• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus as the Lightbringer?

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
I brought this thread here because I dont wan't the typical Christian answers my question.

I've always found this interesting that Jesus was labeled the morning star and the light, while lucifer literally means the light bringer, and has been defined as the morning star. Even when I was young and still caught up in Christian Dogma I found this interesting.

My theory is that Jesus was the total opposite of how he is portrayed in modern Christianity. As I read in the black flame thread in this DIR, many ancient terms used varous phrasings of Satan/evil/devil etc etc simply to denote beliefs that were in opposition to their own. Wouldn't this correspond perfectly to the view of Jesus beliefs in all aspects of the early Roman empire?

I don't contend that Jesus was a strict adherent of the westernized philosophy of the LHP as I don't think he focused soley on self gratification, but I do also he delved in practices that modern Christianity would consider "abominations" such as drinking alchoholic beverages, smoking marijuana, and using other mind altering substances. I think thats part of what made him so popular was after he gave a sermon there would be a huge party lol.

I also believe he practiced LHP techniques such as tantra (I mean come on, Mary Magdelene was probably a prostitute lol), Taoist Alchemy, and various other "black magic" practices (raising lazerus from the dead = necromancy in my opinion).

The interesting thing I believe about Jesus, was that he used all of these LHP practices to promote more RHP beliefs although in a unique way. He opposed authority to promote better treatment of the lower classes, taught equality of all peoples regardless of race or religion, promoted self realization and self empowerment to overthrow the oppressive authority, and not simply to show off ones power over others. It needed to be directed towards those that oppressed the common people.

Basically, I believe Jesus used the left hand to give power to himself, and then used the right hand to give that power to the people. Although I still believe he kept a lot of power for himself, as I don't think he was an adherent to the selfless sacrifice ideal that has been attributed to him by modern Christianity.

I believe Jesus was a true balance of the of the left and right hands, as the left hand takes and the right hand gives. In this light would have been persecuted by both the Jewish and Roman authorities as he would have been giving power to the people.

It is also my belief that Roman authorities adopted Christianity because of it's popularity, morphed it into a religion that suited their needs, and that is what we see now.

What do ya'll think?
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
(warning -- some really bad English renderings of Hebrew..)

Jesus isn't actually a person's name but rather a title which says a bit about it etymologically and more about the situation in general. You have to understand that basically it is adding an additional letter to Jehovah (in Hebrew) which was understood to be the unspeakable name of god. Hebrews don't use that name either they use Adonai or Shaddai so no point asking them how to pronounce it throughout history we're adding the random vowels as a matter of convenience. Likewise, pronouncing Jesus is a similar debacle in that it is generally transliterated as from Yeheshuah (YHShVH in Hebrew) or Joshua in english. In reality there is no exact word here it is merely a matter of being something someone can speak. This persons name was never Jesus at least the way we write it and it certainly wasn't Christ (another title!). Likewise, it is improper to refer to Jesus as "The Lord" as "The Lord" is YHVH/Adonai/etc.. not this human character and is the Hebrew God.

Kabbalistically, YHVH (or Jehovah) represents the universe and the elemental hierarchy but also is supposedly God's real name. The addition of the Hebrew letter Shin (in YHShVH or Jesus) changes the meaning to something like "God's Salvation" and is traditionally associated with the element of the spirit mystically. At least in this sense the name means a great deal more as it is much more a short hand way of implying the ideas of the macrocosm and microcosm.

During his time Jesus (for ease of use!) was a left-hand path teacher breaking all the accepted rules of his society at the time. But, times change -- when the rules change so does the left-handed path. :)

At this point it is not so much Jesus' message and doings that are at odds with the LHP proper, but rather the actions of his followers which completely remove them from our side of the table. Blind faith, rejection of science and discovery, wrote dogma, intolerance, and other such concepts are exactly why we remain incompatible.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Nash8 said:
I've always found this interesting that Jesus was labeled the morning star and the light, while lucifer literally means the light bringer, and has been defined as the morning star.
'Light bringer' probably doesn't transmit the concept very well. Jesus is called the morning star, because he heralds a time of chaos where the stars are no longer visible but the sun hasn't quite risen. At that time figuratively neither the sun nor the moon and stars are visible, completely counter to Genesis 1:16 which has the Sun to rule the day and moon & stars to rule the night. Stars usually represent the wise and the good people. Abraham's children are spoken of symbolically as stars who give guidance through difficult times. The sun represents the good times when people are generally enlightened, so the stars aren't needed. Jesus preached that bad times were ahead in order that really good times could follow, so he was the morning star. He was also the 'Light bringer' in the sense that better times would follow, but a dark time was also included in the package.

