Christ explained

[Josh]

People like him are why there are 'nutcases' in most faith systems. It sounds educated and makes logical 'sense,' but is misinterpreted information and patently false.

An example from my own faith system: the earth being only 10,000 years old. <-Derived from flawed logic and misinterpretation of information. The Bible is not a science textbook nor should it be used as such.

And in case you are wondering, no, I do not warp scientific discoveries to fit the Bible nor do I warp the Bible to fit with science. They do not conflict unless you read too much into things and make stuff out to be something it isn't. .-.

 

[YowYan]

You actually believe Jordan Maxwell lol, I apologize for having more confidence in you since anyone with basic academic knowledge in things like history and etymology knows he's a quack. Furthermore you should not call people simpletons since you apparently don't even have proper knowledge of Egyptian mythology.
-The English word "Set" has nothing to do with sunset as it's a verb that has other applications like setting something aside, or setting something on fire. Also Setekh is more likely his real name since "Set" is a hellenized form, and on top of that Set is the god of the desert and storms, not the underworld. Maxwell is apparently confusing Set with Anubis.

-"Son of God" and Sun of God don't even sound alike in ancient languages. In Greek: Son= Ios and Sun=Helios,while in Hebrew/Aramaic: Son= Ben/Bar and Sun=Shemesh. This pseudo-etymology assumes people spoke modern English in the Roman era, which in case you didn't know, they didn't.

-Luke does not come from Lux(light), it comes from an already existing Hellenistic name Lucas/Lukos.

-"Risen Savior" is has never been a title for any known sun deity

-Horizen comes from the Greek word ὅρος (horos) which means boundary, no relation to Horus which is spelled Ὧρος (Orus) in Greek. Furthermore, Horus was never called Iesous.

I'm not gonna bother watching even further because it's clear that Maxwell has always been a scam artist making up claims with no actual backing. If you want to actually learn mythology, i'd suggest you go to an actual university and learn from an actual credible professor.

(Helionostics; 'To know the sun' Lol)

That was already clear to me before I knew about Maxwell. Anubis being the lord of the underworld, that is. But maxwell's interpretation makes more sense. Horus/Jesus symbolising the sun and its daily passover, and Seth, or Anubis if you must, symbolising the darkness we experience everyday when the sun sets and the mental darkness, metaphorically. It's just an interpretation. But it simplifies and clarifies a more logical approach to mythology and the astrology roots in organised religions. He does have a huge point when it comes to the degenerate bickering about the actual roots of jesus and his skincolor meanwhile completely missing the underlying moral of the story. I have a comment on that suggestion of yours to go to a real university for but I'll keep it to myself until I clarify something. So, where does the name 'Lukas' come from? Any who, thanks for your input.

People like him are why there are 'nutcases' in most faith systems. It sounds educated and makes logical 'sense,' but is misinterpreted information and patently false.

An example from my own faith system: the earth being only 10,000 years old. <-Derived from flawed logic and misinterpretation of information. The Bible is not a science textbook nor should it be used as such.

And in case you are wondering, no, I do not warp scientific discoveries to fit the Bible nor do I warp the Bible to fit with science. They do not conflict unless you read too much into things and make stuff out to be something it isn't. .-.

If you had bothered following a lecture of his, you'd realise that if this interpretation was core in a large community as islam or christianity, there'd be no reason for illogical worshipping, close-minded philosophising and, in the end, organised deluded faith that claims to have a monopoly on the truth and undermines freedom of speech by demanding respect. So I very much doubt there'd be any 'nutcases' that would start worshipping him or make degenerate claims and form a cult. His approach is simple and brings us closer to a more down-to-earth understanding of the heavens, freeing us from mental chains. Go and pay attention to his interpretation of god and the natural right for mankind to live free, not shackled physically and mentally. He does not only talk astrotheology but also the druidic origins of roman laws and how they are still in use in present day societies.

Quick to dismiss.

 

[Tartarus]

I have a comment on that suggestion of yours to go to a real university for but I'll keep it to myself until I clarify something. So, where does the name 'Lukas' come from? Any who, thanks for your input.

