I don't claim to agree with everything stated in this video but wanted to show the belief system of the Gnostic Luciferian ideas which are so prevalent in so many people's beliefs today. We say we are against the evil elite.....the illuminati???? Why do so many believe the way they do?....even some christians?
Like 1000 points of Light. LUC-k is a catch all name for Lucifer. When people use the term, generally they have no intention to praise Lucifer, and they are trying to make light of a situation, that is often quite serious. In this respect the word is typically used in an artificial manner, that is...like other similar 4 letter words, it is used in jest and lacks a deeper intended meaning.Take the following etymology and we discover the deeper meaning to LUC-k.
1590s, "bright, shining," from L. lucidus "light, bright, clear," from lucere "to shine," from lux (gen. lucis) "light," from PIE base *leuk- "to shine, be bright" (see light (n.)). Sense of "easy to understand" first recorded 1786. Lucid interval "period of calm or temporary sanity" (1580s) is from M.L. lucida intervalla (pl.), which was common in medieval English legal documents (cf. non est compos mentis, sed gaudet lucidis intervallis).
late 14c., from L. lucrum "gain, profit," from PIE base *lu-/*leu- (cf. Gk. apo-lanein "to enjoy," Goth. launs, Ger. lohn "wages, reward," and possibly Skt. lotam, lotram "booty"). Filthy lucre (Tit. i:11) is Tyndale's rendering of Gk. aischron kerdos.
1590s, "literary work showing signs of too-careful elaboration," from L. lucubrationem (nom. lucubratio) "nocturnal study, night work," noun of action from pp. stem of lucubrare, lit. "to work by artificial light," from stem of lucere "to shine" (see light (n.)).
If we take into account these root meanings we find distinct influence LUC- is artificial light, shiny wages or booty, ill gotten gains, BRIghTISH, clear(unseen)? These are integral to the connotation of the word.
Think about the typical use of the phrase "Good luck!" It is a contradiction or it is based on an object that has no direct relationship to events. It is an artificial construct of language. If luck is merely chance, then it can be neither goor nor bad, only the results could be good or bad. Luck is worshipped by the masses. It has become part of the vernacular. It is a word that is used to disempower individuals...i.e. -there is nothing you can do about it, so pray for luck!-
As an additional note, I often hear people say "They shouldn't be called Illuminati, because they are not truly illuminated."
I disagree they are illuminated by artificial light, and they are ill(sick that is). And based on the elect-trick-cull.
So many people are very confused about the roots of the various religious mystery schools that have later morphed into the so-called "established" religions that exist today. Many Jews don't know the history of their own faith, the same with many Catholic Christians.
To find a good source of information that is able to establish an honest historical context of what has happened to the early Christian movement, and how the Roman Cult had hijacked it, which later formed the corrupted system that we are now living in today, is very difficult. For example, the satanic cult imagery can be found throughout the US court system.
But I find that Frank O'Collins, who has spent about 25 years of research into the matter, offers one of the best insights into that early history concerning the Roman Cult, Order of Jesuits, Khazarian Jews, an other parasitic secret orders, etc .
If one has built their temple on a foundation of solid rock, then there should be no fear in venturing forward & listening to what Frank has to say. One will at least come out of it knowing whether their foundation is indeed built upon granite or that of sand.
Gregg Braden also has researched much of the ancient texts which has shown that much of the original texts were edited and deleted from the writing of the Bible.
Gregg Braden also has researched much of the ancient religious texts which has shown that much of the original texts were edited and so much deleted from the writing of the Bible.
Gregg gets into it a bit at around the 1:27:50 mark of the following video...
It was the Roman Cult itself that has labeled Gnosticism as having an evil, wicked context. The same was done to early alchemy and to the women that practiced natural herbal healing, calling them & burning them as witches.
Frank has nothing to do with this particular website. The confusion runs deep, people have already made up their minds before they even know what he is talking about.
He has the best historical accounting of what may have actually happened back in the day, imo.
That's why the documentary was called Gnostic Luciferianism, not Gnosticism, a clear distinction, right. Gnosticism like science merely means knowledge.