Mindmaster said:
During his time Jesus (for ease of use!) was a left-hand path teacher breaking all the accepted rules of his society at the time.
It certainly seems so in many ways, although he would not have been a bad person to know.
 
Last edited:

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It certainly seems so in many ways, although he would not have been a bad person to know.

Moral relativity is really beyond the concept of the discussion. Left-handedness does not portent to the quality of ones actions, but rather the methodology employed in ones action. I do a lot of things Christians would deem bad:

1) Necromancy

2) Use of Blood and/or Sex in Rites

3) Communication with praetor-human or Demonic intelligences (whether or not they respond is irrelevant)

4) Trial by fire - Spiritual information is scientifically approached. But, enough subjective evidence is considered decent proof.

5) Psychic experiments with telepathy and mind manipulation.

Sure, none of these work all the time I consider it research more than anything. But, why do I do them... Mostly to help myself and others out of problems. Much of the time I am not "shooting fireballs" at folks, but rather seeking to ease the pain of a situation. This is basically a morally good use of power in that I am generally working toward improving the state of those around me. To conventional religion I am evil incarnate by accident. I can be doing a rite involving blood to assist a couple in fertility, blessing their family, or cursing someones entire life to nothing after someone harmed another. The tools aren't bad it's what is done with them.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Mindmaster said:
Moral relativity is really beyond the concept of the discussion. Left-handedness does not portent to the quality of ones actions, but rather the methodology employed in ones action.
Thanks for the explanation. I still don't know what you mean by left-handed-path religion, but I see a little bit of your meaning. The activities you mention sound strange to me but analogous to what many Charismatics do. I suppose by left-handed-path you imply that there are right-handed-paths and all are going to the same destination, but I actually don't know if that is what you mean. There's no need to explain it to me as I'll pick up on it sooner or later. As it is I am generally not in a position to request any assistance but its good to know what is available.
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
Barabbas's crimes.

So are you saying Jesus was actually guilty of Barabbas' crimes, or that he felt guilty that this man would be crucified instead of him? From what i've read Barabbas, was a revolutionary that fought out against Rome with violence, although I also heard that he was a thief and/or murder, which might go hand in hand with the revolutionary status - stealing from Roman authorities, killing Roman soldiers. I've also read that he was "praised" by the Jewish masses for being more like a military leader that would overthrow Rome, which was more in line with messianic prophecy as Jewish leaders saw it.

I still don't know what you mean though.

(warning -- some really bad English renderings of Hebrew..)

Jesus isn't actually a person's name but rather a title which says a bit about it etymologically and more about the situation in general. You have to understand that basically it is adding an additional letter to Jehovah (in Hebrew) which was understood to be the unspeakable name of god. Hebrews don't use that name either they use Adonai or Shaddai so no point asking them how to pronounce it throughout history we're adding the random vowels as a matter of convenience. Likewise, pronouncing Jesus is a similar debacle in that it is generally transliterated as from Yeheshuah (YHShVH in Hebrew) or Joshua in english. In reality there is no exact word here it is merely a matter of being something someone can speak. This persons name was never Jesus at least the way we write it and it certainly wasn't Christ (another title!). Likewise, it is improper to refer to Jesus as "The Lord" as "The Lord" is YHVH/Adonai/etc.. not this human character and is the Hebrew God.

Kabbalistically, YHVH (or Jehovah) represents the universe and the elemental hierarchy but also is supposedly God's real name. The addition of the Hebrew letter Shin (in YHShVH or Jesus) changes the meaning to something like "God's Salvation" and is traditionally associated with the element of the spirit mystically. At least in this sense the name means a great deal more as it is much more a short hand way of implying the ideas of the macrocosm and microcosm.

Agreed. Whenever Christians start to annoy me with Jesus talk. I always say, oh your talking about Joshua Christ, my bad I didn't know that's who you were talking about. Definitely throws them for a loop.