The name Lukas comes from the Lucani whom lived Lucania Italy. The name of that town/people might come from several Greek words ranging from white(leukos),sacred wood(lucere), or even wolves (lykos).
The only true thing Maxwell says is that light is associated with good and darkness associated evil, but that's true of almost every human culture ever, not just the ones who venerated the sun.
The theory that Jesus, or rather Yeshua of Nazareth in the Gospels is some kind of fictional solar deity has no evidence to support it. If you wish to bring up any compelling proofs, feel free.

 

[Josh]

If you had bothered following a lecture of his, you'd realise that if this interpretation was core in a large community as islam or christianity, there'd be no reason for illogical worshipping, close-minded philosophising and, in the end, organised deluded faith that claims to have a monopoly on the truth and undermines freedom of speech by demanding respect. So I very much doubt there'd be any 'nutcases' that would start worshipping him or make degenerate claims and form a cult. His approach is simple and brings us closer to a more down-to-earth understanding of the heavens, freeing us from mental chains. Go and pay attention to his interpretation of god and the natural right for mankind to live free, not shackled physically and mentally. He does not only talk astrotheology but also the druidic origins of roman laws and how they are still in use in present day societies.

Quick to dismiss.

And if you had read my post and actually understood it, you would know my reasons for dismissing this 'lecture,' though it wasn't as quick as you have asserted.

I have several reasons for dismissing this 'theory,' the main one being the fact it has more scientific and historical evidence pointing towards it being false, than actually supporting it. But if I were to play along with your line of thinking, I would think if this was on the same level as the current mainstream faith systems, it would be the laughing stock of the scientic and historical communities, and still would have several of the problems you think it wouldn't.

Why do I think this? I have met so many Christians and Islamists who 'think' they are following their faith system so devoutly, and are such strong 'believers' yet, they fail to represent the most basic principles of that systems and appear, a bit hypocritical. However, at their core, neither faith system is close-minded or illogical but their followers make them appear to be either through ignorance or misguidance, or by choice. Whatever the case, they both are very open, accepting, respectful, and understanding of all people.

If we lived in an idealistic world with idealistic people, then maybe something like this could be a true example of how 'religion' should be, but a truly open-minded, logical, rational, and objective person would at the very least admit they could potentially be wrong; even if they are certain they are correct.

With all of that being said, I do accept that I could be wrong, and I do encourage people to seek answers to their questions, so if you want to believe in something like what this man is lecturing on, that's quite alright. Only you know what burden of proof will satisfy the requirements you have in regards to the origin of the universe, so go for it.

From a personal perspective, I find it highly unlikely that his interpretation of Jesus Christ from the Bible is valid and it explains nothing for me, as far as logic goes. From a philosopical standpoint, meh, sure, but just about anything goes with philosophy... Though it does not affect my philosophy on life.

I mostly do not like the way you dimiss the opinions of others and how quick you were to assume that I did not give your or Mr. Maxwell's opinions a fair chance. Nevertheless, it is your right, privilege, and freedom to respond to and engage others however you wish. Even though I will respect the opinions of others, I will not sit idly by when my character is challenged by said opinions. Just because I did not agree with your opinions or did not go into deeper detail in my responses does not mean I quickly dismiss said opinions, and the insinuation that I did, fell just short of being insulting. But since this is the internet, other than dignifying the matter with a response, I do not let anything truly insult me. I'm sure it was a miscommunication anyway.

-J

 

[YowYan]

The name Lukas comes from the Lucani whom lived Lucania Italy. The name of that town/people might come from several Greek words ranging from white(leukos),sacred wood(lucere), or even wolves (lykos).
The only true thing Maxwell says is that light is associated with good and darkness associated evil, but that's true of almost every human culture ever, not just the ones who venerated the sun.
The theory that Jesus, or rather Yeshua of Nazareth in the Gospels is some kind of fictional solar deity has no evidence to support it. If you wish to bring up any compelling proofs, feel free.

And in which period of time did that Lucania thrive? Not interrogating you to find a flaw, just interested.

Not even a deity though. Just the celestial body of the sun. Is that what you got out of jordan's words? Because he's not talking about a deity. Anyways, the notion that all characters from the bible are fictional and derived from astrology makes perfect sense if you connect the dots thoroughly. It has no direct evidence, indeed. As I said, it's just an interpretation. But its one made with rational thought and study. Astrotheology is a study to bring about a more rational approach to irrational religious scripts. Religious driven studies only want to prove those illogical scripts true and, thus have this underlying motivation still serving the mental cage which is their organised faith. People presenting astrotheology have no underlying motivation to proof any illogical beliefs that only uphold the degenerate way of thinking. And is there much proof for any religion, really? All faith systems are from eras in which we hardly have any concrete evidence of. It's all lost in history.

