Monday, March 25, 2013

Constantine's Christian Conspiracy

"We’ve been lied to by every institution. What makes you think for one minute that the religious institution is the only one that’s never been touched? The religious institutions of this world are at the bottom of the dirt. The religious institutions in this world were put there by the same people who gave you your government, your corrupt education, who set up your international banking cartels.” -Jordan Maxwell, “Zeitgeist

“Investigations into the beginnings of religion have accumulated steadily throughout the past half-century. It is only by great efforts of censorship, by sectarian education of an elaborately protected sort, and the like, that ignorance about them is maintained.” -H. G. Wells, “The Fate of Homo Sapiens”

“The most heinous and the cruelest crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion or equally noble motives.” -Gandhi

The literal MANipulation of HIStory which took us away from our HERitage, began with the Christian churches promotion of Father/Son worship, and their suppression of Mother Nature’s religions. The Brotherhood (notice it’s not the “Sisterhood”) was well aware of the patriarchal/fraternal reverence in the Bible and has always used it to suppress the feminine. The Bible follows primarily male figures, allows only male priests, calls God a “He,” and defines Him as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is little room for worship of the feminine Moon energy in a religion devoted entirely to the Son/Sun. As you will see, the fact that all major religions in the world today (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism) are focused on the male aspect and suppress the feminine, is not a coincidence.

“The sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, ‘Woman is a temple built upon a sewer.’ Bishops at the sixth century Council of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century Odo of Cluny declared, ‘To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure...’ The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God had made a mistake in creating woman: ‘nothing [deficient] or defective should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so woman ought not to have been produced then.’ And Lutherans at Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all. Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the Bible's Apocrypha states, ‘Of woman came the beginning of sin/ And thanks to her, we all must die.’” -Helen Ellerbe, “The Dark Side of Christian History” (115)

In 312 AD Brotherhood psychopath Constantine, a man who murdered his son and boiled his wife alive, was made Emperor of the Roman Empire. He spent the rest of his life using Christianity as a tool to achieve political domination. One day during a battle at Milvian Bridge, Constantine claimed to have seen a vision that converted him to Christianity. He said he saw in the sky a picture of the cross and the words "In this sign thou shalt conquer." In reality he worshipped the Greek god Apollo and Sol Invictus, never converted to Christianity, and remained Pontifex Maximus of the Pagan Church until the day he died! He did, however, use Christianity and the sign of the cross to conquer his enemies, just as his alleged vision suggested. In a book called, “The Heretics,” Walter Nigg wrote: “Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In this way unity was achieved … Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing.”

“Anyway, as one persecution ended another was soon to begin, as the Roman Church persecuted, burned and tortured anyone who refused to believe in the Christian faith, or even their version of the faith. Tens of millions of people have died in the name of the so-called ‘Prince of Peace’. Appropriately, Constantine murdered his wife and elder son before making the journey in 325 AD to his palace at Nicaea (now Iznik in Turkey) to decide what Christians to this day must believe.”

After Constantine, Emperor Theodosius continued in his footsteps. In 380 he passed laws making it illegal for anyone to disagree with the Church. In 388 he made a prohibition forbidding any public discussion of religious topics. Then in 391 Christians burned down the great library of Alexandria effectively destroying the entire history of the pre-Christian world. 700,000 papyrus rolls of ancient knowledge/history including Porphyry’s 36 volumes, rolls from 27 Mystery Schools, and all the Gnostic Basilides were lost in a day.

“To get rid of the damning fact that there is no historical basis for their theological fictions, the Christian priesthood have been guilty of the heinous crime of destroying nearly all traces of the concurrent history of the first two centuries of the Christian era. What little of it they have permitted to come down to us, they have so altered and changed, as to destroy its historical value …In the third to sixth centuries, whole libraries were burned, schools and universities destroyed and citizens’ books confiscated throughout the Roman world, on the pretext of defending the church against paganism. Under the early Christian emperors, people were framed by ecclesiastical investigators who planted ‘magical writings’ in their houses, then legally confiscated all possessions. After the Council of Nicea, per the murderous Constantine’s orders, the Christians turned up the heat on censorship, leading to the centuries-long orgy that obliterated millions of texts. One of the greatest crimes in human history was the destruction in 391 of the library at Alexandria perpetrated by Christian fanatics under Theophilus bent on hiding the truth about their religion and its alleged founder. Because of this villainy, we have lost priceless information as to the true state of the ancient world, with such desolation also setting back civilization at least 1,000 years … At some point, a death penalty was enacted for reading unapproved books …Pope after pope continued the assault on books and learning …With all important documents assembled in the monasteries, and the lay public rendered illiterate, Christian history could be forged with impunity.” -Acharya S., “The Christ Conspiracy” (250-1) quoting Graham and Walker

