A Holy Kiss

I would disagree.
The "Devil’s Kiss" has represented since the medieval times the kissing of the devil’s behind...
Surely this is just an extension of 'the Judas kiss?' There are also other, older, origins. One of the accusations laid against Christians in the early centuries was kissing an ass's behind ...

... as a dedication to the Left Hand Path
Your problem is that the idea of the Left Hand Path stood for something for centuries, and then latterly, you seem intent on reinventing it (a la Wicca), and then trying to retro-fit a new definition onto old data. It's 'bad science' and it just doesn't work.

The context of defining this ritual dedication was propagated by the Church and was a charge often thrown at those accused of witchcraft during these times.
Which Church?

I only ask, because many in the Angle-American West have bought the Protestant propaganda that the Roman Catholic Church was a major player in the witchcraft paranoia that swept Europe and later the US.

The reality is, the reverse is the case. There are really very, very few trials for witchcraft in Catholic Courts — such as those of the Inquisition — and invariably the defendant was acquitted. The majority of trials and executions took place under the post-Reformation dominations, in areas where Catholicism was a minority (if not actually under persecution, as in England) — England, Germany, Scandinavia, America.

(There is a sociological reason for this ... Roman Christianity has a vibrant symbolic language, which Protestantism tried to stamp out. The result was a reversion to a more ancient and therefore 'pagan' symbol-set ... )

The history of this ritual was perpetrated by medieval witch hunters who in base were impotent bigots, who could not understand nor accept the equality of women within a cultural context.
Ooh, I think that's largely post-feminist propaganda.

Medieval witch hunters, such as Matthew Hopkin in England, made a living (MH was the Bill Gates of his day in terms of his personal fortune) exacting retribution on those who were accused by their neighbours — and the surviving records show that women were just as active, if not moreso, than men in accusing their neighbours, usually out of spite, jealousy, greed or what have you — it was rare for men to be accused (again, it's unlikely a man would accuse another man of putting him under a spell).

So if your newborn died, the midwife was a witch. If your cow dried up or a fox got your chickens, your neighbour was a witch...

Again, there used to be claims that 3,000,000 women were tried for witchcraft, a truly fabulous figure!

The high-end estimate is reckoned to be something around 30,000, with the more likely and realistic probability being a number nearer 10,000.

God bless,

Thomas
 
It's interesting how we are conditioned to obey without questioning, and how often "authority" figures will think that "harsher conditioning" (torture) will cure this pesky questioning....
 
Surely this is just an extension of 'the Judas kiss?' There are also other, older, origins. One of the accusations laid against Christians in the early centuries was kissing an ass's behind ...
Quite possibly

Your problem is that the idea of the Left Hand Path stood for something for centuries, and then latterly, you seem intent on reinventing it (a la Wicca), and then trying to retro-fit a new definition onto old data. It's 'bad science' and it just doesn't work.
Actually this idea comes from the Temple of Set (the biggest LHP organization since 1975) and it is ancient Egyptian religion particularly with the early priesthood of Set.
So, in this case we are not reconstructing any older religion to fit into newer psychological models, but rather re-introducing one of the worlds oldest and greatest religions from which many current religions came from. (is not Christianity reconstructed Akhenatenism?)


Which Church?
That would the Church of England (medieval times)

I only ask, because many in the Angle-American West have bought the Protestant propaganda that the Roman Catholic Church was a major player in the witchcraft paranoia that swept Europe and later the US.

The reality is, the reverse is the case. There are really very, very few trials for witchcraft in Catholic Courts — such as those of the Inquisition — and invariably the defendant was acquitted. The majority of trials and executions took place under the post-Reformation dominations, in areas where Catholicism was a minority (if not actually under persecution, as in England) — England, Germany, Scandinavia, America.

(There is a sociological reason for this ... Roman Christianity has a vibrant symbolic language, which Protestantism tried to stamp out. The result was a reversion to a more ancient and therefore 'pagan' symbol-set ... )
Good point, and even better dodge . . . not matter the denomination, you guys all use the same book to enforce your religious ideas on others.


Ooh, I think that's largely post-feminist propaganda.

Medieval witch hunters, such as Matthew Hopkin in England, made a living (MH was the Bill Gates of his day in terms of his personal fortune) exacting retribution on those who were accused by their neighbours — and the surviving records show that women were just as active, if not moreso, than men in accusing their neighbours, usually out of spite, jealousy, greed or what have you — it was rare for men to be accused (again, it's unlikely a man would accuse another man of putting him under a spell).

So if your newborn died, the midwife was a witch. If your cow dried up or a fox got your chickens, your neighbour was a witch...