John 1:4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

John 9:5
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

^ This just screams the sun, who is the life and light giver.

And if you had read my post and actually understood it, you would know my reasons for dismissing this 'lecture,' though it wasn't as quick as you have asserted.

I have several reasons for dismissing this 'theory,' the main one being the fact it has more scientific and historical evidence pointing towards it being false, than actually supporting it. But if I were to play along with your line of thinking, I would think if this was on the same level as the current mainstream faith systems, it would be the laughing stock of the scientic and historical communities, and still would have several of the problems you think it wouldn't.

Why do I think this? I have met so many Christians and Islamists who 'think' they are following their faith system so devoutly, and are such strong 'believers' yet, they fail to represent the most basic principles of that systems and appear, a bit hypocritical. However, at their core, neither faith system is close-minded or illogical but their followers make them appear to be either through ignorance or misguidance, or by choice. Whatever the case, they both are very open, accepting, respectful, and understanding of all people.

If we lived in an idealistic world with idealistic people, then maybe something like this could be a true example of how 'religion' should be, but a truly open-minded, logical, rational, and objective person would at the very least admit they could potentially be wrong; even if they are certain they are correct.

With all of that being said, I do accept that I could be wrong, and I do encourage people to seek answers to their questions, so if you want to believe in something like what this man is lecturing on, that's quite alright. Only you know what burden of proof will satisfy the requirements you have in regards to the origin of the universe, so go for it.

From a personal perspective, I find it highly unlikely that his interpretation of Jesus Christ from the Bible is valid and it explains nothing for me, as far as logic goes. From a philosopical standpoint, meh, sure, but just about anything goes with philosophy... Though it does not affect my philosophy on life.

I mostly do not like the way you dimiss the opinions of others and how quick you were to assume that I did not give your or Mr. Maxwell's opinions a fair chance. Nevertheless, it is your right, privilege, and freedom to respond to and engage others however you wish. Even though I will respect the opinions of others, I will not sit idly by when my character is challenged by said opinions. Just because I did not agree with your opinions or did not go into deeper detail in my responses does not mean I quickly dismiss said opinions, and the insinuation that I did, fell just short of being insulting. But since this is the internet, other than dignifying the matter with a response, I do not let anything truly insult me. I'm sure it was a miscommunication anyway.

-J

I'm not insulting you, it's just that your initial approach was similar to that of some christians I know that got butthurt and it seemed you did not even bother to thoroughly study the astrotheological claims. The 'nutcase' part did not make any sense as this guy is not promoting any organised movement other than to use your brain and look for a more rational interpretation of religious scripts.

You probably missed the part in which he says he does not claim to have all the answers and that his words are irrefutable; no. He merely wishes to penetrate the potential origins religious scripts and so far, aztrotheology makes most sense. I know you wouldn't watch the 2 hour 20 minutes vid, so I'll just tell you that he never claimed any of his words to be undeniable. He himself said that it is just an interpretation. And you started off with saying he'd make for nutcase to appear that would get ''offended'' by critics as if it's a holy thing. That's where I got my assertive reaction from.

Now, I'd like to know what specific evidential piece is there to disproof the science of astrology overall? I'm asking genuinely. I'm not trying to corner you or anything. Despite the clash, I appreciate your input. Antichrist sent me a presentation of santos bonacci on my profile that's quicker in its process and provides more information in a shorter period of time. Maybe you'd like to view that one. And I mention this because I genuinely want the input of others, may it be supportive my interpretation or against.

 

[Multiply]

I'll stick with Yeezus.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Josh]

And in which period of time did that Lucania thrive? Not interrogating you to find a flaw, just interested.