The Gnostics were a rather diverse group of early movements finding a basis often in Christianity or Judaism. These people did not refer to themselves as "Gnostics" but rather the label was applied mostly by their opponents and modern scholars. The movements were strongly associated with mysticism, and the thread connecting them was the concept of gnosis, which refers to an intimately personal kind of knowledge (as in the Spanish conocer rather than saber or German kennen versus wissen). The Gnostic movements were centered around gnosis of the divine rather than faith (pistis) and therefore are often associated with mysticism.[citation needed] The Albigensian and Cathar movements of the Middle Ages are often linked to Gnosticism.[citation needed] Many Gnostic movements made extensive use of allegory and metaphor in their interpretation of spiritual texts.[c
Luke 12:2: Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known, which are themes intrinsic to the idea of gnosis - secret knowledge that can be learned
Its seem likely gnosis was the Science of the time. One could say Gnostic Luciferiansm = Scientific Dictatorship.
"Its seem likely gnosis was the Science of the time. One could say Gnostic Luciferiansm = Scientific Dictatorship."
Depends on one's perspective, which often includes the ways in which one has been conditioned to view the world and what is found with it. As in symbols & images that one chooses to identify oneself with and those images & notions that one tries to disassociate oneself with... a conditioned reflex of sorts.
For example, many Christians associate Jesus the Christ with Light & the Devil with darkness. Gautama the Buddha, on the other hand, associated enlightenment with Nirvana, a putting out of the light (candle flame). That is why the Brahmin priests of that time had a problem with him. As Hinduism, like Christians associated light with godliness.
Hinduism also held the concept of 'Self' (Atma) in high regard (the true self). When Buddha entered the scene, in order to convey his understanding to others, he had to use a different language, a language of negation. He introduced the concept of Anatta, the 'No Self'.
People like to consider that God as the creator, but have a difficulty with the idea that he also is a destroyer. So, Christians have created the Devil to fulfill that role. But really if God is creator, then who has created the Devil? Of course God, being creator, could only be the guy that could create the Devil.
But that is too difficult for moralists to take, that man contains both Good & Evil, Sinner & Saint. Unfortunately, not accepting that man contains both God & Devil, dividing God into two, is the reason for much of the schizophrenia that human beings become inflicted with, imo.
One needs to know what it means to be enslaved, before he can really understand what it means to have freedom. The masses can thank the Illuminati global elitists later, after coming to understand this lesson.
"People like to consider that God as the creator, but have a difficulty with the idea that he also is a destroyer. So, Christians have created the Devil to fulfill that role. But really if God is creator, then who has created the Devil? Of course God, being creator, could only be the guy that could create the Devil."
Duality is a reality of existence.
Pattern/Matter
lived/devil
Inside/outside
I don't know why People would have a problem with God as destroyer, especially Christians. After all the Bible mentions God destroying Many, many times.
"But that is too difficult for moralists to take, that man contains both Good & Evil, Sinner & Saint. Unfortunately, not accepting that man contains both God & Devil, dividing God into two, is the reason for much of the schizophrenia that human beings become inflicted with, imo."
Isn't a moralist just someone concerned with morality? Is murder acceptable?
Dividing God in two is different than dividing Man in two, Man is Matter, and Pater is Pattern.
I'm interested in hearing how dividing God in two causes schizophrenia. How is omni-potent and omniscient being divided in two? How is the Truth divided in two?
We have distinction and we have division, are they the same? Do distinctions cause schizophrenia? Is there not a left and a right?
IMO: Schizophrenia is caused by an imbalance in Omega-3 -6 & -9 fatty acids.
On the contrary, Universe is one. That is what 'universe' means - Everything being a together wholeness.
Duality is the nature of the human mind.
Mind acts like a prism. Whatsoever that passes through the mind will come out of it being divided. That is what the mind of man does best. It dissects, analyzes, categorizes and classifies, it is very good at breaking down this existence into various parts.
"How is omni-potent and omniscient being divided in two? How is the Truth divided in two?"
Whenever one stops being simply a witness to this Existence. Whenever an attempt is made to put Truth into words, it will come out being a lie.
Whenever judgments are made. For example, in judging a man, labeling & classifying a man to be a sinner, one is at the same time claiming himself to be the saint. The division is made. A lie has been told. The hierarchy has been created.
