The Book of Enoch

[The Anointed]

The Hebrew name “JARED” who is the physical father of Enoch, means “DESCENDING,” So when the scriptures say that it was in the days of JARED, it is actually said, that it was in the days of DESCENDING, that the non-human heavenly beings [Aliens] abandoned their own original habitat and appeared on earth.

Sir Doom wrote.... “There is nothing about extraterrestrial life in the Bible.” Obviously you have not read of the heavenly angels appearing to Mary, Joseph and the shepherds, etc. Or are you simply denying that angels are extraterrestrial life forms?

The oldest COPIES of the Book of Enoch, dating from the third century BCE, were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including ten manuscripts of the Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic (until then copies were extant only in an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation of a Semitic original), which were vital to answering many questions about its origins. Dating of the manuscripts by their script shows that certain parts of Enoch are at least as old as the third century BCE.

I believe, and will later reveal, that there is ample evidence to support the belief that the original Books of Enoch, the latest COPIES of which were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, date back much earlier than the 5th century, and that the originals were taken from Egypt, the land of first born, by Moses.

The oldest COPIES of the Book of Enoch, dating from the third century BCE, were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were a number of manuscripts of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, including ten manuscripts of the Book of Enoch in the original Aramaic (until then copies were extant only in an Ethiopic translation of a Greek translation of a Semitic original), which were vital to answering many questions about its origins. Dating of the manuscripts by their script shows that certain parts of Enoch are at least as old as the third century BCE.

I believe, and will later reveal, that there is ample evidence to support the belief that the original Books of Enoch, the latest COPIES of which were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls, date back much earlier than the 5th century, and that the originals were taken from Egypt, the land of first born, by Moses.

After being crucified and his body laid in the bowels of the earth where it remained for three days and three nights, Jesus, 1st Peter 3: 19-21; being made dead in the flesh but alive in spirit and in this form he went and preached the Good News also to the imprisoned spirits, to those who were disobedient long ago, in the days of Noah, etc.

The imprisoned spirits, are those sons of God who had abandoned their own original habitat and descended in the days of Enochs father Jared, and who defiled themselves with the daughters of man, and were later imprisoned until 70 generations had passed.

Crucifixion was a rite in the mysteries of many countries and especially those of Egypt, See ‘The Secret Doctrines,’ vol. 11, p. 558. The initiated adept, who had successfully passed all the trials, was tied to a cross deep inside a Temple Crypt or cave, he was then drugged and plunged into a deep sleep in which state, in the darkness of the bowels of the earth, he remained for three days and three nights, during which time his spirit=mind, is said to have descended into Hades to communicate with the Gods.

Moses, who was the adopted grandson of Pharaoh and who would have been afforded the best education in the country, may have been initiated into the circle of the guardians of the sacred secrets.

Moses took the bread or the sacred teachings of Egypt [The land of First Born] and removed the yeast and gave to the children of Israel the regulations, rules and laws, that the Israelites were to keep for all time. --------- In one of the religious regulations established by Moses, Aaron would place his hand upon the head of a scapegoat, symbolically transferring the sins of Israel to the goat, which was then sent out into the wilderness to Azazel. What or who, is this Azazel?

In the margins of the Good News Catholic Study Bible, Leviticus 16: concerning “Azazel” it is written by the Catholic authors of the GNB; ‘AZAZEL’ “The meaning of this Hebrew word is unknown: it may be the name of a desert demon.” ‘Azazel’ see Leviticus16: 8.

According to the ancient writings, it was in the days of Enoch’s Father ‘Jared’, which name means ‘Descending,’ that 200 Sons of God, who Enoch describes as watchers or rather OBSERVERS, descended and introduced into the primitive culture of mankind, technology that was about equivalent to that which had been achieved three thousand years in the future.

The Orthodox religious organisations are ignorant as to who Azazel is, because they have rejected the books of Enoch, which are the foundation stone of all scripture, and the stone that has been rejected by the builders of the universal church of Emperor Constantine has turned out to be the most important Stone of all.

The books of Enoch from which Jesus and his apostles taught, were cherished by the early Christians and were held in great reverence by many of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, until the early 4th century when, under the ban of dogmatic religious authorities such as Jerome, Hillary and Augustin, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought lost for millennia.