Not even a deity though. Just the celestial body of the sun. Is that what you got out of jordan's words? Because he's not talking about a deity. Anyways, the notion that all characters from the bible are fictional and derived from astrology makes perfect sense if you connect the dots thoroughly. It has no direct evidence, indeed. As I said, it's just an interpretation. But its one made with rational thought and study. Astrotheology is a study to bring about a more rational approach to irrational religious scripts. Religious driven studies only want to prove those illogical scripts true and, thus have this underlying motivation still serving the mental cage which is their organised faith. People presenting astrotheology have no underlying motivation to proof any illogical beliefs that only uphold the degenerate way of thinking. And is there much proof for any religion, really? All faith systems are from eras in which we hardly have any concrete evidence of. It's all lost in history.

John 1:4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

John 9:5
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

^ This just screams the sun, who is the life and light giver.



I'm not insulting you, it's just that your initial approach was similar to that of some christians I know that got butthurt and it seemed you did not even bother to thoroughly study the astrotheological claims. The 'nutcase' part did not make any sense as this guy is not promoting any organised movement other than to use your brain and look for a more rational interpretation of religious scripts.

You probably missed the part in which he says he does not claim to have all the answers and that his words are irrefutable; no. He merely wishes to penetrate the potential origins religious scripts and so far, aztrotheology makes most sense. I know you wouldn't watch the 2 hour 20 minutes vid, so I'll just tell you that he never claimed any of his words to be undeniable. He himself said that it is just an interpretation. And you started off with saying he'd make for nutcase to appear that would get ''offended'' by critics as if it's a holy thing. That's where I got my assertive reaction from.

Now, I'd like to know what specific evidential piece is there to disproof the science of astrology overall? I'm asking genuinely. I'm not trying to corner you or anything. Despite the clash, I appreciate your input. Antichrist sent me a presentation of santos bonacci on my profile that's quicker in its process and provides more information in a shorter period of time. Maybe you'd like to view that one. And I mention this because I genuinely want the input of others, may it be supportive my interpretation or against.

The reason I said 'nutcase' is because that is how it starts out: someone trying to rationalize ancient manuscripts using modern interpretations that did not exist back then. I wasn't calling him a nutcase, I was saying that extremist followers (nutcases) arise from mistaken interpretations and flawed logic. For everything to be understood properly in any manuscript, even those of a few hundred years ago, they must be kept within their contextual time period. He isn't doing that with this lecture and there are people who will accept it all as true just because it sounds good. Chances are the reason you don't like Christianity or Islam is because of the people who have listened to speakers who failed to keep things within context, and therefore have skewed the perceptions of these two faith systems. Within Christianity, we call these groups 'denominations' or 'sects' and they are often the product of looking way too hard into things and declarin it to be the correct interpretation.


As for being willing to admit you are wrong, I was referring to you. By your words, YOU seem to have completely written off Christianity and Islam. So that was in reference to you.


As for your request to disprove astrology, declined. I cannot disprove it any more than you can disprove Christianity or Islam, or others can disprove evolution. That is a doomed endeavour. One can offer up evidence that points toward something being unlikely or improbable, but one cannot disprove it altogether. Besides, I have no reason to disprove astrology in whole, just Mr. Maxwell's view on Christ with astrotheology, which, Tartaurus already pointed out the things that I would; and that isn't to say it is disproved, just unlikely.

By taking the words and phrases he uses within context, and with their proper roots, his theory doesn't pan out and is simply an interesting way of viewing things, in my opinion.

I will offer one additional thing for you to consider: of all the names in the Bible that he could associate with lucias or light, would have been Lucifer, not Luke. Interesting how the Bible declares devil incarnate to have once been the angel of light, the most beautiful and magnificent of all angels, yet he chose Luke for an example. And that is leaving out that he is speaking of Luke Skywalker and not the author of the book of Luke.

Ever see or hear of the National Treasure movie franchise? The Illuminati? The Freemason conspiracies? Yeah, that's what he is preaching. "If you switch this letter to over here, and flip this around to this, and put on these spectacles, you will see that the sky is now red and the layout of Paris spells 666." His whole approach is flawed and therefore, as nice or interesting as what he has to say sounds, it bears the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory.

How does that sound to you? Plus, he didn't even name any of his sources because they are fabricated or misrepresented. I.e. It is all made up. It is logical until you start researching for yourself and I recommend you do that with every speaker you hear: don't take their word for it, look at it yourself too. You are intelligent enough to see it for yourself, so go and do that.