Mind & body are but one mechanism. Mind is the subtle part of the body. Body is the gross end of the mind. In fact, they should be denoted by a single term body-mind. It is even better to remove the hyphen and make it completely one word 'bodymind'. Hence, movement of the mind {thinking, emotions, feelings) affects the body. Movement &/or non-movement of the body (breath rate, exercise, stillness) will also affect the mind. They are not two. They are connected. Its the nature of mind (duality) to divide this mechanism, to attempt to make them separate. The beginnings of a subtle schizophrenia. In other words, everyone is somewhat schizophrenic. Its only a matter of degrees.
And so, by denying that the sinner also exists within the saint, the seeds of schizophrenia are sown. Clinical schizophrenia is a consequence of taking this split to the extremes.
"We have distinction and we have division, are they the same? Do distinctions cause schizophrenia? Is there not a left and a right?"
Distinctions are different than divisions. The color spectrum is one array of various colors. Simply distinguishing one color from another color is not causing a separation of any of the distinct colors from off the color spectrum, or a making divisions amongst colors.
But mind, doing what it does best (to divide), will say that black is opposite to white, when in fact, they are really complements to each other. They are on the same black/white spectrum. Because blackness is needed to define whiteness.
"Isn't a moralist just someone concerned with morality? Is murder acceptable?"
Murder most certainly can be acceptable. Remember the wikileakes helicopter scene. War seems to make murder entirely acceptable. In fact, its the 'right to life' moralists of the Christian right that are more accepting of murder in war than anybody else, imo. They will bomb family planning centers for the right to life of unborn babies. Then they will want to send those same babies to their death in fighting an illegal war to murder innocent civilians.
If you don't consider that to be schizophrenic behavior, then I can't help you.
"Whenever one stops being simply a witness to this Existence. Whenever an attempt is made to put Truth into words, it will come out being a lie."
So all that you have stated is a lie? On top of that the truth doesn't have to be put into words to be true, it merely has to be actual. How can there be a seperation between when it comes out, or its original real existence, if there is no division? If there is no duality.
"Whenever judgments are made. For example, in judging a man, labeling & classifying a man to be a sinner, one is at the same time claiming himself to be the saint. The division is made. A lie has been told. The hierarchy has been created."
How is that?
"Mind & body are but one mechanism. Mind is the subtle part of the body. Body is the gross end of the mind. In fact, they should be denoted by a single term body-mind. It is even better to remove the hyphen and make it completely one word 'bodymind'. Hence, movement of the mind {thinking, emotions, feelings) affects the body. Movement &/or non-movement of the body (breath rate, exercise, stillness) will also affect the mind. They are not two. They are connected. Its the nature of mind (duality) to divide this mechanism, to attempt to make them separate. The beginnings of a subtle schizophrenia. In other words, everyone is somewhat schizophrenic. Its only a matter of degrees."
Mind and Body are also separate and Matter & Pattern are distinct from one another as well.
"And so, by denying that the sinner also exists within the saint, the seeds of schizophrenia are sown. Clinical schizophrenia is a consequence of taking this split to the extremes."
I still say Schizophrenia is caused by Omega imbalance.
"Distinctions are different than divisions.
The color spectrum is one array of various colors.
Simply distinguishing one color from another color is not causing a separation of any of the distinct colors from off the color spectrum, or a making divisions amongst colors."
Absolutely distinction is a seperation, though not total.
"But mind, doing what it does best (to divide), will say that black is opposite to white, when in fact, they are really complements to each other. They are on the same black/white spectrum. Because blackness is needed to define whiteness."
So it is actually the mind that causes schizophrenia. Black and white are considered opposites in terms of color. One in its purest from is the absense of color(black) & the other is all colors(white). Black is not necessarily needed to define whiteness, other colors would do just fine, especially gray. The Spectrum is separate and distinct in perception of reality.
"Murder most certainly can be acceptable. Remember the wikileakes helicopter scene. War seems to make murder entirely acceptable."
That was not acceptable in my view.
"In fact, its the 'right to life' moralists of the Christian right that are more accepting of murder in war than anybody else, imo."