“The Fourth Council of Carthage in 398 forbade bishops to even read the books of gentiles. Jerome, a Church Father and early monastic in the fourth century, rejoiced that the classical authors were being forgotten. And his younger monastic contemporaries were known to boast of their ignorance of everything except Christian literature. After Christians had spent years destroying books and libraries, St. John Chrysostom, the preeminent Greek Father of the Church, proudly declared, ‘Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth.’ Monastic libraries, the only libraries left, were composed of books of devotion. Even the most significant monastic libraries carried little aside from books about Christian theology.” -Helen Ellerbe, “The Dark Side of Christian History” (48)

Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.

Buy The Atlantean Conspiracy Now


muzuzuzus said...

Really good to see you exploring this
important subject, Eric.
It is so important because we are all caught up in a matrix of the fall out of this.
Where we have Judaic-Christian-Islamic, and the Eastern Idealism, and the Occultocracy. ALL of them share the same contempt for nature, and animals, and women, and indigenous people, and authentic spitiyuality where we feel ecstatic union with the land.

Hope there's more to come.

Sergio Recio Gamo said...

"We’ve been lied to by every institution. What makes you think for one minute that the religious institution is the only one that’s never been touched?" I agree.

But, little is the knowledge we have about Religions; like Masonry, Ancient Secrets, UFOS... So we MUST continue investigating all of them.

I am sure that all the religions have more secrets than we can imagine ever.

The Maze Monster said...

all your stuff about religion and 9/11 is great!

Torq said...

*grins* Of course this cannot stand. I have read similar arguments, both from within and without the church.

You say that the church has transgressed morality. The essential argument of your entire book, is that there are people (masons, Illuminati, Christians, etc) who are working continually towards unethical ends. What I am really curious about is what you mean by "right and wrong, ethical and unethical." What on earth do those terms mean if you divorce them from their spiritual and traditional context?

I am not yet contesting your individual claims. I even grant that some of them are true, though of course I feel that there is more to the story in just about every case.

I contest your right to make any such claim at all. Prove to me that you can use a word such as "right" or "good" without appealing to the structures which you are pulling down, and you will have taken a huge step towards convincing me that you have been in the right all along. The essence of ethics is the question.

Eric Dubay said...

I'm not sure what you're getting at because I haven't used the words "right, wrong, good, bad, ethical or unethical." I'm just researching the hidden history of religion and sharing what I've learned. Have you had a chance to read my Astrotheology and Magic Mushroom posts yet? Those get more into the root of religious mythology, whereas this section deals mostly with the history of Christianity. Peace


Torq said...

Yes, I have read those posts. I think you are missing the thrust of my objection. By writing this, and your second post above, you are taking the position that Christianity has done things which are "bad." Without this value judgment than saying that Christians burned the library of Alexandra is much like saying that Christians eat cookies. As this might be true but would hardly be worth saying, much less using such phrases as "greatest crime in history," I am forced to conclude that you are saying something a little more important.

You are too good a writer to pretend that you are not "MANipulating" the language in such a way as to make your conclusion clear. I don't criticize you on that count, it is just good writing. What I am saying, and what I challenge you to disprove, is that if you remove organized religion from the picture, you necessarily lose the value judgments "good" and "bad." What I am asking you is, what on earth do you mean by these words?

I find this particularly confusing because you clearly do feel that some things are "good" and others are "bad." One can hardly assume that you wrote this book without the feeling that you were working to right some wrong. We are talking about Nietzsche's Void here, and I see no way out of this predicament.

Eric Dubay said...

Christians eat cookies! I personally see Constantine as a "bad" man for killing his wife and son, sure. I do think Crusades, Inquisitions, and other imperialistic ventures are "bad," as well. Do you think this murderous behavior is "good?" Or are talking about transcending good and bad? I'm still confused as to what you're getting at, but your points sound valid and interesting. Thanks

Torq said...

Hmmmm... sorry for being confusing. I will try to be clearer. Of course I agree that the inquisition was a "bad" thing. The difficulty I see in tearing down organized religion is that, for the most part organized religion is the thing that morality is derived from.

