through indulgence of instinct and urges, and mental through human reason and developed potential. Rational development was considered the most important, as essential to philosophical self-awareness and as uniquely human. Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral. For example, courage is the moderate virtue between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Man should not simply live, but live well with conduct governed by moderate virtue. This is regarded as difficult, as virtue denotes doing the right thing, to the right person, at the right time, to the proper extent, in the correct fashion, for the right reason.[6]

    Stoicism

    The Stoic philosopher Epictetus posited that the greatest good was contentment and serenity. Peace of mind, or Apatheia, was of the highest value; self-mastery over one's desires and emotions leads to spiritual peace. The "unconquerable will" is central to this philosophy. The individual's will should be independent and inviolate. Allowing a person to disturb the mental equilibrium is in essence offering yourself in slavery. If a person is free to anger you at will, you have no control over your internal world, and therefore no freedom. Freedom from material attachments is also necessary. If a thing breaks, the person should not be upset, but realize it was a thing that could break. Similarly, if someone should die, those close to them should hold to their serenity because the loved one was made of flesh and blood destined to death. Stoic philosophy says to accept things that cannot be changed, resigning oneself to existence and enduring in a rational fashion. Death is not feared. People do not "lose" their life, but instead "return", for they are returning to God (who initially gave what the person is as a person). Epictetus said difficult problems in life should not be avoided, but rather embraced. They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory for which a man could be proud.[7]

    Epicureanism

    Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "presented a sustained argument that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue".[8] He rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings. Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus the summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example, eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once will lead to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness. Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he would be non-existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife.[9]

    Hedonism

    Hedonism posits that the principal ethic is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people.[10]

    Cyrenaic Hedonism

    Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Even fleeting desires should be indulged, for fear the opportunity should be forever lost. There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good.[10]

    Consequentialism

    See also: Ethical Egoism

    Consequentialism refers to moral theories that hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (or create a structure for judgment, see rule consequentialism). Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means".

    The term "consequentialism" was coined by G.E.M. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in 1958, to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick.[11] Since then, the term has become common in English-language ethical theory.

    The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions.[12] In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about consequentialism as such. However, there are some questions that many consequentialist theories address:
    What sort of consequences count as good consequences?
    Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?
    How are the consequences judged and who judges them?

    One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs. According to hedonistic utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in pleasure, and the best action is one that results in the most pleasure for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect. Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated.

    Utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is a hedonistic ethical theory that argues the proper course of action is one that maximizes overall "happiness". Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are influential proponents of this school of thought. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says ‘it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he talks of ‘the principle of utility’ but later prefers “the greatest happiness principle".[13][14]

    Hedonistic utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate happiness; the happiness of everyone and not the happiness of any particular person. John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of hedonistic utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures.[15]

    State Consequentialism

    State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism,[16] is an ethical theory which evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the social harmony of a state.[16] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BC, as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare."[17] Unlike utilitarianism, which views pleasure as a moral good, "the basic goods in Mohist consequentialist thinking are... order, material wealth, and increase in population".[18] During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.[19] Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in the The Cambridge History of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth... if people have plenty, they would be good, filial, kind, and so on unproblematically."[18] In contrast to Bentham's views, state consequentialism is not utilitarian because it is not hedonistic. The importance of outcomes that are good for the state outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain.[18]


    What is the purpose of houses? It is to protect us from the wind and cold of winter, the heat and rain of summer, and to keep out robbers and thieves. Once these ends have been secured, that is all. Whatever does not contribute to these ends should be eliminated.[19]

    —Mozi, Mozi (5th century BC) Ch 20

    Deontological Ethics

    Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -λογία, -logia) is an approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill.[20] This is contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence,[21] if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”,[20] and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act[citation needed]. According to deontology, we have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts ("truth-telling" for example), or follow an objectively obligatory rule (as in rule utilitarianism). For deontologists, the ends or consequences of our actions are not important in and of themselves, and our intentions are not important in and of themselves.

    Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons.[22][23] First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty (deon).[24] Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives of the person who carries out the action.