I always thought that the letter shin represented the concept of light in Kabbalah on some level. But the name Joshua does mean "God's Salvation" in some sense from everything I've read. But I thought, in some interpretations, it meant the "Light of God" in some interpretations, meaning the light of the macrocosm/microcosm. My study of Kabbalah is fairly limited, so I guess I shouldn't make assumptions based on my innacurate knowledge lol.

The Hebrew Letters (excerpts): Shin

During his time Jesus (for ease of use!) was a left-hand path teacher breaking all the accepted rules of his society at the time. But, times change -- when the rules change so does the left-handed path. :)

At this point it is not so much Jesus' message and doings that are at odds with the LHP proper, but rather the actions of his followers which completely remove them from our side of the table. Blind faith, rejection of science and discovery, wrote dogma, intolerance, and other such concepts are exactly why we remain incompatible.

Agreed. But I don't think it was the actions of his immediate followers, I think it was more the actions of certain individuals, Paul would be my first assumption, and Roman leaders that completely changed Jesus' message.

'Light bringer' probably doesn't transmit the concept very well. Jesus is called the morning star, because he heralds a time of chaos where the stars are no longer visible but the sun hasn't quite risen. At that time figuratively neither the sun nor the moon and stars are visible, completely counter to Genesis 1:16 which has the Sun to rule the day and moon & stars to rule the night. Stars usually represent the wise and the good people. Abraham's children are spoken of symbolically as stars who give guidance through difficult times. The sun represents the good times when people are generally enlightened, so the stars aren't needed. Jesus preached that bad times were ahead in order that really good times could follow, so he was the morning star. He was also the 'Light bringer' in the sense that better times would follow, but a dark time was also included in the package.

It certainly seems so in many ways, although he would not have been a bad person to know.

I was more so thinking the light bringer, because he is referenced to the light so many times. I am the way, the truth, and the light, etc. I was also trying to say that Jesus would be considered more like Prometheus, Lucifer, Satan, and other associated archetypes/beings in the "gnostic" sense rather how he is portrayed today. Basically saying, that all of the names attributed as Jesus' advesary, would actually be names better suited to describe Jesus himself.

Basically I'm saying the Bible, as I see it, is *** backwards. The antichrist is actually the good guy. He would be one that teaches knowledge, self realization, and self empowerment with the aim to establish a better quality of life for the lower classes. All ideas that the "elite" would want to oppress. Basically, I believe that they have crafted a belief system that is so engrained into the subconcious of humanity, that they would reject people in the future that sought to help them gain a better quality of life based on "religious dogma". And I would have to say that it has worked outstandingly for the most part, if it weren't for the internet, I think it would have worked a lot better. But the internet can cause just as many problems as it can provide answers lol.

Moral relativity is really beyond the concept of the discussion. Left-handedness does not portent to the quality of ones actions, but rather the methodology employed in ones action. I do a lot of things Christians would deem bad:

1) Necromancy

2) Use of Blood and/or Sex in Rites

3) Communication with praetor-human or Demonic intelligences (whether or not they respond is irrelevant)

4) Trial by fire - Spiritual information is scientifically approached. But, enough subjective evidence is considered decent proof.

5) Psychic experiments with telepathy and mind manipulation.

Sure, none of these work all the time I consider it research more than anything. But, why do I do them... Mostly to help myself and others out of problems. Much of the time I am not "shooting fireballs" at folks, but rather seeking to ease the pain of a situation. This is basically a morally good use of power in that I am generally working toward improving the state of those around me. To conventional religion I am evil incarnate by accident. I can be doing a rite involving blood to assist a couple in fertility, blessing their family, or cursing someones entire life to nothing after someone harmed another. The tools aren't bad it's what is done with them.

Athough I don't do the whole ritual thing, and I don't mess with demonic entities (they're to tricky for me to comfortably deal with), and I don't know about cursing someone because they harmed another, but other than that I totally agree with you lol. Christianity deems so many things "inherently evil", when evil is, in reality, how humans use them.

I understand the fact that you have to keep some things "secret" from the general population because they would most likely use them irresponsibly. But when the people keeping the secrets are using them irresponsibly it kind of eliminates the point lol.