In the Epistle of Jude, who is also called Thomas Didymus Jude [The Twin], and who was born to the house of Mary the mother of Jesus and her husband, the carpenter, See Matthew 13: 55; Jude quotes verbatim from the book of Enoch.

The name Jared, means “DESCENDING” see Young’s Analytical Concordance. And in the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, it is written that it was in the days of Jared [The physical father of Enoch] that the Sons of God abandoned their own original habitat and defiled themselves with the daughters of man.

In his last testament, Reuben, the first born son of Jacob who was renamed Israel, states that those Sons of God [The shining ones] could not take on human form, but they would possess the bodies of the men while they were with their wives and from there were able to pass on their issue and giants were born of those unions, and according to Jewish culture, Noah was born a Giant.

From the ‘Book of Enoch the Prophet’ CVI: 1-6, “Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son. And his body was as white as snow and as red as the blooming of a rose and the hair on his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright. And thereupon he arose in the hands of the midwife, opened his mouth, and conversed with the Lord of righteousness. And his father Lamech was afraid of him, and Lamech fled and ran to his father Methuselah. And he said to him: “I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different, and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. And it seems that he is not sprung from me, but from the angels. And I fear that in his days, a wonder may be wrought on the earth.

To be continued.

Continued from previous post.

Concerning Azazel, we read in the Book of Enoch the prophet, chapter 9 to chapter 10; “And Michael said to the heavenly Lord, "Seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and has revealed the eternal secrets which were preserved in heaven, which men were striving to learn. And Semjaza, to whom you have given authority to bear rule over his associates (The other 199 sons of God) and they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth and have slept with them and revealed to them all kinds of sin etc.

Semjaza, the leader of the observers, taught enchantments, and root cutting, among other sons of God who revealed to the women all kinds of sin, were Armaros, who taught the resolving of enchantments, Baralqual taught astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon, etc.

But Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tintures etc.

Tubal-Cain, was from an age of man prior to Seth the first in the line of descendants from Adam according to the genealogy recorded in Genesis 5: and Tubal-Cain had been an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, which knowledge was stored in heaven when that age came to its end)

The Lord, through his only begotten prophet Enoch, then passed judgment on the angels who had forsaken their own original habitat and came down and defiled themselves with the daughters of men, saying to them; “You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and you knew only worthless ones, and these in the hardness of your hearts you have made known to the women, and through these mysteries women and men work much evil on earth.”

They were then to be bound and cast into the valley of the earth until seventy generations had passed, (Jesus was seventy generations from Enoch, see Luke 3: 23-38) but Azazel was punished separate from the others, See the Book of Enoch the Prophet 10: 4-9; “And again the Lord said to Raphael: Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening 5) in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may 6,7) not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the 8) Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted 9) through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.

It is to AZAZEL that all sin is ascribed.​

 

[Sir Doom]

The Hebrew name “JARED” who is the physical father of Enoch, means “DESCENDING,” So when the scriptures say that it was in the days of JARED, it is actually said, that it was in the days of DESCENDING, that the non-human heavenly beings [Aliens] abandoned their own original habitat and appeared on earth.

So, you mean to say that there was a mistranslation in the phrase such that they were not referring to the days of Enoch's father, but rather a different time when heavenly beings came down from wherever. Or possibly both, of course. Am I tracking that right?

Sir Doom wrote.... “There is nothing about extraterrestrial life in the Bible.”

Obviously you have not read of the heavenly angels appearing to Mary, Joseph and the shepherds, etc. Or are you simply denying that angels are extraterrestrial life forms?

Point conceded. If they came from anywhere but here they fit the description of extraterrestrial. Now, all you have to do is tell me who and how is it being interpretted as aliens from another planet instead, such that the book of Enoch will set that straight? Good luck.

According to the ancient writings, it was in the days of Enoch’s Father ‘Jared’, which name means ‘Descending,’ that 200 Sons of God, who Enoch describes as watchers or rather OBSERVERS, descended and introduced into the primitive culture of mankind, technology that was about equivalent to that which had been achieved three thousand years in the future.

According to which ancient writings and technology of what type?

 

[siti]

The Book of Enoch is clearly a made up story written by someone who clearly was not Enoch - I don't see any particular reason why it should be included with all the other made up stories written by people who were not who they claimed to be that were included in the Bible...Tertullian disagreed though - he actually believed it was written by the ante-diluvian Enoch and preserved through the flood on the ark with Noah...so what do I know?