    Immanuel Kant

    Kant's argument that to act in the morally right way, one must act from duty, begins with an argument that the highest good must be both good in itself, and good without qualification.[25] Something is 'good in itself' when it is intrinsically good, and 'good without qualification' when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse. Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffering, this seems to make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:

    Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.[25]

    Pragmatic Ethics

    Associated with the pragmatists, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and especially John Dewey, pragmatic ethics holds that moral correctness evolves similarly to scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes. Thus, we should prioritize social reform over attempts to account for consequences, individual virtue or duty (although these may be worthwhile attempts, provided social reform is provided for).[26]

    Postmodern Ethics

    This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.(July 2009)

    The 20th century saw a remarkable expansion and evolution of critical theory, following on earlier Marxist Theory efforts to locate individuals within larger structural frameworks of ideology and action.

    Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of the 'individual' itself.[clarification needed] As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "There is nothing outside the text"; at the same time, Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality (and eventually the absence of reality itself), particularly in the consumer world.

    Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational conditions of actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is not possible. There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even recognized. Such theorists find narrative (or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy) to be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular lived experiences in all their complexity rather than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate and individuated actions.

    Zygmunt Bauman says Postmodernity is best described as Modernity without illusion. The illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle. Postmodernity can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable.

    David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and Derrida's meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the "ethical turn" in Continental philosophy that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. Hoy describes post-critique ethics as the "obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither forced on one or are enforceable" (2004, p. 103).

    Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an individual's resistance to consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or an individual's resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas's account as "not the attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the population to exert their political power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless"(2004, p. Cool.

    Hoy concludes that the ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the other's lack of power. That actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical. (2004, p.184)

    In present day terms the powerless may include the unborn, the terminally sick, the aged, the insane, and non-human animals. It is in these areas that ethical action in Hoy's sense will apply. Until legislation or the state apparatus enforces a moral order that addresses the causes of resistance these issues will remain in the ethical realm. For example, should animal experimentation become illegal in a society, it will no longer be an ethical issue on Hoy's definition. Likewise one hundred and fifty years ago, not having a black slave in America would have been an ethical choice. This later issue has been absorbed into the fabric of an enforceable social order and is therefore no longer an ethical issue in Hoy's sense.

    Applied Ethics

    Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. The discipline has many specialized fields, such as Engineering Ethics, bioethics, geoethics, public service ethics and business ethics.

    Specific Questions

    This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2009)

    Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy, as well as by individuals facing difficult decisions. The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: "Is getting an abortion immoral?" "Is euthanasia immoral?" "Is affirmative action right or wrong?" "What are human rights, and how do we determine them?" "Do animals have rights as well?" and "Do individuals have the right of self determination?"

    A more specific question could be: "If someone else can make better out of his/her life than I can, is it then moral to sacrifice myself for them if needed?" Without these questions there is no clear fulcrum on which to balance law, politics, and the practice of arbitration — in fact, no common assumptions of all participants—so the ability to formulate the questions are prior to rights balancing. But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong?" and, "If not, when is it permissible?" is prior to any etiquette.

    People in-general are more comfortable with dichotomies (two opposites). However, in ethics the issues are most often multifaceted and the best proposed actions address many different areas concurrently. In ethical decisions the answer is almost never a "yes or no", "right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.

    Particular Fields of Application

    Bioethics

    Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values ("the ethics of the ordinary") which arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.

    Geoethics

    Geoethics is an interdisciplinary field between Geosciences and Ethics which involves Earth and Planetary Sciences as well as applied ethics. It deals with the way of human thinking and acting in relation to the significance of the Earth as a system and as a model. Geoeducational, scientific, technological, methodological and social-cultural aspects are included (e.g. sustainability, development, geodiversity and geoheritage, prudent consumption of mineral resources, appropriate measures for predictability and mitigation of natural hazards, geoscience communication, museology, etc.). In addition, the necessity of considering appropriate protocols, scientific integrity issues and a code of good practice - regarding the study of the abiotic world - is covered by this discipline. Studies on planetary geology (sensu lato) and astrobiology also require a geoethical approach.

    Business Ethics

    Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and entire organizations.

    Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions. As a corporate practice and a career specialization, the field is primarily normative. Academics attempting to understand business behavior employ descriptive methods. The range and quantity of business ethical issues reflects the interaction of profit-maximizing behavior with non-economic concerns. Interest in business ethics accelerated dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, both within major corporations and within academia. For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Adam Smith said, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."[27] Governments use laws and regulations to point business behavior in what they perceive to be beneficial directions. Ethics implicitly regulates areas and details of behavior that lie beyond governmental control.[28] The emergence of large corporations with limited relationships and sensitivity to the communities in which they operate accelerated the development of formal ethics regimes.[29]

    Relational Ethics

    Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care.[30] They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and authoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and "between researchers and the communities in which they live and work" (Ellis, 2007, p. 4).[31] Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on intimate others that have died and developing friendships with their participants.[32][33] Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of contextual therapy.