Again, there used to be claims that 3,000,000 women were tried for witchcraft, a truly fabulous figure!

The high-end estimate is reckoned to be something around 30,000, with the more likely and realistic probability being a number nearer 10,000.

God bless,

Thomas
Abrahamic religions are notorious for removing the feminine aspect from religion, pagan goddess worship just had to go in order for this new religion to work. Not until recently are we seeing female priests and rabbis, maybe some day they will be 'divine' enough to become a Pope?
 
He certainly renounced the polytheism that came prior (and after him) as well as Forgiveness.

Read More

The Law of One (wiki)

The Law of One is a series of five philosophical monographs written between 1982 and 1998 by L/L Research. The series presents commentary and transcripts of a dialogue between a "Questioner" and an extra-dimensional being "Ra". The introduction to the first book explains that the Questioner is Don Elkins and that Ra is a higher density intelligent life form speaking through the body of channeler Carla Rueckert, one of the co-authors.
Communication with Ra was achieved through channeling, which involved Carla Rueckert entering a hypnotic state (called an "unconscious trance" by the authors) where she would answer questions posed by Don Elkins. Her answers were taken to be direct communications from Ra. This dialogue between Don Elkins and Ra was then recorded and transcribed by James McCarthy to produce the five books.
What emerged from these dialogues was an elaborate philosophy called "The Law of One" presenting the basic principle that "All is One" or that all things are ultimately the same thing. The five books explore this premise in relation to many aspects of life including philosophy, religion, spirituality, cosmology, anthropology, history, physics, biology, geology, and the paranormal.​
Perhaps we can continue on another thread?
 
Actually this idea comes from the Temple of Set (the biggest LHP organization since 1975) and it is ancient Egyptian religion particularly with the early priesthood of Set.
OK, then my honest question would be how much is it an authentic transmission of an Egyptian Temple Tradition, and how much is it a re-invention founded on a modern outlook and interpretation of the sources?

So, in this case we are not reconstructing any older religion to fit into newer psychological models ...
Then what is the line of transmission? Without that, I rather think that's what you are doing. Your arguments don't seem to follow traditional psychological models at all.

... is not Christianity reconstructed Akhenatenism?
No, the principles are quite distinct.

There's an interesting article in New Scientist that suggests the religion of Akhenaten — the elevation of a minor deity to a major monotheistic deity — was the result of a medical condition. A hypothesis, and it can be no more than that, but is does pose the possibility that Akhenaten, who had a 'vision' in the broad light of day, was actually suffering an epileptic episode, in which such 'visions' are a matter of medical record.

Which rather makes one wonder about St Paul's vision on the Road to Damascus.

That would the Church of England (medieval times)
Evidence?

Good point, and even better dodge . . .
Well, historical fact is hardly a dodge, and you can't gloss over history because it interferes with your assumptions.

Abrahamic religions are notorious for removing the feminine aspect from religion, pagan goddess worship just had to go in order for this new religion to work.
That's a somewhat naive interpretation. Abrahamic religions are founded on quite a rigorous metaphysic that tends to remove romance and superstition from the pricture, although, as in all religions, it tends to creep back in!

'Pagan goddess worship' was largely agrarian, and the Abrahamics transcend the cosmological religions of the natural cycle, although they are assumed, of course, because in their own domain they do offer a means of accessing the higher ideas, if you will. In the same way Christianity adopted and 'corrected' Platonism — 'corrected' in light of Biblical revelation, but in so doing removed a couple of the intransigent problems that dogged the Platonic ideal.

On the other, we have the Cult of the Blessed Virgin, the emergence of Chivalry, and sundry other ways that the feminine is recognised. (In my reading of symbolism, the soul is always feminine, regardless of the gender of the individual ... but generally, it seems we can't win either way.

Not until recently are we seeing female priests and rabbis, maybe some day they will be 'divine' enough to become a Pope?
Maybe. But that's nothing to do with the discussion, is it?

Metaphysical principle cannot be made subject to sociological trends, which have the habit of waxing and waning. Having said that, I do like the story about the next pope bringing his wife to the Council, and the pope after that bringing her husband!

God bless,

Thomas
 
Quite possibly

Actually this idea comes from the Temple of Set (the biggest LHP organization since 1975) and it is ancient Egyptian religion particularly with the early priesthood of Set.
So, in this case we are not reconstructing any older religion to fit into newer psychological models, but rather re-introducing one of the worlds oldest and greatest religions from which many current religions came from. (is not Christianity reconstructed Akhenatenism?)