 

[The Anointed]

The Book of Enoch is clearly a made up story written by someone who clearly was not Enoch - I don't see any particular reason why it should be included with all the other made up stories written by people who were not who they claimed to be that were included in the Bible...Tertullian disagreed though - he actually believed it was written by the ante-diluvian Enoch and preserved through the flood on the ark with Noah...so what do I know?

Love your choice of an avatar.

Siti wrote...… The Book of Enoch is clearly a made up story written by someone who clearly was not Enoch -

The Anointed...… And that is your atheist opinion is it?

Siti wrote...…… I don't see any particular reason why it should be included with all the other made up stories written by people who were not who they claimed to be that were included in the Bible..

The Anointed...… Then you should be on an atheist forum and not a religious one.

Siti Wrote.......Tertullian disagreed though - he actually believed it was written by the ante-diluvian Enoch and preserved through the flood on the ark with Noah...

The Anointed...… So do I

Siti wrote...….so what do I know

The Anointed...…. If you are referring to the Holy Scriptures? Not much I would say.

 

[siti]

Love your choice of an avatar.

Thank you.

And that is your atheist opinion is it?

Who said I was an atheist? Are you assuming that because I am not a Bible-thumping evangelical Biblical literalist Christian I must be an atheist. I let you in on a secret - that definition of atheism was abandoned about two or three centuries ago - when they stopped burning books (and people) on account of "heresy".

Then you should be on an atheist forum and not a religious one.

Why? Is it not permissible for an atheist to talk about religion? If that's the case, how dare you - as a believer - presume to discuss atheism?

...….so what do I know

The Anointed...…. If you are referring to the Holy Scriptures? Not much I would say.

Would you like to challenge my scriptural knowledge? Maybe I should challenge yours - where exactly would you find the Book of Enoch in the Bible?

 

[The Anointed]

Thank you.

Who said I was an atheist? Are you assuming that because I am not a Bible-thumping evangelical Biblical literalist Christian I must be an atheist. I let you in on a secret - that definition of atheism was abandoned about two or three centuries ago - when they stopped burning books (and people) on account of "heresy".

Why? Is it not permissible for an atheist to talk about religion? If that's the case, how dare you - as a believer - presume to discuss atheism?

Would you like to challenge my scriptural knowledge? Maybe I should challenge yours - where exactly would you find the Book of Enoch in the Bible?

Siti wrote…… Who said I was an atheist? Are you assuming that because I am not a Bible-thumping evangelical Biblical literalist Christian I must be an atheist.

The Anointed…… Then what God do you believe in, because it is obviously not the God who is the author of the bible whose words were recorded by his chosen scribes.

Siti wrote…… I let you in on a secret - that definition of atheism was abandoned about two or three centuries ago - when they stopped burning books (and people) on account of "heresy".

The Anointed…… Go to any modern dictionary to find the definition of atheism----- (1) “Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.” (2) “The doctrine that there is no God or that the word God or statements about it or using it is meaningless.”

So then, either reveal to all, just who is the God that you worship or admit that you are an atheist.

Siti wrote…… Why? Is it not permissible for an atheist to talk about religion? If that's the case, how dare you - as a believer - presume to discuss atheism?

The Anointed…… Of course you are permitted on any religious forum as long as you stick to the rules, but I just thought you might like to mix with your like kind, you know, “Birds of a feather should flock together.” [Likewise] How dare you – as a non-believer presume to discuss the Holy Scriptures?

Siti wrote…… Would you like to challenge my scriptural knowledge?

The Anointed…… I most certainly would.

Siti wrote…… Maybe I should challenge yours - where exactly would you find the Book of Enoch in the Bible?

The Anointed…… You do realise of course that the books of Enoch from which Jesus and his apostles quoted were cherished by the early Christians right up until the fourth century, where, under the ban of dogmatic authorities of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, such as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought to have been lost for millennia.

As with other books that were banned by the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, they too would have been burned

From the book, “Jesus The Evidence,” by Ian Wilson. P. 144.

The Middle Ages, for the Jews at least, began with the advent to power of Constantine the Great. He was the first Roman Emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of the Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a right conferred on them by Caracalla in 212 AD. As (The so-called Christianity of Constantine’s church) grew in power it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews.