And Mindmaster, your pretty good. ;) I would only ask you to announce yourself. I have plenty of unnanounced presences as it is. :D Maybe you can help me with that as well? :p
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
Thanks for the explanation. I still don't know what you mean by left-handed-path religion, but I see a little bit of your meaning. The activities you mention sound strange to me but analogous to what many Charismatics do. I suppose by left-handed-path you imply that there are right-handed-paths and all are going to the same destination, but I actually don't know if that is what you mean. There's no need to explain it to me as I'll pick up on it sooner or later. As it is I am generally not in a position to request any assistance but its good to know what is available.

Left-hand path and right-hand path - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a lot more to it than that, as mindmaster said, as it changes everyday.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
So are you saying Jesus was actually guilty of Barabbas' crimes, or that he felt guilty that this man would be crucified instead of him? From what i've read Barabbas, was a revolutionary that fought out against Rome with violence, although I also heard that he was a thief and/or murder, which might go hand in hand with the revolutionary status - stealing from Roman authorities, killing Roman soldiers. I've also read that he was "praised" by the Jewish masses for being more like a military leader that would overthrow Rome, which was more in line with messianic prophecy as Jewish leaders saw it.

I still don't know what you mean though.



Agreed. Whenever Christians start to annoy me with Jesus talk. I always say, oh your talking about Joshua Christ, my bad I didn't know that's who you were talking about. Definitely throws them for a loop.

I always thought that the letter shin represented the concept of light in Kabbalah on some level. But the name Joshua does mean "God's Salvation" in some sense from everything I've read. But I thought, in some interpretations, it meant the "Light of God" in some interpretations, meaning the light of the macrocosm/microcosm. My study of Kabbalah is fairly limited, so I guess I shouldn't make assumptions based on my innacurate knowledge lol.

The Hebrew Letters (excerpts): Shin



Agreed. But I don't think it was the actions of his immediate followers, I think it was more the actions of certain individuals, Paul would be my first assumption, and Roman leaders that completely changed Jesus' message.



I was more so thinking the light bringer, because he is referenced to the light so many times. I am the way, the truth, and the light, etc. I was also trying to say that Jesus would be considered more like Prometheus, Lucifer, Satan, and other associated archetypes/beings in the "gnostic" sense rather how he is portrayed today. Basically saying, that all of the names attributed as Jesus' advesary, would actually be names better suited to describe Jesus himself.

Basically I'm saying the Bible, as I see it, is *** backwards. The antichrist is actually the good guy. He would be one that teaches knowledge, self realization, and self empowerment with the aim to establish a better quality of life for the lower classes. All ideas that the "elite" would want to oppress. Basically, I believe that they have crafted a belief system that is so engrained into the subconcious of humanity, that they would reject people in the future that sought to help them gain a better quality of life based on "religious dogma". And I would have to say that it has worked outstandingly for the most part, if it weren't for the internet, I think it would have worked a lot better. But the internet can cause just as many problems as it can provide answers lol.



Athough I don't do the whole ritual thing, and I don't mess with demonic entities (they're to tricky for me to comfortably deal with), and I don't know about cursing someone because they harmed another, but other than that I totally agree with you lol. Christianity deems so many things "inherently evil", when evil is, in reality, how humans use them.

I understand the fact that you have to keep some things "secret" from the general population because they would most likely use them irresponsibly. But when the people keeping the secrets are using them irresponsibly it kind of eliminates the point lol.

And Mindmaster, your pretty good. ;) I would only ask you to announce yourself. I have plenty of unnanounced presences as it is. :D Maybe you can help me with that as well? :p
From what I understand from the Christian scriptures, (through an admittedly Buddhist lens) antichrist is a spirit of delusion that passes like a virus and infects peoples minds, which started manifesting even before Christianity. (See 1 John 2, esp verse 18.)
A being whose mind is overcome by deceptive delusion will tell lies, {which spreads the deception/delusion,} murder, go after other's spouses, and tell others to do the same. {This is the infectively spreading part.} Looking back at the past workings of the Christian church, one can't help but conclude that antichrist has been in the world for quite a long time. Of course, Antichrist, being deluded, thinks he is rightly guided, of Christ, and works to convince others of this. (See 2 Thess 2) Antichrist manifests before the "second coming of" Christ, or the light of understanding, aka the shedding of delusion.
2 Peter 1:19

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts

Latin Vulgate:
19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris.​
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
So are you saying Jesus was actually guilty of Barabbas' crimes, or that he felt guilty that this man would be crucified instead of him? From what i've read Barabbas, was a revolutionary that fought out against Rome with violence, although I also heard that he was a thief and/or murder, which might go hand in hand with the revolutionary status - stealing from Roman authorities, killing Roman soldiers. I've also read that he was "praised" by the Jewish masses for being more like a military leader that would overthrow Rome, which was more in line with messianic prophecy as Jewish leaders saw it.