I mean that I can say that the inquisition was "Bad" because I have a concept of "Good" which is derived from organized religion. Without the religion I have neither a concept of Good or Bad. Of course this is not to imply that religion cannot transgress moral boundaries (there are more examples than can be listed of this) but that these moral boundaries only exist because of the true teachings which exist within them.

So, because you are attacking organized religion here, I want to question what grounds you have for doing so.

Is that clearer? My point is a little difficult to articulate.

Ta-Wan said...

Torq: The difficulty I see in tearing down organized religion is that, for the most part organized religion is the thing that morality is derived from.

When two men have an argument the worst result is one may die.

When two countries or religions are at war, the worst result is the multiple deaths of women and children.

"I let go of religion,
and people become serene."

"When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion."

Left alone we are good, religion comes after a decline.

Ta-Wan said...

and the more then that an organised morality exists the more harm it causes. Morality did not come from religion - religion came from a decline in the natural way. When someone decided to take charge and tell others how to be, then life and peoples unknowing good nature was ruined.

The best most peaceful times made no history. Life was so good that it left no trace on earth. Religion and it's doings are the entire inverse.

Torq said...

Tao, I do not intend to dispute the concept of "fallen man." I have no difficulty in seeing the results of this "fall" every day.

I do contest your statement that "I let go of religion, I become serene." This is based on the assumption that religion causes conflict, something which I am certainly not willing to concede without a much stronger argument against it. I am willing to consider this premise, but will need more support.

Further, it has not been my experience that "when people lose their sense of awe, they turn to religion," and I have had a lot of experience with religious people! History is full of Saints, Monks, Yogi (etc.) who have lived incredible lives filled with awe and love.

Finally, I don't agree that when people are left alone they are good. What do you mean by being "left alone" anyways? Do you mean having no one tell you what to do? Surely you have had the experience of being around children who have been "left alone" in this sense. They are, more often than not, spiteful, treacherous, liars. People are not perfect and it takes work to be good.

To your second post, you are making an assumption about what caused the degradation in human nature when you suggest that "When someone decided to take charge and tell others how to be, then life and peoples unknowing good nature was ruined." You suggest a little later that history cannot be used to back up this claim, because there was no recorded history of this time. Why then do you think this?

At any rate, this does not answer my essential objection. What do you (and Eric) mean when you say "Good" and "Bad?" From what have you developed these concepts?

I don't want to be too abrasive Tao. You are a mystic, I am a philosopher and theologian. We naturally have a different approach to these types of questions.

Ta-Wan said...

Ok, lets take the Good Bad. I have to refer to my '5-year-old-child test', ask the child "is this fair?" and their answer is almost always just. "should the shoe thrower get 15 years in jail for attempted murder?" (insert answers "__")

Child's answer... "__"
Politicians answer "__"
Muslim answer "__"
Christian answer "__"
White van drivers answer "__"

Ask them to reason the answer and it gets worse! The child will be honest and simple, others may be rational at best, but that rationale will be all over the place when analysed.

Torq said...

I think I see your point. Are saying that because different people have different ideas of how justice should be applied (ie. different ideas about what is "good") there can be no one standard of "good" which exists?

If so, I don't really think that this is true. It has been drummed up a great deal but, for the very most part, the ethical codes of differing religions are incredibly similar. Interestingly enough this is something which C.S. Lewis referred to as the "Tao." If you look up his book "The Abolition of Man" you can find a listing of correlated religious teachings in the Appendix at the back.

For the most part what people disagree on is the degree to which one thing or another is wrong or how actions should be punished or rewarded.

This said, I want to point out something which is very telling about your argument (if I have accurately summed it up). You have to have a sense of what is "good" before you can even begin talking about justice (otherwise everything is simply arbitrary and all opinions on the subject are ultimately meaningless). For instance, in your example the Muslim might say that the shoe thrower should receive a stern talking to about how inappropriate the action was, and the Politician might say that the poor fellow should be stuck in jail for life. These are two different opinions about justice, but they are both agreed that it was not "good" to throw the shoe. Further, I want to bring up another telling point, I am sure that you happen to have a feeling that one or the other of these opinions are closer to being really "right" or "just" or "good." Now, if there is no Real Good than your opinion has no more weight than either the Muslim or the Politicians. In fact all three are simply how each individual happens to feel on the subject and no improvement or discussion can occur in the area of ethics at all. You can't have any real advance in the discussion between person A (who feels happy) and person B (who feels sad) in arguing whose feeling is more "right" or "good."