 

[Prometheus Beta]

The reason I said 'nutcase' is because that is how it starts out: someone trying to rationalize ancient manuscripts using modern interpretations that did not exist back then. I wasn't calling him a nutcase, I was saying that extremist followers (nutcases) arise from mistaken interpretations and flawed logic. For everything to be understood properly in any manuscript, even those of a few hundred years ago, they must be kept within their contextual time period. He isn't doing that with this lecture and there are people who will accept it all as true just because it sounds good. Chances are the reason you don't like Christianity or Islam is because of the people who have listened to speakers who failed to keep things within context, and therefore have skewed the perceptions of these two faith systems. Within Christianity, we call these groups 'denominations' or 'sects' and they are often the product of looking way too hard into things and declarin it to be the correct interpretation.


As for being willing to admit you are wrong, I was referring to you. By your words, YOU seem to have completely written off Christianity and Islam. So that was in reference to you.


As for your request to disprove astrology, declined. I cannot disprove it any more than you can disprove Christianity or Islam, or others can disprove evolution. That is a doomed endeavour. One can offer up evidence that points toward something being unlikely or improbable, but one cannot disprove it altogether. Besides, I have no reason to disprove astrology in whole, just Mr. Maxwell's view on Christ with astrotheology, which, Tartaurus already pointed out the things that I would; and that isn't to say it is disproved, just unlikely.

By taking the words and phrases he uses within context, and with their proper roots, his theory doesn't pan out and is simply an interesting way of viewing things, in my opinion.

I will offer one additional thing for you to consider: of all the names in the Bible that he could associate with lucias or light, would have been Lucifer, not Luke. Interesting how the Bible declares devil incarnate to have once been the angel of light, the most beautiful and magnificent of all angels, yet he chose Luke for an example. And that is leaving out that he is speaking of Luke Skywalker and not the author of the book of Luke.

Ever see or hear of the National Treasure movie franchise? The Illuminati? The Freemason conspiracies? Yeah, that's what he is preaching. "If you switch this letter to over here, and flip this around to this, and put on these spectacles, you will see that the sky is now red and the layout of Paris spells 666." His whole approach is flawed and therefore, as nice or interesting as what he has to say sounds, it bears the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory.

How does that sound to you? Plus, he didn't even name any of his sources because they are fabricated or misrepresented. I.e. It is all made up. It is logical until you start researching for yourself and I recommend you do that with every speaker you hear: don't take their word for it, look at it yourself too. You are intelligent enough to see it for yourself, so go and do that.

On reading this thread, I have to say that I mostly agree with you and Tartarus here (Mr Maxwell is a bit nuttier than that 15 minutes of his speech I listened to would suggest) but I would like to correct an interesting point raised here.

This is in fact one of the, if not the, most fundamental difference between science and religion: falsifiability. This means that there exists possibilities of disproving the statement or theory of interest. Evolution, like any other good scientific theory (from classical mechanics to the various variants of atomic theory), easily meets this criterion. The great Scottish polymath and evolutionary theorist, J.B.S. Haldane, quite famously propounded that the discovery of, to use his example, rabbits in the precambrian fossil records (but any other possible disordering, a mammal in the Devonian as another example) would in fact disprove evolution.

Modern genetics offers a plethora of possibilities for disproving or at least casting doubt on evolution, anything from the discovery of species that showed no genetic variation (genetic variation is one of the basic ingredients of natural selection) to not being able to find any "good" mutations (this would I think decrease the plausibility of evolution though not falsify it). But no such discoveries have ever been made and evolution continues to enjoy the success other successful scientific theories, like atomic theory, does.

I personally think some forms of pseudoscience (as well as as conspiracy theories) such as astrology can be falsified. Most fundamental aspects of religion, however, is not falsifiable at all (there is no way to falsify the existence of a creator). Whether Mr Maxwells nuttie ideas on Christianity are falsifiable, well Ill leave that debate to you guys.

Edit: Haldane was a Scotsman.

 

[Josh]

On reading this thread, I have to say that I mostly agree with you and Tartarus here (Mr Maxwell is a bit nuttier than that 15 minutes of his speech I listened to would suggest) but I would like to correct an interesting point raised here.