    Machine Ethics

    In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that issues in machine ethics will likely drive advancement in understanding of human ethics by forcing us to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation.[34] The effort to actually program a machine or artificial agent to behave as though instilled with a sense of ethics requires new specificity in our normative theories, especially regarding aspects customarily considered common-sense. For example, machines, unlike humans, can support a wide selection of learning algorithms, and controversy has arisen over the relative ethical merits of these options. This may reopen classic debates of normative ethics framed in new (highly technical) terms.

    Military Ethics

    This section does not cite any references or sources. (March 2009)

    See also: Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Principles

    Military ethics are intended to guide members of the armed forces to act in a manner consistent with the requirements of combat and military organization.[35] While Just war theory is generally seen to set the background terms of moral debate, individual countries have more specific methods of upholding these ethical principles.

    Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others:
    1. What, if any, should be the laws of war.
    2. Justification for the initiation of military force.
    3. Decisions about who may be targeted in warfare.
    4. Decisions on choice of weaponry, and what collateral effects such weaponry may have.
    5. Standards for handling military prisoners.
    6. Methods of dealing with violations of the laws of war.

    Public Service Ethics

    Public service ethics is a set of principles that guide public officials in their service to their constituents, including their decision-making on behalf of their constituents. Fundamental to the concept of public service ethics is the notion that decisions and actions are based on what best serves the public's interests, as opposed to the official's personal interests (including financial interests) or self-serving political interests.[36]

    Moral Psychology

    Moral psychology is a field of study that began, like most things, as an issue in philosophy and that is now properly considered part of the discipline of psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[37] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology (and philosophy of mind).[38] Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.[39]

    Evolutionary Ethics

    See also: Evolution of Morality

    Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices.[40]

    Descriptive Ethics

    Descriptive ethics is a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science (specifically sociology) rather than a humanity. It examines ethics not from a top-down a priori perspective but rather observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or of conduct. The study of descriptive ethics may include examinations of the following:

    Ethical codes applied by various groups. Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics– and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices.

    Informal theories of etiquette that tend to be less rigorous and more situational. Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, i.e., where can one evade an uncomfortable truth without doing wrong? One notable advocate of this view is Judith Martin ("Miss Manners"). According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social decisions.

    Practices in arbitration and law, e.g., the claim that ethics itself is a matter of balancing "right versus right," i.e., putting priorities on two things that are both right, but that must be traded off carefully in each situation.

    Observed choices made by ordinary people, without expert aid or advice, who vote, buy, and decide what is worth valuing. This is a major concern of sociology, political science, and economics.

    See Also

    Contemporary ethics
    Descriptive ethics
    Index of ethics articles (alphabetical list of ethics-related articles)
    Moral psychology
    Outline of ethics (list of ethics-related articles, arranged by sub-topic)