To use your specific example you feel that the child's answer will be better because it will be more honest and simple. Why do you feel that honesty and simplicity are "good?" Do you see where this line of reasoning must take us?

Eric knows. He and I had this same debate in a bar in Thailand. That we disagree on this one question is the cause of all the differences in our philosophies.

Ta-Wan said...

We have to trust our inner nature. If you can not trust yourself then you must live in fear of the world.

A person in fear will make poor judgement in this attempt to control what they can not control in themselves.

The child will base the answer on simplicity and love, adults can too, and the more that do then the more we have a compassion to others and act from inner nature, the less laws are made and the less we feel they are needed.

I could trust myself to live in a world of no laws or rule, because I trust my inner nature. I also trust my fellows that they could too.

Some may take advantage? Well they do that already :) The benefits out weight the negative as the negative is already present. In a rule of trusting good government would come of itself.

Torq said...

In your estimation is the "inner nature" the same for everyone? If so what difference is there between your term "inner nature" and my term "good?" If not, how are disputes between "inner natures" to be resolved? A dispute between "inner natures" cannot be resolved by referring to one's "inner nature?"

Also, you say that a child will make the decision based on love, I am not sure I agree. The child may have no concept of "President" and so could not understand how this situation would be different from any other. Further the child may have had a shoe thrown at him/her and so might make the decision based on spite or anger. The child might have no concept of justice at all (supposing that he/she has not been raised in an environment in which justice is imposed he/she probably will not).

I agree that living in fear leads to negative reactions and poor reasoning. I am not sure I see your point about laws though. I am not sure I see the relevance.

Torq said...

Sorry, there should have been a period not a question mark at the end of paragraph one above.

Ta-Wan said...

A child may not have the notion of president and this is a benefit. If the shoe were thrown at an old lady, a child, the child in question, a man calling himself president, a tramp, or if the president threw the shoe at the muslim reporter - all would be judged simply by the act and not by supposed importance.

Inner nature vs good. A dog looking after its puppies. A child not talking in the cinema. One is sharing love, one is suppressing their true self.

Anonymous said...

To give that example more validity substitute "a dog looking after her puppies and a dog not taking a sausage at a barbecue".

Good dog wants the sausage but knows not to for fear of retribution. Inner nature dog benefits herself and puppies through no thought of reward or punishment.

Follow the good natured dog as an example of how to rule life. Build a fence around your prized possessions or instill fear in others if you are to control who eats your sausages.

Anonymous said...

To conclude my part in this story as I will be going away on a retreat in a cave. I will close with a quote from Chuang Tzu.

"I do not know how to rule the world, but I know how to leave it alone."

See you when I return.

Torq said...

Enjoy your retreat. This has been an interesting discussion.

Of course, I don't actually think that the dog theory holds much water. I am distrustful of the thought that a dog feels "love," affection perhaps, and see no way of verifying your statement. Further wolves will eat their children, are you suggesting that this is at the prompting of something other than their "inner nature?" Suggesting animals have ethics or that "right" and "wrong" apply to animals is gross anthropomorphism. We mean something very different when we say that a dog is "good" or when we say that a man is "good."

Chuang Tzu was a very wise man and I see nothing in his quotation to disagree with.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting post and the following discussions. I would like to comment on Torq's apparent association with religion and "right and wrong". I may be biased towards the idea that religion is plagued with misinformation that leaves many misguided, but does bear fruit when it comes to morality. However, I don't believe that 'because' of religion, we have morality. I'm a decendent from indigenous people here in Alaska. They are Yupik Eskimo's, and until recently, lived without religion, but in no way lacked morality. They had a code of conduct, just as every other group of people did throughout history (the "New World" as a perfect example). They didn't need God the Father, Jesus the Son, or the holy spirit (Judeo-Christian) to tell them what was right or wrong, they just KNEW. So I don't see any relevance in associating religion with morality.

Just my thoughts.

Anonymous said...

No wonder the New Testament (Jehovah's Witness version), nor any other "Biblical" passages about a "wrathful" God ever fully convinced me.

The overall theme that I garnered (even as a second grader reading the Bible) I can see the conflicting notion of if the Bible is about living with a good proper life, then WHY must the reader (disciples, Christians, etc.) be FORCED to accept either "Do good, live right, or else be punished".

NO ONE needs to mandate to me to do right unto others. I gladly do so out of respect, love, kindness of my own free will. Because I want to, NOT because someone is "going to punish me" if I dont.