I still don't know what you mean though.

That the two were one and the same. The "revolutionary"s full name was Jesus Barabbas, or "Jesus, son of the Father".
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Nash8 said:
The antichrist is actually the good guy. He would be one that teaches knowledge, self realization, and self empowerment with the aim to establish a better quality of life for the lower classes.
Literally antichrist is arrogance, isolation and a refusal to learn, so I don't think its part of your left-hand-path as you've described it. (I'm going by the wikip article) I think left-hand groups have over the last decade or so have played into the hands of the 'Elite' by allowing them to define you, particularly by propping up their anti-Christ scarecrow for them.

All ideas that the "elite" would want to oppress. Basically, I believe that they have crafted a belief system that is so engrained into the subconcious of humanity, that they would reject people in the future that sought to help them gain a better quality of life based on "religious dogma". And I would have to say that it has worked outstandingly for the most part, if it weren't for the internet, I think it would have worked a lot better. But the internet can cause just as many problems as it can provide answers lol.
I think 'the Elite' are the ministers, the old blood leaders, the wary money and a small segment of those called left hand as well. Yes the Internet has been an overall positive for everyone concerned. We are more inter-connected because of it.

I hear the nonsense from time to time about cults and dark this & that & antichrist in churches. Everything scary is called antichrist! I won't assign blame, because perhaps you don't do it on purpose but 'The elites' use you even as you use them. You hold the keys to darkness, and they help you to hide them in exchange for popping out and playing the monster. "Boo! I'm the Antichriiiisssttt!" They get to be fake angels, and you get to be famous shadows, and its like they print your calling cards for you to bring you business. You prop them up. That is how it looks from where I sit at the moment. Is that not the case?
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
From what I understand from the Christian scriptures, (through an admittedly Buddhist lens) antichrist is a spirit of delusion that passes like a virus and infects peoples minds, which started manifesting even before Christianity. (See 1 John 2, esp verse 18.)
A being whose mind is overcome by deceptive delusion will tell lies, {which spreads the deception/delusion,} murder, go after other's spouses, and tell others to do the same. {This is the infectively spreading part.} Looking back at the past workings of the Christian church, one can't help but conclude that antichrist has been in the world for quite a long time. Of course, Antichrist, being deluded, thinks he is rightly guided, of Christ, and works to convince others of this. (See 2 Thess 2) Antichrist manifests before the "second coming of" Christ, or the light of understanding, aka the shedding of delusion.
2 Peter 1:19
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts

Latin Vulgate:
19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris.

I would agree that this is what the church promotes, but I would argue that the concept of Jesus Christ that the church promotes is nowhere near what Jesus was actually like. I would consider him to be more of an enlightenment type thinker, mixed in with a little Buddhist monk, mixed in with a little political revolutionairy.
So the person/people who the church promote(s) as the second coming of Christ would actually be the antichrist, and the person the church promotes as the "antichrist" would actually be the the real Christ. Although, I don't believe he would promote murder, adultrey, thievery or anything of the sort.

I think it would be more along the lines of self knowledge, respect for all races, religions, and other differences.

Ex. The church would say that someone who promotes the idea that homosexuality is not a sin, would be the antichrist.

Would you consider someone that promotes these views more like the antichrist, or more like the second coming of Christ?

That the two were one and the same. The "revolutionary"s full name was Jesus Barabbas, or "Jesus, son of the Father".

Very interesting philosophy, definitely can see some merit to that idea. Do you have links to theories on this philosophy?

Literally antichrist is arrogance, isolation and a refusal to learn, so I don't think its part of your left-hand-path as you've described it. (I'm going by the wikip article) I think left-hand groups have over the last decade or so have played into the hands of the 'Elite' by allowing them to define you, particularly by propping up their anti-Christ scarecrow for them.