<...>

Abrahamic religions are notorious for removing the feminine aspect from religion, pagan goddess worship just had to go in order for this new religion to work. Not until recently are we seeing female priests and rabbis, maybe some day they will be 'divine' enough to become a Pope?

Ancient Egyptian religion has been notorious for starting the long prevailing custom of removing the feminine genital parts, aka female genital mutilation. :eek:
 
There was a documentary about the "witch panic" in Sweden during the 1600s. Not only did they make the point that few where actually convicted and executed. It was a way for the community to 'legitimately' gang up and punish women. They did the same for men but with other charges. Another reason was suicidal Christian women who avoided going to hell through suicide by confessing their sins as a witch and going strait to heaven through the execution.

. . . not matter the denomination, you guys all use the same book to enforce your religious ideas on others.

I don't see the point in that remark. If I (non believer) start using the Bible for 'evil' means, what dose that say about the English or Catholic Church? Using the same source say very little about the different interpretations. And one shouldn't pay for the sins of the other. By that logic the oldest and greatest religion would be the source of all evil.
 
Ancient Egyptian religion has been notorious for starting the long prevailing custom of removing the feminine genital parts, aka female genital mutilation. :eek:
I've never heard that, and I can't beleive it to be true, can you provide any reading material?
 
I don't see the point in that remark. If I (non believer) start using the Bible for 'evil' means, what dose that say about the English or Catholic Church? Using the same source say very little about the different interpretations. And one shouldn't pay for the sins of the other. By that logic the oldest and greatest religion would be the source of all evil.
Please keep my Quotes in context with what I replied to, otherwise it is far too easy to twist things around.

I only ask, because many in the Angle-American West have bought the Protestant propaganda that the Roman Catholic Church was a major player in the witchcraft paranoia that swept Europe and later the US.

The reality is, the reverse is the case. There are really very, very few trials for witchcraft in Catholic Courts — such as those of the Inquisition — and invariably the defendant was acquitted. The majority of trials and executions took place under the post-Reformation dominations, in areas where Catholicism was a minority (if not actually under persecution, as in England) — England, Germany, Scandinavia, America.

(There is a sociological reason for this ... Roman Christianity has a vibrant symbolic language, which Protestantism tried to stamp out. The result was a reversion to a more ancient and therefore 'pagan' symbol-set ... )
 
Thomas,

The Malleus Maleficarum was THE book used for the prosecution of witches it was written by Heinrich Kramer, a German Catholic clergyman.
 
I've never heard that, and I can't beleive it to be true, can you provide any reading material?

The inscription of Uha

The Offering of Una stella
An offering which the king and Anubis, Who is Upon His Mountain, He Who is in Ut, the Lord of the Holy Land, give:
An invocation-offering to the Count, Seal-Bearer of the King of Rekhyt, Sole Companion, and Lector Priest, honored with the great god, the Lord of Heaven, Uha, who says:
I was one beloved of his father, favored of his mother, whom his brothers and sisters loved. When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men, and one hundred and twenty women, there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, there was none thereof who scratched, there was none thereof who was scratched. I was a commoner of repute, who lived on his own property, plowed with his own span of oxen, and sailed in his own ship, and not through that which I had found in the possession of my father, honored Uha.

Source [1]: D. Dunham, Naga-ed-Der Stelae of the First Intermediate Period, London, 1917, pp.102ff.
halsall@murray.fordham.edu
-

Africa Update Archieves

A 1963 study conducted by Shandal determined that a large number of female mummies found in Egypt were circumcised (1963, cited in Ras-Work, 1997, p. 142). As with male circumcision it is believed "female circumcision" was performed to mark class distinction in Egypt. Taba proposes that "female circumcision" was transported from Egypt to the Sudan and the Horn of Africa in the fifth century CE with the migration of the population (cited in Ras-Work, 1997, p. 142).​

I can provide more if your google is broke.
 
Hi EM —
The Malleus Maleficarum was condemned by the Catholic Church 3 years after its publication — and it was published by an individual, not by the Catholic Church.

Heinrich Kramer named Jakob Sprenger OP, as his co-author. Sprenger was a Master of Theology teaching at the University of Cologne, apparently to a packed hall and enthusiastic audience, and it's now accepted that Kramer used Spenger's name to add credibility to his works. Sprenger was not interested in witches, nor is he linked to any witch trial, and even worked to thwart Kramer where he could.

The continued circulation of MM was amongst post-Reformation denominations who got their knickers in a twist over witchcraft, as I said, again Germany was largely a Lutheran state by then. Even the Spanish Inquisitors (who were in service to the Spanish royal family and were looking for Jews, not witches) said it was hokum!