But if times were again difficult for the Jews, for the Christian Gnostics and other fringe groups they were impossible. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new official (So-called) Christian line.

"Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians. . . . with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning . . . .Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet . . . . and that these house should be handed over immediately to the catholic/ i.e. universal church."

Within a generation, hardly leaving a trace of their existence for posterity, the great majority of these groups simply died away as successive Christian emperors reiterated the politics that Constantine had pursued.

But there still remains in the Roman canon many references to Enoch the only begotten prophet of the MOST HIGH in the creation and many of his teachings as revealed by the apostles, teachings that are not to be found in the OT, but only in the books of Enoch.

Plus Thomas Didymus Jude the half brother to Jesus, quotes verbatim from the book of Enoch.

 

[siti]

You do realise of course that the books of Enoch from which Jesus and his apostles quoted were cherished by the early Christians right up until the fourth century

I know that they were cherished by some, but not all, early Christians and that there was a great deal of debate and differences of opinion in regard to which books really did contain the divine revelation. I also know that this was mostly because none of the books really contained divine revelation.

As to what I could possibly "be" after saying that if not an atheist, take your pick...

I could be a deist and say that whilst I do believe in a creator, I do not accept the idea of divine revelation...

Or a pantheist and believe that the world itself is divine

Or an agnostic and claim that it is impossible to know whether there is a God/gods

I could be a Hindu or a Sikh and believe in God/gods but not the Bible

Or a Jew and reject Enoch and other apocryphal texts as well as the entire New Testament

Or I could be a Taoist or Buddhist and have neither God nor divine writ as scripture

I could be a religious humanist who believes in and celebrates the inherent "divinity" of the human being

Simply thinking that a book that talks about fallen angels and phoenixes (for example) is a made up story does not make me an atheist.

But - just for the sake of putting you out of your misery - I am not really religious at all - but if I had to pick a label for what I believe it would probably fall somewhere in between naturalistic pantheism and secular humanism...but don't get too carried with labels - its really not helpful - as my very incomplete list of non-atheist unbelievers from a monotheistic Abrahamic POV illustrates. Labelling any (or all) of them "atheist" tells you nothing useful about them at all and is very misleading.

 

[The Anointed]

I know that they were cherished by some, but not all, early Christians and that there was a great deal of debate and differences of opinion in regard to which books really did contain the divine revelation. I also know that this was mostly because none of the books really contained divine revelation.

As to what I could possibly "be" after saying that if not an atheist, take your pick...

I could be a deist and say that whilst I do believe in a creator, I do not accept the idea of divine revelation...

Or a pantheist and believe that the world itself is divine

Or an agnostic and claim that it is impossible to know whether there is a God/gods

I could be a Hindu or a Sikh and believe in God/gods but not the Bible

Or a Jew and reject Enoch and other apocryphal texts as well as the entire New Testament

Or I could be a Taoist or Buddhist and have neither God nor divine writ as scripture

I could be a religious humanist who believes in and celebrates the inherent "divinity" of the human being

Simply thinking that a book that talks about fallen angels and phoenixes (for example) is a made up story does not make me an atheist.

But - just for the sake of putting you out of your misery - I am not really religious at all - but if I had to pick a label for what I believe it would probably fall somewhere in between naturalistic pantheism and secular humanism...but don't get too carried with labels - its really not helpful - as my very incomplete list of non-atheist unbelievers from a monotheistic Abrahamic POV illustrates. Labelling any (or all) of them "atheist" tells you nothing useful about them at all and is very misleading.

One has to be miserable to be put out of their misery.

Having said that you don't see any particular reason why it [The books of Enoch] should be included with all the other made up stories written by people who were not who they claimed to be that were included in the Bible, which includes the OT Jerome's translation of the Hebrew bible, it was painfully obvious that you were neither a Jewish or Christian worshipper..

And now having confessed that you are not religious at all and that your belief falls somewhere in between naturalistic pantheism and secular humanism and Secular humanism present their belief as being that humans are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. This godless belief has been expanding due to its promotion of "scientific pantheism", which is essentially no more than "atheism" for nature lovers.​

The Jews may have rejected the books of Enoch, but they do make mention of him in their bible as being one of only two men to have been taken into heaven, Enoch and Elijah.