This is in fact one of the, if not the, most fundamental difference between science and religion: falsifiability. This means that there exists possibilities of disproving the statement or theory of interest. Evolution, like any other good scientific theory (from classical mechanics to the various variants of atomic theory), easily meets this criterion. The great English polymath and evolutionary theorist, J.B.S. Haldane, quite famously propounded that the discovery of, to use his example, rabbits in the precambrian fossil records (but any other possible disordering, a mammal in the Devonian as another example) would in fact disprove evolution.

Modern genetics offers a plethora of possibilities for disproving or at least casting doubt on evolution, anything from the discovery of species that showed no genetic variation (genetic variation is one of the basic ingredients of natural selection) to not being able to find any "good" mutations (this would I think decrease the plausibility of evolution though not falsify it). But no such discoveries have ever been made and evolution continues to enjoy the success other successful scientific theories, like atomic theory, does.

I personally think some forms of pseudoscience (as well as as conspiracy theories) such as astrology can be falsified. Most fundamental aspects of religion, however, is not falsifiable at all (there is no way to falsify the existence of a creator). Whether Mr Maxwells nuttie ideas on Christianity are falsifiable, well Ill leave that debate to you guys.

I do agree and wish to clarify a bit better: as far as scientifically disproving, it is more of proving whether or not something 'exists,' versus if it could possibly be true or false, through use of the scientific method. Scientifically you cannot prove something does not exist, but you can prove something does exist; though the absence of any shred of evidence would suggest non-existence, but would not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can however disprove scientifically his method of reaching his conclusions. Since this topic falls within both realms to an extent, the scientific portion (his representation of factual information)can be falsified, but the theological portion (whether or not the creator he speaks of exists) cannot. <-That is more or less what I meant, and still, I could be a bit wrong.

Side note: as far as evolution goes, I see more evidence to support its most basic claims than not. Anyone with eyes can see that species have adapted in multiple ways, or essentially evolved. The only part I do not see supported by factual evidence is evolution from one species to a completely separate species, which to my understanding, is the most extreme claim of evolution. I don't completely knock it, just no evidence to truly support that part in my head.

 

[YowYan]

The reason I said 'nutcase' is because that is how it starts out: someone trying to rationalize ancient manuscripts using modern interpretations that did not exist back then. I wasn't calling him a nutcase, I was saying that extremist followers (nutcases) arise from mistaken interpretations and flawed logic. For everything to be understood properly in any manuscript, even those of a few hundred years ago, they must be kept within their contextual time period. He isn't doing that with this lecture and there are people who will accept it all as true just because it sounds good. Chances are the reason you don't like Christianity or Islam is because of the people who have listened to speakers who failed to keep things within context, and therefore have skewed the perceptions of these two faith systems. Within Christianity, we call these groups 'denominations' or 'sects' and they are often the product of looking way too hard into things and declarin it to be the correct interpretation.


As for being willing to admit you are wrong, I was referring to you. By your words, YOU seem to have completely written off Christianity and Islam. So that was in reference to you.


As for your request to disprove astrology, declined. I cannot disprove it any more than you can disprove Christianity or Islam, or others can disprove evolution. That is a doomed endeavour. One can offer up evidence that points toward something being unlikely or improbable, but one cannot disprove it altogether. Besides, I have no reason to disprove astrology in whole, just Mr. Maxwell's view on Christ with astrotheology, which, Tartaurus already pointed out the things that I would; and that isn't to say it is disproved, just unlikely.

By taking the words and phrases he uses within context, and with their proper roots, his theory doesn't pan out and is simply an interesting way of viewing things, in my opinion.

I will offer one additional thing for you to consider: of all the names in the Bible that he could associate with lucias or light, would have been Lucifer, not Luke. Interesting how the Bible declares devil incarnate to have once been the angel of light, the most beautiful and magnificent of all angels, yet he chose Luke for an example. And that is leaving out that he is speaking of Luke Skywalker and not the author of the book of Luke.

Ever see or hear of the National Treasure movie franchise? The Illuminati? The Freemason conspiracies? Yeah, that's what he is preaching. "If you switch this letter to over here, and flip this around to this, and put on these spectacles, you will see that the sky is now red and the layout of Paris spells 666." His whole approach is flawed and therefore, as nice or interesting as what he has to say sounds, it bears the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory.