God bless

Thomas
 
Look Thomas, you & I both know that an enormous amount of people were murdered in the name of the Christian god, placing blame in every other direction other than the Christian denomination you an adherent is besides the point.
The continued circulation of MM was amongst post-Reformation denominations who got their knickers in a twist over witchcraft
"knickers in a twist" . . . LOL, people were murdered.

Obviously you (personally), haven't murdered anyone in the name of the Abrahamic god (I hope!), but this doesn't erase the centuries of evil conducted under the delusion (IMO) of some supernatural creator.

Repent dude . . . Samæl is awaiting you! :D


Hi EM —
The Malleus Maleficarum was condemned by the Catholic Church 3 years after its publication — and it was published by an individual, not by the Catholic Church.

Heinrich Kramer named Jakob Sprenger OP, as his co-author. Sprenger was a Master of Theology teaching at the University of Cologne, apparently to a packed hall and enthusiastic audience, and it's now accepted that Kramer used Spenger's name to add credibility to his works. Sprenger was not interested in witches, nor is he linked to any witch trial, and even worked to thwart Kramer where he could.

The continued circulation of MM was amongst post-Reformation denominations who got their knickers in a twist over witchcraft, as I said, again Germany was largely a Lutheran state by then. Even the Spanish Inquisitors (who were in service to the Spanish royal family and were looking for Jews, not witches) said it was hokum!

God bless

Thomas
 
Originally Posted by Etu Malku
. . . not matter the denomination, you guys all use the same book to enforce your religious ideas on others.
Originally Posted by A Cup Of Tea
I don't see the point in that remark. If I (non believer) start using the Bible for 'evil' means, what dose that say about the English or Catholic Church? Using the same source say very little about the different interpretations. And one shouldn't pay for the sins of the other. By that logic the oldest and greatest religion would be the source of all evil.

When I said "you guys" I was speaking about the Abrahamics which according to you, you are not.
The Abrahamic texts as a whole dictate processes that many of us would consider "Evil", as I stated in my reply to Thomas, it doesn't matter which denomination one hides behind, it is the same god with the same intentions.

Did I mention that Satan and Lucifer (and all derivatives of) never murdered anyone in these texts?

Just sayin' :rolleyes:

The oldest religions had nothing to do with "Sin" or redemption, this idea is a purely Abrahamic idea created to enslave (IMO).
 
When I said "you guys" I was speaking about the Abrahamics which according to you, you are not.
The Abrahamic texts as a whole dictate processes that many of us would consider "Evil", as I stated in my reply to Thomas, it doesn't matter which denomination one hides behind, it is the same god with the same intentions.

Did I mention that Satan and Lucifer (and all derivatives of) never murdered anyone in these texts?
Set did. (Although Set was depicted as the god of foreigners, so Set murdering Osiris might have been about foreign invaders committing genocide against the more native peoples.)
 
Look Thomas, you & I both know that an enormous amount of people were murdered in the name of the Christian god
I know, 'injustice' seems endemic to the human condition, but I also know that prejudice and propaganda has promoted fantasy figures when it comes to how many have suffered and the reasons why.

Any bandying numbers about without a context really doesn't help — if you look at the numbers killed by cars each year, then obviously cars should be banned and any government that tolerates the automobile must be run by lunatics if you look at those figures isolated from the social context.

Take the Office of the Inquisition.
The common opinion is that it was 'a bad thing'. The reality is something quite different. In Europe, right up until recent history, anyone on trial for anything stood a good chance of being hanged — the assumption being that if you were before the courts you were obviously guilty. The Church became aware that local mayors, magistrates, etc., were sitting in judgement on theological matters (witchcraft being one), and were operating well outside their area of education, and invariably the (safe) sentence was death.

Evidence shows that very quickly, those arrested chose to be tried by the Inquisition rather than the local secular authorities, as the odds of an acquittal was distinctly in the defendants favour.

I'm not saying the office was never abused (look at the contemporary position of young black males in America), but I am saying simply spouting the same old assumptions, repeated so often they are invariably assumed to be true, doesn't help.

I looked round on Google for material evidence to offer you — I haven't got the books nor university library access I had when studying for my degree — but the amount of screaming, polemical bullshit is staggering.

It's a matter of note, for example, that the treatment of Galileo was absolutely enlightened compared to the standard of the day — 'house arrest' in a luxury villa where he could receive and entertain his friends? Unheard of!