Well I would say calling them moralist would be a false statement, according to the definition.
"They will bomb family planning centers for the right to life of unborn babies. Then they will want to send those same babies to their death in fighting an illegal war to murder innocent civilians."
According to your statement and the use of the word "illegal" you are probably a moralist. Also they don't send the babies, the babies voluteer at this point. But thats a separate issue. If you don't consider that to be schizophrenic behaviour I don't know what is.
I understand what you are saying regarding the fact that everything is one, Fact is we live in a paradox, in these respects, all is seperate and one at the same time...this is the Mathematical state of Symmetry, the opposing sides of a plane, in balance between points on a Path in time.
Material has Parts. Divided by Mathematical Patterns. Based on knowledge...gnosis...science. The Pattern of the Matter has been revealed, uncovered...In many cases the parts have been physically separted in order to confirm such knowledge.
I'm sorry, I see you live your life according to dictionary books, in the world of words. Ah, yes, a true liar.
"I think therefore I am."
Now that tells me everything I need to know.
"So all that you have stated is a lie?"
Yes that is correct. And everything that I haven't said remains absolutely the Truth.
To you, to others, what I've said, is absolutely a lie. It can only be so. Because what I am saying is also a lie to me, also. I know it perfectly well, I am aware of what I am doing. While others here are spreading lies to each other, but not aware that they are doing so.
Remove the words, remove the thoughts and the lies also disappear. Only then can Truth be realized.
Because Life experiences are so vastly infinite, word choices are seen to be so terribly limited. To completely transfer a lived experience to another through the use of words & language is simply not possible. The translation is bound to be lost - obscured, incomplete, limited & fraudulent. Communication is often attempted, miscommunication will more than likely be the outcome.
Existence is infinite. Just look into the night sky and you can see that this is true. Being simply a witness to this existence, being open & available to the vastness of it, is to be a part of the infinity of it.
Take love for example. Try explaining what love is using words. Have you tried? Guaranteed, you're destined for failure. Guaranteed you will be a liar! Better to remain silent than to talk about Love, then the Truth of Love will remain undisturbed.
Or perhaps you have not yet had the experience of falling in Love? Then, that would make it even more clear.
"I think therefore I am." Can you see the irrationality of the logic that is contained in that statement. A statement by a man that tried to prove, by written argument, that God exists! What a mess he made of his own mind to attempt such feat. Utter madness! Only a psychotic would attempt to describe on paper using finite words to describe a boundless infinity. And I've heard it nearly drove him insane. Probably, schizophrenic, at least.
Yet the whole world follows Descartes... muttering to themselves ad nauseum... "I think therefore I am." Can you see it, do you really understand what he is saying???
Here it is: Thinking is prerequisite to one's own Being. How absurd. How ridiculous. It is absolute arrogance. No wonder the world is in such a state. Waaaay too much Thinking, and not enough Being.
Because this logic has Thinking coming first, and Being is secondary. An intellectual would agree with this. An Intellectual worships his left brain. It is his God - the holy intellect, impossible.
More so, this philosophy suggests that Thinking about Love, has precedence over actually Being in Love, Thinking about Love has precedence over actually Being loved by others.
How pathetic... what a sad state of affairs...
Thinking about God, has more significance than living a Life of godliness. Yeah, a few minutes in the morning, and you're all set for the rest of the day.
I am sorry, please forgive me if I rock your cradle, but what is uttered by Descartes, "I think therefore I am", this, too, is just a really big fat lie!
No wonder the world is standing on its head. And you, my friend, like most, are supporting that lie. A good intellectual conformist.
To put the world right, to make it right again. This philosophy has to be turned completely around. The statement needs to be inverted.
The reverse is much more truer. Much more in harmony with the whole. "I am therefore, I am capable of thinking." Now this simple change would transform this planet.
Then, Being in Love has more significance than Thinking about Love. Being Loved has more precedence than wishful Thinking about it.
I am simply saying don't "believe" in what anybody says, in what anybody tells you about what is Truth (that includes me, of course) because whatever anyone says is limited by finite words & definitions. Words cannot contain the whole of existence.