Genesis 5: 23; Enoch was 365 (In days---A calendar year. 'Not that you, as a non believer would see any significance in that.) and had spent his life in fellowship with God when he disappeared because God had Taken him. .

They can also not deny that Moses knew of the books of Enoch, by giving to his brother Aaron the religious regulation, where he would place his hand on the head of a scape-goat symbolically transferring the sins of Israel onto the goat, which was then sent out into the wilderness to AZAZEL, the fallen angel, who, as stated in the book of Enoch, was the one to whom all sin was to be ascribed. See Leviticus 16: 8, and verses 20-22 also.

See "The Book of Enoch the Prophet" 8:1; "And Azael taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth (Tubal-cain, from a previous age of man had been an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, which knowledge was stored in heaven when that age came to it's end) and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tintures etc."

See "The Book of Enoch the Prophet" 10: 4; "Azazel was punished separate from the other Sons of God. He was taken out into the wilderness to a place called 'Dudael,' where he was cast into a deep pit and covered with rough and jagged stone, and all sin was to be ascribed to him. The others were to be bound and cast into the valley of the earth until seventy generations had passed, (Jesus was seventy generations from Enoch, see Luke 3: 23-38)

Hebrews 11: 5; “By faith Enoch was translated (To change from one form to another) so that he should not experience death; and he was not found, because God had Translated him. ​

Even the Roman church which banned the books of Enoch, allowed Thomas Didymus Jude to quote verbatim from the words of righteous Enoch, and there are too many references to the teachings of Enoch as revealed by Jesus and his apostles to go into here.

 

[siti]

...now having confessed that you are not religious at all

What the?!! What are you - the Grand Inquisitor? What would you have me do - recite a thousand Hail Marys...or would you prefer I purchase a million dollars worth of indulgences? Oh sorry I forgot - that special offer is finished...so what now - the rack? The stake?

This godless belief has been expanding due to its promotion of "scientific pantheism", which is essentially no more than "atheism" for nature lovers.

Is that right? You have studied it deeply have you? Well - how about this: your belief in the Bible (plus the added extra juicy bits) is nothing more than theism for God-lovers! So there!

...there are too many references to the teachings of Enoch as revealed by Jesus and his apostles to go into here.

Thank the Good Lord for that! Maybe there is a God after all!

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

The book of Enoch was removed because it was too real and contradicts many of the mainstream parts of the bible.

What people refer to as aliens are really fallen angels. The human species is incredibly diverse, modern humans dominate the planet but at one point there were many different races of human, including giants and fairies in the form of fallen angels. It's all hidden from us and the secret of the will of God is within your own will and invocations.

The book of Enoch is a good read and thats about it.

 

[The Anointed]

The book of Enoch is a good read and thats about it.

In your opinion, and like everyone else you are entitled to your own personal opinion.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

In your opinion, and like everyone else you are entitled to your own personal opinion.

Cool story, bro.

 

[The Anointed]

What the?!! What are you - the Grand Inquisitor? What would have me do - recite a thousand Hail Marys...or would you prefer I purchase a million dollars worth of indulgences? Oh sorry I forgot - that special offer is finished...so what now - the rack? The stake?

Is that right? You have studied it deeply have you? Well - how about this: your belief in the Bible (plus the added extra juicy bits) is nothing more than theism for God-lovers! So there!

Thank the Good Lord for that! Maybe there is a God after all![/QUOTE ]

Siti Wrote...……What the?!! What are you - the Grand Inquisitor? What would have me do - recite a thousand Hail Marys...or would you prefer I purchase a million dollars worth of indulgences? Oh sorry I forgot - that special offer is finished...so what now - the rack? The stake?

The Anointed...….Oh don't be such a drama queen, who are you trying to impress? I would have you do nothing at all. The fact that you have confessed that you are not religious at all and

hold to a godless belief,will suffice.

Siti Wrote...……Is that right? You have studied it deeply have you?

The Anointed...…. Well, in much greater depth than you have, which will be obvious to all you read this thread.

Siti Wrote...……Well - how about this: your belief in the Bible (plus the added extra juicy bits) is nothing more than theism for God-lovers! So there! ​

The Anointed...…. For once you are correct. Yes! My belief in the Bible (plus the added extra juicy bits) is nothing more than theism for God-lovers! Dats why I'm here sunshine.