Similarly, the truth of the Galileo affair was that his scientific contemporaries were out for his blood (being Aristotelians) and the papacy was the only one on his side, until he ridiculed the pope, then he was on his own.

We, of course, made a complete mess of being overly dogmatic — or is that dictatorial — in our statements. What we should have said is that the language of Scripture is not the language of science, and when the Bible says 'the sun stood still' this was a subjective view, not a physical fact — but that would be asking someone to leapfrog a couple of hundred years of critical text analysis. Where we've backed ourselves into a corner is the assumption that we can never be wrong — and it's an argument I will not surrender to 'authority' when history shows that we have — good grief, we've declared popes to be heretics, so how can they be infallible?

On that note, no-one (not even the Vatican) can say for certain how many 'infallible' declarations the papacy has made, coming from the pope alone. The estimate is around four statements, and not ever uttered word as so many assume.

But we rely too heavily, it seems to me, on subtle and highly nuanced legalistic argument (demonstrated on how we explain that the pope's exhortation to believe the sun revolves round the earth was not a dogmatic statement when it seems to me that's exactly what he was saying).

My measure, naive as that might be, is that Our Lord never relied on such sophistry and rhetoric when disputing with the Pharisees, and nor did the Apostles ... and when the argument does become 'subtle' and 'nuanced', I think we're in trouble ... I think He'd say "What the heck are you on about?"

I also have, I think, sound theological argument to dispute the idea of infallibility, but I'm very wary about 'opening the door' here, as there are too many vested interests who'd want to come in and tear the place down in support of their own agendas, which are often more dogmatic and doctrinaire than the RC Church!

... placing blame in every other direction other than the Christian denomination you an adherent is besides the point.
No it's not, it's absolutely the point. Was there ever actually a resurgence in pagan religion? Where? Why? I would say it happened in proportion to the degree that the Reformers removed the idea of 'Mystery' from the lives of the common people. Not because of any virtue of the Catholic Church, other than a vibrant symbolic language that transcends the voice of the pulpit — which became the centre of Reformation religious focus — a language that is all but lost today.

In Switzerland, Calvinists burnt a woman at the stake for putting flowers on her husband's grave. Is that witchcraft? And the Salem trials? It's all about context.

Today we live in an age where people invent mysteries, and the notion of 'mystery' itself is something subjective, largely a casting of one's own idealisations and superstitions, cherry-picked from a variety of religious texts, without penetrating any meaningful order of reality of which 'The Mysteries' speak, because that requires ascesis, hard-work, self-effacement, discipleship — none of which is welcome in a 'me-first' materialist/consumerist culture.

And the RC Church, like the Orthodox Patriarchates, who actually hold the keys, are embarrassed, it seems to me, and unable to formulate a meaningful dialogue with the world on these matters, and rather spout vague niceties ... sheesh ... don't get me started!

"knickers in a twist" . . . LOL, people were murdered.
Yes they were. And they still are. And they're being murdered by secular authorities in numbers that are, indeed, fantastic ... For the Love of Christ, British Politics today is moving towards a Secret State owned by a rich and powerful anonymous few (like laws allowing un-named govt. bodies to read all your communications as a matter of course, like trial in camera without jury, like allowing the victim to set the punishment for the crime, with is vengence, not the law ...)

But none of that matters, because there's 'X Factor' or whatever on TV tonight!

Obviously you (personally), haven't murdered anyone in the name of the Abrahamic god (I hope!), but this doesn't erase the centuries of evil conducted under the delusion (IMO) of some supernatural creator.
I know ... I know ... but that is rather assuming that there was no good done in those centuries at all, and I think that's a terrible injustice to the common people ... but yes, I'm with Thomas Hardy:
" 'Peace upon earth!' was said.
We sing it,
And pay a million priests to bring it.
After two thousand years of mass
We've got as far as poison-gas.”
Christmas, 1924

The thing is, if I examine myself, I'm not sure I don't see the signs of what expresses itself in bureaucracies when they find themselves with too much power in their hands. I'm not sure I'm saint enough to take the job on, and it seems to me the saints made bloody asure they weren't put in that position, either!

But I do look for the light of the spirit, both human and Divine, no matter how dark and bleak the prospect. A reckless, impossible endeavour, but that's my Gaelic genes for you ...

God bless,

Thomas
 
The oldest religions had nothing to do with "Sin" or redemption, this idea is a purely Abrahamic idea created to enslave (IMO).
Nonsense. The shaman is the 'sin-eater' in every sense of the word, an intercessor on behalf of the people he or she represents — without that aspect, what use is any shaman/religion at all?

God bless,

Thomas
 
Back
Top