How does that sound to you? Plus, he didn't even name any of his sources because they are fabricated or misrepresented. I.e. It is all made up. It is logical until you start researching for yourself and I recommend you do that with every speaker you hear: don't take their word for it, look at it yourself too. You are intelligent enough to see it for yourself, so go and do that.

The reason why I dislike Islam and Christianity is not only because of the simpletons that passionately follow it and indoctrinate their children into that system of thought, but because the religious scripts themselves speak of irrational cruelty and contradicting things. And I have never encountered a muslim or christian who has a level-headed approach to religious claims. Astrotheology on the other hand, backed by factual astronomical events within our solar system, is directly aimed at understanding the heavens without forming a 'holy' unquestionable system of thought. Any organized religion is, as shown throughout the history of development of christianity and islam, an political, expansionist tool that breeds a standardized and degenerate way of thinking. And believers think they have a monopoly on the truth and as long as they uphold something as holy, they can persecute others for questioning that holy thing. Which isn't holy at all.

He is not preaching anything about the Illuminati and their goal of fully enslaving mankind. That's another preconceived notion that I've heard from christians. Contrary to what you think, he intents to expose them. Which he explains in detail in other videos. Some parts do raise my eyebrows but overall he is exposing the organised intent of a totalitarian global matrix. But ofcourse ppl would rather call it nutty instead of actually paying attention to the entirety of his words.

You must be registered for see links

As for Lucifer AND 666; one interesting and logical approach to that biblical figure is explained in this video and I very much recommend it if you are genuine about wanting to thoroughly understand astrotheological claims. [video=youtube;HtExkh6ZiNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtExkh6ZiNU[/video]

This guy would be a better introduction into astrotheology.

 

[Josh]

The reason why I dislike Islam and Christianity is not only because of the simpletons that passionately follow it and indoctrinate their children into that system of thought, but because the religious scripts themselves speak of irrational cruelty and contradicting things. And I have never encountered a muslim or christian who has a level-headed approach to religious claims. Astrotheology on the other hand, backed by factual astronomical events within our solar system, is directly aimed at understanding the heavens without forming a 'holy' unquestionable system of thought. Any organized religion is, as shown throughout the history of development of christianity and islam, an political, expansionist tool that breeds a standardized and degenerate way of thinking. And believers think they have a monopoly on the truth and as long as they uphold something as holy, they can persecute others for questioning that holy thing. Which isn't holy at all.

He is not preaching anything about the Illuminati and their goal of fully enslaving mankind. That's another preconceived notion that I've heard from christians. Contrary to what you think, he intents to expose them. Which he explains in detail in other videos. Some parts do raise my eyebrows but overall he is exposing the organised intent of a totalitarian global matrix. But ofcourse ppl would rather call it nutty instead of actually paying attention to the entirety of his words.

You must be registered for see links

As for Lucifer AND 666; one interesting and logical approach to that biblical figure is explained in this video and I very much recommend it if you are genuine about wanting to thoroughly understand astrotheological claims. [video=youtube;HtExkh6ZiNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtExkh6ZiNU[/video]

This guy would be a better introduction into astrotheology.

I know he isn't speaking about the illuminati. My point is that the way he talks of the Bible and ancient Egyptian mythology, is the same as people who try to turn everything into a conspiracy about the illuminati or the freemasons.

As for the rest, I have pretty much shared my thoughts on this subject already, so I will take my leave now. I understand why you feel the way you do about organized religion, and you may find this peculiar, but I agree with you on those being valid points. It is very difficult to find people who has a level understanding of either faith system and maybe one day you will encounter one or two, but I am glad you have found something that interests you. It just isn't my cup of tea.

 

[YowYan]

I know he isn't speaking about the illuminati. My point is that the way he talks of the Bible and ancient Egyptian mythology, is the same as people who try to turn everything into a conspiracy about the illuminati or the freemasons.

As for the rest, I have pretty much shared my thoughts on this subject already, so I will take my leave now. I understand why you feel the way you do about organized religion, and you may find this peculiar, but I agree with you on those being valid points. It is very difficult to find people who has a level understanding of either faith system and maybe one day you will encounter one or two, but I am glad you have found something that interests you. It just isn't my cup of tea.

To each their own, I guess ^^ Thanks for the responses though. I appreciate decent responses instead of the common single lined ones. Inanimated posting on this thread for example