Siti Wrote...……Thank the Good Lord for that! Maybe there is a God after all.

The Anointed...…. Keep looking and perhaps one day you will find him.

 

[siti]

Oh don't be such a drama queen, who are you trying to impress?

Drama queen? That's new - never been called that before as far as I recall. But no I wasn't trying to impress anyone in particular - I was ridiculing your medieval assessment of my religious position. (I think that should be plain enough now).

For once you are correct. Yes! My belief in the Bible (plus the added extra juicy bits) is nothing more than theism for God-lovers! Dats why I'm here sunshine.

Ooh! Sunshine now is it? Well that's an improvement in my status I think. My grandmother used to call me sunshine.

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine. You make me happy when skies are grey....

Thanks for making me smile my brother!

 

[The Anointed]

Drama queen? That's new - never been called that before as far as I recall. But no I wasn't trying to impress anyone in particular - I was ridiculing your medieval assessment of my religious position. (I think that should be plain enough now).

Ooh! Sunshine now is it? Well that's an improvement in my status I think. My grandmother used to call me sunshine.

You are my sunshine, my only sunshine. You make me happy when skies are grey....

Thanks for making me smile my brother!

Siti wrote...….. Drama queen? That's new - never been called that before as far as I recall. But no I wasn't trying to impress anyone in particular - I was ridiculing your medieval assessment of my religious position. (I think that should be plain enough now).

The Anointed...……. You mean your non-religious position don't you? Unless you define a godless belief as religious.

What was it that you said in a previous post? Oh yes, that's right; "I am not really religious at all - but if I had to pick a label for what I believe it would probably fall somewhere in between naturalistic pantheism and secular humanism.?

 

[siti]

Unless you define a godless belief as religious.

There is no reason why someone could not be religious and not believe in God - that is the mistake you insist on making. In my case, I said "I am not particularly religious" in the sense of being affiliated to particular religious organization or subscribing to a particular set of religious doctrines - but that doesn't mean that I do not have a "position" about "religious" things. You seem to be equating non-Christian, non-monotheistic with atheism and you have to correct that in your thinking if you want to have meaningful discussions with most people around here. Anyway, its no skin off my nose if you don't - but I am trying to help you to see that there is a whole spectrum of religious viewpoints that do not necessarily hold to a traditional Abrahamic monotheistic view of God. You're just missing so much by lumping them altogether under one label and refusing to look any further.

 

[The Anointed]

There is no reason why someone could not be religious and not believe in God - that is the mistake you insist on making. In my case, I said "I am not particularly religious" in the sense of being affiliated to particular religious organization or subscribing to a particular set of religious doctrines - but that doesn't mean that I do not have a "position" about "religious" things. You seem to be equating non-Christian, non-monotheistic with atheism and you have to correct that in your thinking if you want to have meaningful discussions with most people around here. Anyway, its no skin off my nose if you don't - but I am trying to help you to see that there is a whole spectrum of religious viewpoints that do not necessarily hold to a traditional Abrahamic monotheistic view of God. You're just missing so much by lumping them altogether under one label and refusing to look any further.

There are many Godless religious bodies, which include Hinduism and Buddhism to which you are not aligned. Your belief falls somewhere in between naturalistic pantheism and secular humanism and Secular humanism present their belief as being that humans are capable of being ethical and moral WITHOUT RELIGION or a god. This godless belief has been expanding due to its promotion of "scientific pantheism", which is essentially no more than "atheism" for nature lovers.

The greater majority of Atheists are wonderful righteous people, but be prepared for an argument in you suggest to them that atheism is their religion. They are righteous people, they are not religious people.

 

[siti]

Secular humanism present their belief as being that humans are capable of being ethical and moral WITHOUT RELIGION or a god.

Yes - I agree with that - that is part of what a secular humanist would believe and I agree with it. In itself though - that position does not say that there is not a God - only that we don't need one to tell us what is right and wrong - and that we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong either. Neither of these positions equate to atheism - which also does not say there are no Gods - but only expresses a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Scientific pantheism - as you called it - is not an essential element of secular humanism and certainly does not equate to atheism. But I do not want to use the term "scientific pantheism" anyway, because I think it is a misnomer - you can't get to pantheism scientifically - it is a philosophical position not a scientific discovery. So I prefer "naturalistic pantheism" which is really (for me - not for everyone else who might use the term differently) just a way of saying that I think something kind of god-like exists (or may exist, or may emerge from) within the natural world.