If you accept what others say as being Truth, then you have given up on your own search for finding what Truth is for yourself. You are attempting to take a shortcut through this life if you choose to substitute belief for finding out for yourself what is Truth. A convenient Life of conformity. But hardly an authentic one.
"I'm sorry, I see you live your life according to dictionary books, in the world of words. Ah, yes, a true liar."
Personal attack. That is a totally ridiculous statement.
"Yes that is correct.
And everything that I haven't said remains absolutely the Truth."
Contradiction.
"To you, to others, what I've said, is absolutely a lie. It can only be so."
You stated yourself that it was a lie.
"Because what I am saying is also a lie to me, also. I know it perfectly well, I am aware of what I am doing. While others here are spreading lies to each other, but not aware that they are doing so."
So your message is immoralist.
"Remove the words, remove the thoughts and the lies also disappear. Only then can Truth be realized."
It's a cute idea but not very realistic.
"Because Life experiences are so vastly infinite, word choices are seen to be so terribly limited."
Yet the combinations of words is infinite. Limitation is in the eye of the beholder.
"To completely transfer a lived experience to another through the use of words & language is simply not possible.
The translation is bound to be lost - obscured, incomplete, limited & fraudulent. Communication is often attempted, miscommunication will more than likely be the outcome. "
I'm personally not that pessimistic about communication.
"Existence is infinite."
That's Life.
"Just look into the night sky and you can see that this is true."
Another statement to contradict.
"Take love for example. Try explaining what love is using words. Have you tried?"
Absolutely, I can explain love in words.
"Guaranteed, you're destined for failure. Guaranteed you will be a liar! Better to remain silent than to talk about Love, then the Truth of Love will remain undisturbed."
That's a closed off opinion, I'm not one to overlook the infinite expanse of communication.
"Or perhaps you have not yet had the experience of falling in Love? Then, that would make it even more clear. "
I experienced love for the first time in my mothers womb.
""I think therefore I am." Can you see the irrationality of the logic that is contained in that statement. A statement by a man that tried to prove, by written argument, that God exists! What a mess he made of his own mind to attempt such feat. Utter madness! Only a psychotic would attempt to describe on paper using finite words to describe a boundless infinity. And I've heard it nearly drove him insane. Probably, schizophrenic, at least."
And yet this is what that statement reflects. Words are not finite, they are every expanding, as are symbols, to say otherwise is a lie.
"Yet the whole world follows Descartes... muttering to themselves ad nauseum... "I think therefore I am."
Can you see it, do you really understand what he is saying???"
Yes he is say that he exists. "A philosophical proof of existence based on the fact that someone capable of any form of thought necessarily exists."
"Here it is:
Thinking is prerequisite to one's own Being. How absurd. How ridiculous. It is absolute arrogance. No wonder the world is in such a state. Waaaay too much Thinking, and not enough Being."
That was the point of his statement thinking is being.
"Because this logic has Thinking coming first, and Being is secondary."
No it doesn't. Think about it.
"An intellectual would agree with this. An Intellectual worships his left brain. It is his God - the holy intellect, impossible."
Intellectual doesn't even mean anything without distinction or separation of individual type.
"More so, this philosophy suggests that Thinking about Love, has precedence over actually Being in Love, Thinking about Love has precedence over actually Being loved by others.
How pathetic... what a sad state of affairs..."
I agree that is a totally pathetic way to think about things...who put it that way?
"Thinking about God, has more significance than living a Life of godliness. Yeah, a few minutes in the morning, and you're all set for the rest of the day."
I'm assuming that is a sarcastic statement.
"I am sorry, please forgive me if I rock your cradle, but what is uttered by Descartes, "I think therefore I am", this, too, is just a really big fat lie!"
Well by the standards you have set forth in your theory that doesn't mean much because from what I understand from your messages, it is also a really big fat truth!
"No wonder the world is standing on its head. And you, my friend, like most, are supporting that lie. A good intellectual conformist."
LOL! Your communication theory, stance on thinking and words invalidates all of your statements. Talk about Irony.
"To put the world right, to make it right again. This philosophy has to be turned completely around. The statement needs to be inverted.
The reverse is much more truer. Much more in harmony with the whole. "I am therefore, I am capable of thinking." Now this simple change would transform this planet."