    Notes

    1.^ a b http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
    2.^ http://www.iep.utm.edu/non-cogn/
    3.^ Miller, C. (2009). The Conditions of Moral Realism. The Journal of Philosophical Research, 34, 123-155.
    4.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 32-33. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
    5.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 33-35. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
    6.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 35-37. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
    7.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 38-41. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
    8.^ Ancient Ethical Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    9.^ Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pp 37-38. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
    10.^ a b Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. pg 37. Barnes & Noble Books (1993). ISBN 978-1-56619-271-2.
    11.^ Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy (1958) 33 (124): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943.
    12.^ Mackie, J. L. (1990). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-013558-8.
    13.^ Bentham, Jeremy (2001). The Works of Jeremy Bentham: Published under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Volume 1. Adamant Media Corporation. pp. 18.
    14.^ Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism (Project Gutenberg online edition)
    15.^ Mill, John Stuart (1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-875163-2.
    16.^ a b Ivanhoe, P.J.; Van Norden, Bryan William (2005). Readings in classical Chinese philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-87220-780-6. ""he advocated a form of state consequentialism, which sought to maximize three basic goods: the wealth, order, and population of the state"
    17.^ Fraser, Chris, "Mohism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Edward N. Zalta.
    18.^ a b c Loewe, Michael; Shaughnessy, Edward L. (1999). The Cambridge History of Ancient China. Cambridge University Press. p. 761. ISBN 978-0-521-47030-8.
    19.^ a b Van Norden, Bryan W. (2011). Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-60384-468-0.
    20.^ a b Stanford.edu
    21.^ Olson, Robert G. 1967. 'Deontological Ethics'. In Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan: 343.
    22.^ Orend, Brian. 2000. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press: 19.
    23.^ Kelly, Eugene. 2006. The Basics of Western Philosophy. Greenwood Press: 160.
    24.^ Kant, Immanuel. 1780. 'Preface'. In The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
    25.^ a b Kant, Immanuel. 1785. 'First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morals to the Philosophical', Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
    26.^ Lafollette, Hugh, ed. (February 2000). The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Blackwell Philosophy Guides (1 ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20119-9.
    27.^ Smith, A (1776/ 1952) An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p. 55
    28.^ Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. In this book, Berle and Means observe, "Corporations have ceased to be merely legal devices through which the private business transactions of individuals may be carried on. Though still much used for this purpose, the corporate form has acquired a much larger significance. The corporation has, in fact, become both a method of property tenure and a means of organizing economic life. Grown to tremendous proportions, there may be said to have evolved a 'corporate system'—as there once was a feudal system—which has attracted to itself a combination of attributes and powers, and has attained a degree of prominence entitling it to be dealt with as a major social institution. […] We are examining this institution probably before it has attained its zenith. Spectacular as its rise has been, every indication seems to be that the system will move forward to proportions which stagger imagination today […] They [management] have placed the community in a position to demand that the modern corporation serve not only the owners […] but all society." p. 1.
    29.^ Jones, Parker & et al. 2005, p. 17
    30.^ Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different Voice: Pscychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    31.^ Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3-29.
    32.^ Ellis, C. (1986). Fisher folk. Two communities on Chesapeake Bay. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
    33.^ Ellis, C. (1995).Final negotiations: A story of love, loss, and chronic illness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    34.^ Wallach, Wendell; Allen, Colin (November 2008). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537404-9.
    35.^ Toner, James Hugh (2000). Morals under the Gun: The Cardinal Virtues, Military Ethics, and American Society. Baltimore: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-2159-0.
    36.^ See, for example, work of Institute for Local Government, at www.ca-ilg.org/trust.
    37.^ See, for example, Lapsley (2006) and "moral psychology" (2007).
    38.^ See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008) and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes: "Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological dimensions" (p. 86).
    39.^ See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
    40.^ Doris Schroeder. "Evolutionary Ethics". Retrieved 2010-01-05.

    References

    Hoy, D. (2005), Critical resistance from poststructuralism to postcritique, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
    Lyon, D. (1999), Postmodernity, 2nd ed, Open University Press, Buckingham.
    Singer, P. (2000), Writings on an ethical life, Harper Collins Publishers, London.

    Further reading

    Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
    The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Ethics
    Encyclopedia of Ethics. Lawrence C. Becker and Charlotte B. Becker, editors. Second edition in three volumes. New York: Routledge, 2002. A scholarly encyclopedia with over 500 signed, peer-reviewed articles, mostly on topics and figures of, or of special interest in, Western philosophy.
    Blackburn, S. (2001). Being good: A short introduction to ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    De Finance, Joseph, An Ethical Inquiry, Rome, Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1991.
    De La Torre, Miguel A., "Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins," Orbis Books, 2004.
    Derrida, J. 1995, The Gift of Death, translated by David Wills, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
    Fagothey, Austin, Right and Reason, Tan Books & Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 2000.
    Levinas, E. 1969, Totality and infinity, an essay on exteriority, translated by Alphonso Lingis, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh.
    Perle, Stephen (March 11, 2004). "Morality and Ethics: An Introduction". Retrieved 2007-02-13., Butchvarov, Panayot. Skepticism in Ethics (1989).
    Solomon, R.C., Morality and the Good Life: An Introduction to Ethics Through Classical Sources, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.
    Vendemiati, Aldo, In the First Person, An Outline of General Ethics, Rome, Urbaniana University Press, 2004.
    John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, 6-8-1993.
    D'Urance, Michel, Jalons pour une éthique rebelle, Aléthéia, Paris, 2005.
    John Newton, Ph.D. Complete Conduct Principles for the 21st Century, 2000. ISBN 0967370574.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Eth1The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 79-ethics-road-signThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 316ferengi-ethics
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Ethics_354305
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Ethics_stabs
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 15 Ethics-committee

      Current date/time is Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:56 am