I think that's how God/s emerge - humans think about what they find right/wrong - ethical/unethical, moral/immoral and the consensus becomes "God's Word" which is then encapsulated in culture and tradition and passed on in story format to subsequent generations. But it is real - its what real humans have dreamed up. But its also sufficiently "greater" than any individual human - and I believe is also deeply influenced by the natural, social and cultural environment in which it emerges that is, in fact, much than merely "human" - it's origin is not just the human mind, but the world that gave rise to and is the "home" of that mind - that's why I say 'pantheism' - it arises from the entire world of the humans that it is the god of. But it still has to be processed by individual human minds and that's why its humanistic. And it certainly does not have to be religious - hence secular - although it can be.

Anyway, I don't know why I feel compelled to explain myself so clearly in a topic that has nothing to do with what I believe except...

If God does exist (as I picture it or as you picture it) I strongly suspect that God does not write books, if anything God wrote the world - and it is reading the world (not this or that book) that will bring us closer to God (if there is one). The difference - I think - between us is that I know that anything I could ever read or write about God is a myth - even if God is real.

 

[74x12]

The book of Enoch was removed because it was too real and contradicts many of the mainstream parts of the bible.

What people refer to as aliens are really fallen angels. The human species is incredibly diverse, modern humans dominate the planet but at one point there were many different races of human, including giants and fairies in the form of fallen angels. It's all hidden from us and the secret of the will of God is within your own will and invocations.

... No sorry.

Angels are quite real and some of them indeed sinned and had offspring(giants) with the daughters of men. Angels aren't fairies. Fairies may have been real alright but they weren't angels. The angels are more likely to be the "gods" of many ancient cultures. Like the Annunaki for example. Rebellious angels that taught people idolatry; instead of the worship of the Most High God.

The secret of the will of God is to submit your will to God's will. The will of God goes against the grain. It goes against the way of the world which is under the principalities of certain rebellious angels called "archons" or rulers. They have set themselves in opposition to the Divine will of God. So that's why the world is so messed up and why it's so hard to follow God's will. But God is still on His throne and He is unstoppable and mighty. A holy Breath; He fills the universe and beyond. He's better than anything you lose.

 

[The Anointed]

Yes - I agree with that - that is part of what a secular humanist would believe and I agree with it. In itself though - that position does not say that there is not a God - only that we don't need one to tell us what is right and wrong - and that we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong either. Neither of these positions equate to atheism - which also does not say there are no Gods - but only expresses a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

Scientific pantheism - as you called it - is not an essential element of secular humanism and certainly does not equate to atheism. But I do not want to use the term "scientific pantheism" anyway, because I think it is a misnomer - you can't get to pantheism scientifically - it is a philosophical position not a scientific discovery. So I prefer "naturalistic pantheism" which is really (for me - not for everyone else who might use the term differently) just a way of saying that I think something kind of god-like exists (or may exist, or may emerge from) within the natural world.

I think that's how God/s emerge - humans think about what they find right/wrong - ethical/unethical, moral/immoral and the consensus becomes "God's Word" which is then encapsulated in culture and tradition and passed on in story format to subsequent generations. But it is real - its what real humans have dreamed up. But its also sufficiently "greater" than any individual human - and I believe is also deeply influenced by the natural, social and cultural environment in which it emerges that is, in fact, much than merely "human" - it's origin is not just the human mind, but the world that gave rise to and is the "home" of that mind - that's why I say 'pantheism' - it arises from the entire world of the humans that it is the god of. But it still has to be processed by individual human minds and that's why its humanistic. And it certainly does not have to be religious - hence secular - although it can be.

Anyway, I don't know why I feel compelled to explain myself so clearly in a topic that has nothing to do with what I believe except...

If God does exist (as I picture it or as you picture it) I strongly suspect that God does not write books, if anything God wrote the world - and it is reading the world (not this or that book) that will bring us closer to God (if there is one). The difference - I think - between us is that I know that anything I could ever read or write about God is a myth - even if God is real.

It would appear from all you have written there, that you are an agnostic, which is defined as one who is uncertain and uncommitted on any particular question at issue, especially as to whether a god exists or does not exist.