Anti means opposed to, and christ means messiah. So the antichrist would be one who is opposed to the messiah in literal terms. I would also argue that the church is the institution that has most contributed to arrogance, isolation, and refusal to learn over the centuries. And "Jesus" is the main figure for the church. Basically the church has changed Jesus and his views into something they could use to oppress people, when in reality, his life was spent teaching people how to not be oppressed. I would agree with you about the LHP. I think westernized LHP adherents "drive the wedge deeper" between them in the church, while not realizing, in my opinion that Jesus was the probably the most famous LHP practicioner of all time lol. And I don't neccessarily consider myself an adherent of the LHP, at least in the westernized sense. Opposing social norms, yes, belief in the power of self, yes. Adhereing to the idea of total self gratification, demonism, and other things like that I dont really mess with. I don't try to condemn others for it, it's just not my cup of tea.

The left hand path, at its most basic premise, means that you followed a path that is against social norms of the time. Jesus is mentioned numerous times opposing the social norms of Judaism: Not washing his hands before eating, befriending prostitutes, befriending sinners. Raising the dead was considered necromancy, healing people was considered sorcery. Both LHP actions, and both against the social norms of the time.

"I think 'the Elite' are the ministers, the old blood leaders, the wary money and a small segment of those called left hand as well. Yes the Internet has been an overall positive for everyone concerned. We are more inter-connected because of it.

I hear the nonsense from time to time about cults and dark this & that & antichrist in churches. Everything scary is called antichrist! I won't assign blame, because perhaps you don't do it on purpose but 'The elites' use you even as you use them. You hold the keys to darkness, and they help you to hide them in exchange for popping out and playing the monster. "Boo! I'm the Antichriiiisssttt!" They get to be fake angels, and you get to be famous shadows, and its like they print your calling cards for you to bring you business. You prop them up. That is how it looks from where I sit at the moment. Is that not the case?

I totally agree.

The "elite" are by defintion adherents of the LHP. They understand how the LHP
works to an extreme. That is why they are the elite, because they know to manipulate "the darkness" and keep people under their control. I laugh, because many adherents to the LHP laught at "Christians" and call them slaves. When in reality they are just as much slaves as the christians they laught at, ableit in totally the opposite way. Slavery is slavery, regardless of what it is that enslaves you. All the while, the elite laugh even harder at both groups, while they play with the strings.
 
Last edited:

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
I also believe there are many different groups of elite that battle for power over the people, although they have different ideals and ways of doing so. It just becomes a matter of whose way is must effective. I will also say that their has been a massive power shift in the "elite" over the past couple of hundred years. It has shifted away from the church and more towards people we would consider "enlightenment" type thinkers.

Although this sounds like a good thing, I'm not totally sure that it will work out well in the end. I think it's definitely better than how it used to be, as I believe their is more importance placed on intelligence in the current system, but it still relies on adherance to many rules to which I am not necessarily a fan.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I would agree that this is what the church promotes, but I would argue that the concept of Jesus Christ that the church promotes is nowhere near what Jesus was actually like. I would consider him to be more of an enlightenment type thinker, mixed in with a little Buddhist monk, mixed in with a little political revolutionairy.
So the person/people who the church promote(s) as the second coming of Christ would actually be the antichrist, and the person the church promotes as the "antichrist" would actually be the the real Christ. Although, I don't believe he would promote murder, adultrey, thievery or anything of the sort.

I think it would be more along the lines of self knowledge, respect for all races, religions, and other differences.

Ex. The church would say that someone who promotes the idea that homosexuality is not a sin, would be the antichrist.

Would you consider someone that promotes these views more like the antichrist, or more like the second coming of Christ?
I'm more in the camp of "by their fruits you shall know them," instead of clinging to labels. Individual consideration is better than broad brushing that leads to collateral damage, imo.
 

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
I'm more in the camp of "by their fruits you shall know them," instead of clinging to labels. Individual consideration is better than broad brushing that leads to collateral damage, imo.

If your saying what I think your saying, this is why I brought this to the LHP DIR as opposed to the main forums. If not, I have no idea what your talking about lol.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
If your saying what I think your saying, this is why I brought this to the LHP DIR as opposed to the main forums. If not, I have no idea what your talking about lol.

I'm basically bypassing the label-slapping deceptive practices that might be going on between the two camps--not allowing either of the camps to hijack language/labels. :D

Maybe this music video might help you to understand what I mean by "by their fruits you shall know them."

[youtube]Bwi5SJG3K5M[/youtube]
ARCH ENEMY - Bloodstained Cross (OFFICIAL VIDEO) - YouTube
 
Top