If anything, Buddhism has appealed to me most by treating others (including animals) with kindness.

And now, I am seeing more and more why religion has been a means of control thru fear by the powers that be--just like govt.

This video sums it up pretty nicely:

Anonymous said...

Really interesting discussion :)

I think positive and negative are in fact not real and I can best understand them in the context of dualism that all of our ego experiences are taking part in - so to say without the negative the positive can not exist in this ego reality as there would be no orientation point - i think we have bad and good experiences to learn in the micro and macro picture what works and what doesnt...

Anonymous said...

A few brief comments:

1. Thank you for maintaining this excellent web site.

2. You seem to suggest that religion, specifically Christian religion, is "male" centered. The reason for this is simple: God created MAN is HIS image, and then created WOMAN from MAN, to be his friend, companion, and servant.

3. In your search for TRUTH (again thank you for searching for TRUTH and keeping an open mind) I recommend that you embrace the one and only TRUTH - the word of GOD.

4. You also mention the EARTH, SUN, NATURE, and ANIMALS: God created all of these for MAN and placed them in MAN's trust. Specifically he gave MAN dominion over the animals. If GOD did not intend for MAN to eat ANIMALS he would not have made them out of FOOD!

5. There IS a religious conspiracy. It is an attempt to convince GOD's children that he does not exist...

I have really enjoyed reading your posts and comments - Keep up the Good Work!

Anonymous said...

From one anonymous to the one previous, were you there to make sure that NO ONE rewrote/ rephrased the words of God in the Bible?

Anonymous said...

God is an asshole. Period.

Anonymous said...

The ultimate conspiracy is the one where people think there is a difference between science and religion...all religion and intellectual endevours are one and the same.

VC said...

There's a new book out that says the Jewish followers of Jesus preserved the beliefs and practices of the original apostles: Peter, James and John. Therefore,
the true heretics were those who created the new religion of the dying God (anathema to Peter James and John). Cover-Up: How the Church Silenced Jesus's True Heirs exposes the church's hypocrisy in first silencing those who truly followed Jesus and then exterminating them, just as they did the Cathars. 
Check out the book at

Anonymous said...

dunno why the jewish zionists would write the bible and call themselves out in it at the same time...

In the bible Jesus says that the jewish people operate in secret and that he speaks the truth. Jesus also uses a whip to force the jewish money changers out of a temple where they are selling merchandise.

Today the same jewish people live and secret and manipulate money.

I'm not saying its out of the realm of possiblity that the elite wrote these books to control the masses but i dont understand many parts where they would be essentially calling themselves out or giving away info about themselves.

Anonymous said...

One of the main problems I always had with religion is how in the hell can the Pope be the most holy man on Earth when the bible says Jesus is? The Vatican is so damn evil. Look at them, all the sex abuse from within. It's so easy to be corrupted and do evil when you have power.

I once read that the bible originally taught reincarnation and that was removed a long time ago, not sure if that was true or not.

Anonymous said...

The new testament is the new world order. Jesus (false messiah) is the "alpha and omega" of the NWO.

Pike said this;

"During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

knowing when the ruling elite present the "returned jesus" (actor) to the world stage there will be an unstoppable genocide/earth cleansing of humanity under the false pretence of "judgement day".

The bible is evil spiritual fiction made reality by the elite.

Eric Dubay said...

I'm not saying its out of the realm of possiblity that the elite wrote these books to control the masses but i dont understand many parts where they would be essentially calling themselves out or giving away info about themselves.

Haven't you learned the first rule of disinformation from Jones, Icke, Ventura, Camelot et. al.? Mix a bunch of real info with a minority of bullshit to throw people off and you've effectively controlled the opposition. You have to mix some truth with the lies or no one will believe it.

Controlled Opposition

One of the main problems I always had with religion is how in the hell can the Pope be the most holy man on Earth when the bible says Jesus is?

This is the Holiest Man on Earth!?

I once read that the bible originally taught reincarnation and that was removed a long time ago, not sure if that was true or not.

That's true, I'll be posting an article about that coming soon! :)

The bible is evil spiritual fiction made reality by the elite.

And it's all plagiarized from earlier texts. The Jesus character is an amalgamation of over 16 pre-Christian deity figures. The only difference is that all the previous ones were known to be mythological characters. Jesus was presented as an actual human being. The Gnostics left the blossoming orthodox church claiming "our saviour could never take human form."

Jesus is a Mythological Figure

Anonymous said...