See how infinite words are, you just made a new one...truer. The statement is valid either way... that is the point.
"Then, Being in Love has more significance than Thinking about Love. Being Loved has more precedence than wishful Thinking about it."
Wishful thinking about being in love, and thinking about being in love are two distinct states, hence the word wishful...watch the words grow.
"I am simply saying don't "believe" in what anybody says, in what anybody tells you about what is Truth (that includes me, of course) because whatever anyone says is limited by finite words & definitions. Words cannot contain the whole of existence."
No kidding. Except words are not finite. Saying otherwise is merely a narrow perception.
"If you accept what others say as being Truth, then you have given up on your own search for finding what Truth is for yourself."
Ridiculous, this is your own extrapolation, People accept what others say as a result of trust, and that doesn't mean they have "given up".
"You are attempting to take a shortcut through this life if you choose to substitute belief for finding out for yourself what is Truth. A convenient Life of conformity. But hardly an authentic one."
Give me a break, you have little idea about what I choose, and your judgemental statements prove you cannot even conform to your own standards, however confusing they might be.
One cannot quench one's thirst with the word 'water'. Water (not the word) has to be actually ingested. Nor can the word 'Love' replace the experience of Love.
I experienced love for the first time in my mothers womb. Absolutely, I can explain love in words.
Then, please proceed. I am interested to see how well, or how badly, you can tell this lie.
Try to refrain from looking at how a dictionary defines what the word 'Love'. I want to know how you felt it, how you know it was Love & what it felt like to you.
Can you really remember that first time love in your mother's womb or is that just a presumption? Again, please try to refrain from referencing how a dictionary defines (or any other book, including Wikipedia) the word 'Love'. Please explain what was felt.
"One cannot quench one's thirst with the word 'water'. Water (not the word) has to be actually ingested. Nor can the word 'Love' replace the experience of Love."
If the one I love, says that word, it literally gives me that experience. There is a spiritual component to Love that is distinct from matter of water.
"Then, please proceed. I am interested to see how well, or how badly, you can tell this lie."
In all honesty according to the theory you have laid out, I would also be telling the truth. So essentially anything I communicate to you is right and wrong from that vantage point.
"Can you really remember that first time love in your mother's womb or is that just a presumption?"
If anything it is a post-sumption. I'm sure that my being has memory of it.
late 14c., from O.Fr. comunicacion (14c., Mod.Fr. communication), from L. communicationem (nom. communicatio), noun of action from communicare "to share, divide out; communicate, impart, inform; join, unite, participate in," lit. "to make common," from communis (see common).
If the one I love, says that word, it literally gives me that experience.
I understand you obviously love words. But what if no one says that word, then, is there no experience of love? Is love, for you, dependent on that word being said?
Can you have that experience of love without any words being said?
Are you able to feel that love experience without hearing or saying any word?
Can you have the experience without having anyone to address love to? In other words, does love need to have an address? Someone to receive love and someone to give that love?
There is a spiritual component to Love that is distinct from matter of water.
Masaru Emoto - claims that positive changes to water crystals can be acheived through prayer, music or by attaching written words to a container of water.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto
I would like to add that when one writes words in such an experiment, its the feeling behind the written word that is the driving force, so the written words are in fact only used to carry the feelings to the field that effects the water crystals.
Love made me feel alive.
You say that in past tense. Do you not now feel alive? Are you not now experiencing love?
To create a new paradigm, the emphasis is on participation in instilling new belief, to replace the older ways of looking at the world. Hardly the same as repeating the patterns of borrowed information that is found in the 'established' religious dogma, doctrines & scripture. Dusting off and revitalizing that which has been so long ago removed, hidden leaving much to be misunderstood. Much of what has been established needs to be renewed or thrown away or stowed away in a vault so nobody can get to it. At least for a couple thousand years. By then it may be worth something again, who knows.
Nobody ever said that words were the only way to communicate or have communion. Your responses create straw men, and infer distortions which confuse similarly to the continued use of words that are penned as lies, yet continue to flow from finger tips.
Home
Gnostic Luciferianism 
Re: Gnostic Luciferianism2 by befurther
15 mon
574