"The Gnostics left the blossoming orthodox church claiming "our saviour could never take human form."

As gnostic myself I'll point out the obvious and state that the real anti-christ is the myth of jesus and all the elite have built from that lie.

The NWO=all land and peoples of the earth conquered into nation/states/governments ruled by elitists=one world government.

One world religion already exists under jesus myth.

Living god of the bible=multi-generational psychopathic ruling class monsters.

We're about to witness the END of the NWO with WWIII/armageddon/judgement day as the elite (who wrote the script) carry out their agenda of depopulation of the planet/agenda 21.

The NWO is 2,000 years in the making.

Anonymous said...

I've often daydreamed about going back in time to see the Library at Alexandria. Very true that more murdered in the name of religion than for any other reason.

Anonymous said...

Catholic is not Christian, and Constantine was no Christian. Catholic is a satanic counterfeit that teaches works for salvation and leads to hell (Romans 4:5, Galatians 1:6-9).

True salvation is based upon the fact that Jesus Christ is God and died to pay for all our sins, and rose from the dead. We can't work away our sins to pay for our sins, nothing we can do will do that. Only believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior, leads to heaven. The Bible is the absolute Word of God.

Eric Dubay said...

I've never understood this "Christian logic" where God gives us free will but then demands our belief in Jebus Cripes or else we're damned to eternal hellfire. Anon, why can't I not believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior and still go to heaven? Why doesn't God base our afterlife experience on our lifetime's morality (or immorality) instead of something as simple and thoughtless as believing and praying to his immaculate invisible son?

Eric Dubay said...

For example, I can be an awful asshole my whole life but as long as I say "I believe in Jebus" the day before I die, I will go to heaven. And if I'm a perfect selfless saint my whole life but remain suspicious about this Jebus guy who supposedly died just for me thousands of years ago, then I will burn in hell forever. Is your "God" really that petty?

Ines said...

The Great Library was destroyed by Julius Caesar. By 391 AD it had been an empty building (at least without books) for a long time.

Ines said...

and believing is not thinking, it's being. And from being comes manifesting and creating.
So you cannot think "i believe in Jesus" without being and from there manifesting your belief.
He was the ideal man. The Divine incarnated in a human being, as is the calling of us all.

As Jesus said: "Do as I did before you" He also said "The Kingdom of the Lord is here on Earth", meaning: we must manifest the Divine will here, in our life, on earth.

Eric Dubay said...

He was the ideal man. We must manifest the Divine will here, in our life, on earth.

See, now this makes sense and this I agree with! We must BE ideal men and women. We must raise ourselves to the highest moral standard and adhere to that our entire lives. That makes way more sense than saying "You just have to believe in Jesus." Why don't Christians say what they mean? Why don't you tell people, "if you want to go to heaven, you have to be 100% morally righteous?" If you said that I would agree with you, but when you say "if you want to go to heaven, all you have to do is believe in ancient mythological characters" then you've lost me. See the difference? Peace

Anonymous said...

It's spiritually impossible to know divine love (gnosis) while believing yourself to be inferior to the fictional being jesus.

Eric Dubay said...

Lol, exactly! :) This Anon knows what's up

Anonymous said...

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."

George Orwell

The bible is the past, present and future of the psychopathic ruling elite, not spiritual humans.

I'm quite certain that when the tv announces the return of the christian god jesus (who never existed) no elite will be harmed or dethroned.

The mass of humanity, however, will not survive the ruse.

Dante McAuliffe said...

Yes! Thank you for exposing this. Constantine was not some divine example of the power of Christianity, he was the orchestrator of the suppression of the spiritual traditions that ultimately gave birth to Christianity. He consciously made the decision to suppress anyone and everyone who disagreed with his version of the teachings of Jesus (First Council at Nicaea), and the bastardized interpretation of Jesus' true teachings were standardized and called Christianity.

As far as the suppression of the feminine energy, it is unfortunate that this has happened, because the feminine is equally important as the masculine. The Hermetic Principle of Gender makes this clear, as does the concept of yin-yang, etc. The masculine and he feminine play different roles, but their roles are of equal importance. Without one, the other cannot survive.

Anonymous said...

Great blog! I couldn't stop reading it until the end. Now, I'm tired, need to go to bed (2:18 a.m.), but am disappointed that I have no more of it to read. Should I start it all again?? Hmmm...

Eric Dubay said...

Thanks Anonymous! I've got almost 700 articles and counting now, you should have plenty more to read when you wake up :) Peace